Judicial activism refers to the approach of judges to interpret the law and the Constitution in a way that reflects contemporary values and societal needs, even if it means departing from traditional precedents in favor of progressive and new social policies. This concept originated in the US in 1947 and has been seen in India since the Emergency days. It involves judges being more willing to decide on constitutional issues and invalidate legislative or executive actions. Judicial activism is seen as a means for the judiciary to uphold the constitutional and legal rights of citizens, exercising its power to strike down or implement laws and rules that violate citizens rights or are for the betterment of society at large. It is a method to regulate the function of judicial review and is often associated with the protection of civil rights and public morality. One example of judicial activism is the Brown v. Board of Education case, where the US Supreme Court ordered the desegregation of public schools, departing from the doctrine of stare decisis.
In conclusion, judicial activism is a crucial concept in understanding the role of the judiciary in interpreting and upholding the law and the Constitution, especially in addressing contemporary societal needs and protecting the rights of citizens.
