Name: Sandeep Kaur
Country: India

Year: 2025
Volume: Volume-10, Issue-2 (July-December)
Page Number: 385-393
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20712784

ABSTRACT
The relationship between the judiciary, legislative, and executive has been altered by judicial activism, which has become a distinguishing characteristic of the Indian constitutional order. The changing role of judicial activism in India and its consequences for democratic government are examined in this essay. It investigates whether judicial involvement improves democracy by defending fundamental rights and constitutional ideals or whether it violates the separation of powers concept by invading the purview of elected institutions.
The study takes an analytical approach, referencing scholarly interpretations, historic rulings, and constitutional requirements. It charts the evolution of judicial activism in India throughout time, focusing on the growth of judicial review, Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and the introduction of the Basic Structure Doctrine in seminal rulings like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. These events demonstrate the judiciary's growing responsibility for upholding accountability in government and defending fundamental rights.
The study makes the case that judicial activism in India has two sides. On the one hand, it has made a substantial contribution to environmental preservation, social fairness, and the upholding of constitutional decency. However, worries about institutional imbalance, democratic legitimacy, and judicial overreach have brought up significant issues surrounding the limits of judicial authority. The study comes to the conclusion that a balanced strategy is necessary, one in which judicial activism respects democratic processes while operating within constitutional bounds. In India's constitutional democracy, preserving judicial independence and democratic accountability requires bolstering institutional communication between the various parts of government.
Keywords: Judicial Activism; Democracy; Separation of Powers; Judicial Review; Public Interest Litigation (PIL); Democratic Governance; Judicial Overreach.