Judicial Activism and Judicialization of Politics

As a tool for social change, Indian constitutional law provides a forum for resolving conflicts and conflicting claims. The Indian Constitution, in contrast to many others, is quite thorough and includes elements that are generally missing from other constitutional systems. The process of constitutionalising, which has expanded to include almost all public discussions, is a distinguishing characteristic of India's constitutional democracy. The court, especially via judicial activism, has greatly broadened the scope of constitutionalising. The Indian judiciary has worked to rectify the state's shortcomings in fostering social change and democracy ever since the post Emergency era. Three steps are generally used to classify judicial activism. The protection of individual rights under Article 21 is the main objective of the first phase. The defence of collective rights, including environmental rights, is emphasised in the second phase. The third phase explores effective governance, with courts increasingly using Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to address governance challenges. Although judicial activism has been praised for strengthening democracy, this paper contends that the current era has resulted in the judicialization of politics, whereby moral and political issues are increasingly referred to the judiciary rather than the proper institutional or public forums. In spite of the court's revolutionary role during its "golden era" of activism, it argues that institutional and non-institutional stakeholders are increasingly transferring political duties to the judiciary. As a result, the courts are overworked and given duties that go beyond the parameters specified in the Constitution.