Differences Between Judicial Review, Judicial Activism, and Judicial Overreach

Judicial Review

• Definition: Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine the actions of the legislative and executive branches of government to ensure they comply with the Constitution. It serves as a check on the powers of these branches, ensuring they do not exceed their constitutional limits.
• Purpose: The primary aim is to uphold the rule of law and protect fundamental rights by invalidating laws or actions that are unconstitutional or arbitrary Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty VS Union of India - Supreme Court (2023)Hardeep Singh Benipal, S/o. Late Shri Rajendra Singh VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya - Chhattisgarh (2023).
• Scope: Judicial review is limited to assessing the legality of actions rather than their merits. Courts do not substitute their judgment for that of the decision-makers but ensure that the decision-making process adheres to legal standards T. Muralidhar VS State Of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh (2004)JOHNY E. C. VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD - Kerala (2015).

Judicial Activism

• Definition: Judicial activism refers to the proactive role of the judiciary in interpreting laws and the Constitution to address social issues and protect rights, often stepping beyond traditional boundaries to ensure justice.
• Purpose: It aims to fill gaps in legislation and respond to injustices, particularly when the legislative or executive branches fail to act. This can involve expanding the interpretation of constitutional rights Dr. Pratheeksha VS National Board of Examination Medical Enclave, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi - Madras (2023)J. Deepak VS Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Development and Information Department, Chennai - Madras (2021).
• Scope: While judicial activism can be legitimate, it must be exercised with restraint to avoid encroaching on the functions of the legislature or executive. Courts should not engage in policymaking or legislative functions Common Cause (A Regd. Society) VS Union of India and others - Supreme Court (2008)J. Anbazhagan, Member of Legislative Assembly, Chennai VS Speaker, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Chennai - Madras (2018).

Judicial Overreach

• Definition: Judicial overreach occurs when courts exceed their authority by intervening in matters that are beyond their jurisdiction or by making decisions that should be left to the legislative or executive branches.
• Purpose: This often arises from a desire to protect rights or address grievances but can lead to a disruption of the balance of power among the branches of government.
• Scope: Courts must avoid making legislative decisions or issuing directives that effectively create new laws. Such actions can undermine the principle of separation of powers and lead to criticism of the judiciary for overstepping its bounds UNION OF INDIA VS RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - Supreme Court (2016)Union Of India VS K. M. Shankarappa - Supreme Court (2000).

Summary of Key Findings

• Judicial Review is a constitutional mechanism to ensure legality and adherence to the Constitution.
• Judicial Activism allows courts to take a more active role in protecting rights but must be balanced with restraint to avoid overreach.
• Judicial Overreach represents a failure to maintain the separation of powers, where courts intrude into legislative or executive domains.

Recommendations

• Courts should maintain a clear distinction between judicial review and activism, ensuring that their interventions do not cross into legislative functions.
• Judicial activism should be exercised judiciously, with a focus on upholding constitutional values without infringing on the roles of other branches of government..