Judicial Activism:

• Judicial activism signifies the proactive role of the Judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens.
• The practice of Judicial Activism first originated and developed in the USA.
• In India, the Supreme Court and the High courts are vested with the power to examine the constitutionality of any law, and if such a law is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution, the court can declare the law as unconstitutional.
• It has to be noted that the subordinate courts do not have the power to review constitutionality of laws.
• Origin:
  
  • The term judicial activism was coined by historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in 1947.
  • The foundation of Judicial Activism in India was laid down by Justice V.R Krishna Iyer, Justice P.N Bhagwati, Justice O.Chinnappa Reddy, and Justice D.A Desai.

• Judicial Overreach:
• When Judicial Activism goes overboard, and becomes Judicial Adventurism, it is referred to as Judicial Overreach.
• In simpler terms, it is when the judiciary starts interfering with the proper functioning of the legislative or executive organs of the government.
• Judicial Overreach is undesirable in a democracy as it breaches the principle of separation of powers.
• In view of this criticism, the judiciary has argued that it has only stepped when the legislature or the executive has failed in its own functions.
• Impact of Judicial Overreach:
• Since the legislature is lagging behind in its function, the judiciary tends to Overreach from its function causing a conflict between legislature and judiciary. The clear impacts from such an Overreach of Judiciary are as follows:
• There is a threat to the doctrine of separation of powers which undermines the spirit of the constitution. There is a lack of harmony between legislature and judiciary and an impression on the public of inaction by the legislature.
• In certain scenarios like that of environmental, ethical, political, expert knowledge is required which the judiciary might not possess. If it renders judgement while having no experience in these domains, then it not only undermines expert knowledge but also can prove harmful to the country.
• Judicial Overreach can lead to an expression of disregard by the judiciary in the elective representation. This can decrease the faith of the public in the institution of democracy.
• Hence, It is an obligation on the part of courts to remain under their jurisdiction and uphold the principle of separation of powers. The Supreme court has itself reminded other courts, in 2007, to practise Judicial restraint. It stated "Judges must know their limits and must try not to run the government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behave like emperors." Further, it said, "In the name of judicial activism, judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over states which belong to another organ of the state".
• Examples of Judicial Overreach:
• A famous case of Judicial Overreach is censorship of the Film Jolly LLB II. The case was filed as a writ petition, and alleged that the film portrayed the legal profession as a joke, making it an act of contempt and provocation. The Bombay High Court appointed a three person committee to watch the movie and report on it. This was viewed as unnecessary, as the Board Of Film Certification already exists and is vested with the power to censor. On the basis of the report of the committee, four scenes were removed by the directors. It was seen as violative of Article 19(2), as it imposed restriction on freedom of speech and expression.
• On a PIL about road safety, the Supreme Court banned the Sale of Liquor, at retail shops, restaurants, bars within 500m of any national or state highway. There was no evidence presented before the court that demonstrated a relation of ban on liquor on highways with the number of deaths. This judgement also caused loss of revenue to state governments and loss of employment. The case was seen as an Overreach because the matter was administrative, requiring executive knowledge.
• Judicial restraint helps in preserving a balance among the three branches of government, judiciary, executive, and legislative.