Two contrasting judicial philosophies. Judicial activism is the proactive use of judicial power to protect rights and direct policy, sometimes entering the domain of the legislature or executive; judicial restraint is the disciplined approach of deciding only the case at hand and deferring to the elected branches.
- Judicial activism in India grew through the relaxation of concept locus standi and the rise of concept public interest litigation in the late 1970s and 1980s; it expanded Article 21 rights and issued continuing directions (for example on the environment and prison reform).
- Tools of activism include PIL, suo motu cognisance, continuing mandamus and reading new rights into existing provisions.
- Judicial restraint stresses respect for concept separation of powers, the limits of judicial competence in policy matters, and deference to legislative and executive choices.
- "Judicial overreach" is the criticism that activism has crossed into governance and policymaking, blurring the separation of powers.
- The courts themselves caution against overreach, for example in observations on judicial restraint in cases on the limits of the judicial role.
It is a frequent Paper II discussion theme on the judiciary's role and a polity concept linking PIL, locus standi and separation of powers.
Activism (proactive intervention) and restraint (deference) are tendencies, not formal doctrines; "judicial overreach" is the negative label for activism gone too far.
Activism: proactive judicial intervention via PIL and rights expansion; restraint: deference to elected branches and the limits of the judicial role.