Courses for Kids
Free study material
Offline Centres
Store Icon

Distinguish between judicial activism and judicial restraint.

Last updated date: 17th Jun 2024
Total views: 385.2k
Views today: 8.85k
385.2k+ views
Hint:The two terms explain the opposite meaning of each other. These terms are associated with the judicial system of any country. They are used for identifying the frauds committed by any government or constitutional body.

Complete answer:
Judicial activism is defined as the power to the court to perform its jurisdiction when the situations demand or wherever it is necessary. The judges are provided the authority to make use of their powers in case of any injustice being performed when the other governmental bodies are unable to do it and correct it. The judicial activist play the role in formulation of significant social policies such as protection of the rights of individuals, civil rights, political corruption etc. Thus, it is a positive term to reverse the decisions which are false and make them right with their power.

Judicial restraint is defined as the restriction on the powers of the judges or court to demolish a law. This methodology is used in bringing a balance between the three main branches of the government, i.e. judiciary, executive and the legislative. In this approach there are situations where the decision or the power of judges cannot be applied such as any political issue where they cannot indulge in these matters. It is done to ensure that the judicial mechanism is done within the boundaries specified by the Constitution. So, it is a negative term and absolutely different from judicial activism.

Note: The term judicial activism was developed by the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in the year 1947.
Some of the landmark judgments related to these terms are-
State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India
Amitra H. Patel vs. Union of India etc.