Article 32 and Judicial Activism in India

Article 32 and Judicial Activism in India

Introduction

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights. It is often described as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, as per Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, because it provides citizens with direct access to the highest court for protection against rights violations. Over the years, the Supreme Court has used Article 32 to expand judicial activism, enabling it to interpret laws, enforce socio-economic rights, and address public interest issues. Judicial activism, guided by Article 32, has transformed India’s legal and constitutional landscape.

Nature and Scope of Article 32

1. Right to Constitutional Remedies:
   • Citizens can directly approach the Supreme Court through writs: habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari.
2. Fundamental Rights Enforcement:
   • Article 32 protects civil, political, and socio-economic rights, ensuring remedies against legislative or executive encroachment.
3. Supreme Court’s Duty:
   • The Court must enforce fundamental rights, and Parliament cannot curtail this power (except under amendments under Article 368).
4. Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
   • Article 32 has enabled litigants, activists, and even organizations to file PILs to protect collective rights and public interest.

Judicial Activism: Meaning and Relevance

1. Definition:
   • Judicial activism refers to the proactive role of courts in enforcing rights, reviewing laws, and ensuring justice, even beyond traditional dispute resolution.
2. Objectives:
   • Protect fundamental rights.
   • Ensure accountability of executive and legislature.
   • Fill legislative or administrative gaps in social justice.
   • Promote rule of law and constitutional morality.
3. Scope under Article 32:
   • Direct access to the Supreme Court allows innovative remedies and judicial intervention in governance and policy.

Notable Examples of Judicial Activism under Article 32

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
   • Supreme Court used Article 32 to uphold the basic structure doctrine, limiting Parliament’s amending power.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
   • Expanded Article 21 by linking it with Article 14 and Article 19, demonstrating activist interpretation.
3. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997):
   • Supreme Court laid down guidelines against sexual harassment at workplace, filling legislative vacuum.
4. Right to Education and Environment Cases:
   • Courts ensured implementation of socio-economic rights using Article 32 petitions, especially through PILs.
5. Recent Public Health and Governance PILs:
   • Supreme Court intervened in pandemic management, pollution control, prison reforms, and social welfare schemes, showcasing expanded judicial role.

Advantages of Judicial Activism under Article 32

1. Protection of Fundamental Rights:
   • Provides direct remedy against state action violating rights, ensuring justice is accessible.
2. Promotion of Social Justice:
   • Courts have addressed marginalized communities, women, children, and environment, strengthening democracy.
3. Accountability of State Machinery:
   • Ensures executive and legislature comply with constitutional mandates.
4. Dynamic Interpretation:
   • Adapts constitutional provisions to changing societal needs, expanding rights effectively.

Criticism and Challenges

1. Judicial Overreach:
   • Critics argue that judicial activism usurps legislative and executive functions, impacting separation of powers.
2. Policy vs. Law:
   • Courts may make policy-oriented decisions, which should ideally be made by elected representatives.
3. Volume of PILs:
   • Excessive PILs sometimes lead to judicial burden and frivolous interventions.
4. Consistency and Predictability:
   • Activist judgments may vary, affecting uniformity of law and certainty.

Balancing Activism and Restraint

1. Judicial Prudence:
   • Courts must ensure activism enhances rights protection without interfering unnecessarily in governance.
2. Respect for Separation of Powers:
   • Activism should support legislation and policy rather than substitute them.
3. Selective Intervention:
   • Courts should intervene in genuine rights violations and systemic failures, avoiding trivial matters.
4. Collaboration with Executive:
   • Courts may guide rather than dictate, allowing cooperation for implementation of directives.

Conclusion

Article 32 is the cornerstone of judicial activism in India, empowering the Supreme Court to protect fundamental rights, enforce justice, and ensure accountability of the state. Judicial activism under Article 32 has expanded the scope of rights, addressed social inequalities, and provided remedies in the absence of legislation, shaping India’s constitutional democracy. While challenges of judicial overreach, policy interference, and consistency exist, the responsible use of Article 32 ensures that the Constitution remains a living document, responsive to societal needs. Ultimately, judicial activism and Article 32 together act as guardians of liberty, equality, and justice, reinforcing India’s commitment to constitutional morality and the rule of law.