Activism Under Certain Circumstances be a Legitimate and Protect the Human Rights Effectively

Judicial Activism (JA) is one of the contentious yet crucial tools in the preservation of human rights, constitutional order, and the rule of law. This paper delves into the intricate legal and political issues and the validity of JA around certain criteria, contending that it is absolutely necessary to handle gross violations of human rights, power deformations, and severe dysfunctions in state machinery. This study integrates literature review, case laws, and theoretical paradigms to develop a substantiative comprehension of JA and its ability to protect individual rights and fundamental freedoms, while adjusting to changing standards of institutions and societies, articulating democratic values. It is critical to note that JA is sometimes a matter of contention but a justified response in any system whereby usual checks and balances have failed. Based on these legal theories and historic precedents, the study proposes a more relaxed interpretation of the rule of law and constitutionalism that leases judges to be aggressive in postulating discriminatory or unethical legal enactments. Also, this research emphasizes the fact that JA should comply with international human rights standards, how, through the inadequacies of national legal systems and the change of societal values, judicial ingenuity may be relevant. In light of JA, it is Green’s more recent understanding of the doctrine that provides the rationale for the broad interpretation of judicial functions. As opposed to refraining, judges are encouraged to participate in changing social and cultural practices. He definitively argues that JA is a bedrock of grounded constitutional democracy when there is moderation in its application: it is something that saves justice, fairness, and humanity within the context of changing society.