Judicial Activism as an Essential Tool for the Protection and Expansion of Human Rights in India
https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2023.1.23.088-109
Abstract
The Indian judiciary has been the sentinel of democracy and assiduously upholds the values of Indian constitutionalism. Thus, the Court is the interpreter, protector, and guardian of the Indian Constitution. The active and trustworthy role of the judiciary makes it the country’s only institution whose acceptability seems to be a national consensus. This paper discusses that judicial activism is a part of judicial review and does not violate the doctrine of separation of powers; instead, it protects and promotes constitutionalism. Further, this paper illustrates that judicial activism has played a vital role in protecting and promoting human rights in India.
About the Author
V. P. Singh
Indian Institute of Management
India
India
Dr. Vijay P. Singh, Assistant Professor, Legal Management Area, Indian Institute of Management
Lucknow
References
1. Ahmadi, A.H., (1996). Judicial Process: Social Legitmacy and Institutional Viability. Supreme Court Cases.
2. Austin, G., (2008). The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
3. Basu, D., (2005). Human Rights in Constitutional Law. Nagpur: Wadhwa & Co.
4. Bhatia, G., (2016). Directive Principles of State Policy. In: S. Choudhary, M. Khosala & B.P. Mehta, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Consitiution. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pp. 644– 661.
5. Bhatia, R.P., (1988). Evolution of Judicial Review in India. Journal of Indian Law Institute, pp. 262–274.
6. Denning, A., (2005). The Changing Law. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing.
7. Dhawan, R., (2002). Judges and Indian Democracy: The Lesser Evil? In: Transforming India: Social and Political Dynamics of Democracy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pp. 314–352.
8. Fahed, A.-E., (2002). The Role of Judiciary in the Protection of Human Rights and Development: A Middle Eastern Perspective. Fordham International Law Journal, 26(3), pp. 761–770.
9. Jain, M., (2003). Indian Constitutional Law. Nagpur: Wadhwa & Company.
10. Jaswal, P.S., (2002). Public Accountability for Violation of Human Rights and Judicial Activism in India. Supreme Court Cases, Vol. 3.
11. Lakshminath, A., (2016). Judicial Process and Precedent. Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.
12. Lewis, A., (1961). The Supreme Court and Its Critics. Minnesota Law Review, pp. 305–332.
13. Lok Sabha Secretariat, Government of India, (1989). Constitutional Assembly Debate. New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat, Government of India.
14. Nariman, F.S., (2018). God Save the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 1st ed. Mumbai: Hay House Publishers.
15. Ranjan, S., (2019). Justice vs Judiciary. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
16. Rao, P.P., (2005). Separation of Powers in a Democracy: The Indian Experience. Peace Research, 37(1), pp. 113–122.
17. Reddi, V.P., (2019). Separation of Power and the Power of Judicial Review. In: Alladi Memorial Lectures — 2 : Debates on Constitutional and other Matters. New Delhi: Tulika Books. Pp. 96–126.
18. Reddy, C.O., (2010). The Court and the Constitution of India. 1st ed. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
19. Salve, H., (2008). Justice Between Generations: Environmental and Social Justice. In: Supreme but not Infaliable. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pp. 360–380.
20. Sathe, S.P., (2010). Judicial Activism in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
21. Shourie, A., (2018). Courts and their Judgements. Noida: Harper Collins.
22. Shukla, V., (1990). Constitution of India. Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.
23. Soarbjee, S., (1999). Role of Judges: The Promotion of Constitutional Government. The Statesman, 24 September.
24. Tope, T., (2010). Constitutional Law of India. 3rd ed. Lucknow: Eastern Book Company.
25. Verma, J.S., (2004). The New Universe of Human Rights. 1st ed. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co.
Review
For citations:
Singh V.P. Judicial Activism as an Essential Tool for the Protection and Expansion of Human Rights in India. Kutafin Law Review. 2023;10(1):88-109. https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2023.1.23.088-109
Views:
616
Email this article 
