NEW DELHI: Judicial Activism within the sphere of judicial restraint, guided by Principles of jurisprudence has become the need of the umes said Supreme Court Judge Justice J.S. Verma. Justice Verma said that the reason behind the Judiciary becoming the Actor instead of maintaining its traditional role of the arbiter is because the other organs of the Government have failed to perform their duties. Reacting to the apparent outcry against the recent increase in Judicial activism, Justice Verma, in a barbed reference to the Executive said: “Saying that we can do without judicial activism is tantamount to saying that we can do with a man who is idle and not active,”
He was delivering a lecture on the subject “Judicial Activism; Regional Perspectives” organized by the Indian chapter of SAAR CLAW in the Capital last week,
‘The Judge contended that judicial activism, as perceived, was not a recent development but was in existence since long. He supported his argument by citing cases in England dating back to 1691 AD. In India itself, ho cited cases dating back to 1891. “Though this too might be inaccurate, because in our country, kings such as Vikramaditya, Akbar, Jahangir etc were known for finding solutions to any sort of problem (requiring arbitration), Many a times they innovated, but always stayed within the limits of certain principles of Jurisdiction,” sald Justice Verma. Making out a case of judicial activism, he said that the statues laid down by the legislative powers are sometimes not comprehensive, either there are gaps to be filled or some interpretation is required. In that caso, rises the possibility of “Case Law.” ‘Case Law, according to Justice Verma, is something which could be defined as an improvement over an existing statute, which might have an abeyance Of gap, arising out of a decision in a court case. “Could this beved as judicial activism? It so, then keeping in view the and improvement of the existing laws, it tea necessity,” said the Judge,
Justice Verma also posed a few points in favor of judicial activism, First, its need only arises when a case is brought to the court. Second, the judiciary functions in an open court thus there is total transparency which is a very important case, ‘Third, the court provides an opportunity for making “fair comment” to anyone who desires to do so.
Fourth, judiciary limits itself to making minimal changes in the existing slatuio and every action is based on principles of jurisdiction and are not adhoc.
Fifth, members of the judiciary practice complete self-control. “Therefore,” said Justice Verma:”Judicial Activism is not tres pass on the part of the judiciary into a field allocated to someone else but a constitutional necessity.”
Article extracted from this publication >> April 3, 1996
