In 1976, the Supreme Court told citizens they had no right to challenge their own illegal detention. Two years later, the same Court began reading new rights into the Constitution that were never written there. That swing, from the judiciary’s lowest point to its most assertive era, is the story of judicial activism in India.

mcqquestion.com

Indian Polity and Constitution · Polity0083

Judicial Activism — From Low Point to Live Debate

1976

ADM Jabalpur — The Low Point

The Habeas Corpus case: the Court rules 4-1 that detentions during the Emergency can’t be questioned in court.

1978 – 1979

The Turn

Maneka Gandhi widens Article 21 to demand fair, just procedure. Hussainara Khatoon becomes India’s first PIL, freeing thousands of undertrials.

1981 – 1997

PIL Matures

S.P. Gupta widens who can approach a court. Vishaka’s workplace-harassment guidelines fill a gap Parliament hadn’t legislated on yet.

APRIL – NOVEMBER 2025

Activism Meets Overreach

The Court deems 10 Tamil Nadu bills assented under Article 142. A Presidential Reference follows — and a five-judge Bench partly reverses it in November.

The pattern

Same tool, two names. A court filling a gap the legislature left open gets called judicial activism by some, and judicial overreach by others — often depending on who’s judging the ruling, not on a fixed legal rule.

mcqquestion.com · Indian Polity and Constitution ⬇ Download as image

Must Know

• Judicial activism happens when courts read the Constitution broadly. They step in to protect rights, or to act where the legislature or executive has failed to.
• Judicial activism grew strong in India after the Emergency (1975–77).
• In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976), the “Habeas Corpus case,” the Supreme Court ruled 4-1 that courts could not examine detentions during the Emergency. It is widely seen as the judiciary’s lowest point.
• The Court corrected course fast. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), it held that any law restricting life or liberty under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable.
• Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer then pioneered Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India.
• PIL relaxed the old rule of locus standi. Any public-spirited person can now approach a court on behalf of people who cannot approach it themselves — the poor, prisoners, bonded labourers.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) is often called India’s first PIL. It exposed undertrial prisoners in Bihar jailed longer than their maximum possible sentence, and eventually freed nearly 40,000 undertrials across India.

Good to Know

• Justice Krishna Iyer had sown PIL’s seeds even earlier, in Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdul Thai (1976).
• Courts began treating even ordinary letters and postcards as writ petitions. This informal channel is called “epistolary jurisdiction.”
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the “Judges’ Transfer case,” formally widened standing. It held that any member of the public can move the court for someone unable to do so themselves.
• In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court laid down binding guidelines against workplace sexual harassment, because Parliament had not legislated on it yet. Parliament only replaced these guidelines with the POSH Act in 2013.
• M.C. Mehta’s environmental PILs led to the closure of polluting industries near the Taj Mahal. They also shaped India’s “Public Trust doctrine” in environmental law.
• In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Court read a right to livelihood into Article 21’s right to life.

Test Yourself

Please wait…

1. Which case is widely regarded as the “Habeas Corpus case,” where the Supreme Court ruled 4-1 that courts could not examine detentions during the Emergency?

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Golaknath v. State of Punjab

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla

 Loading…

 

Great to Know

• Critics call this same trend “judicial overreach.” They argue courts sometimes make policy, or effectively legislate, rather than just interpreting law.
• The tension sits at the heart of separation of powers — the division of government into legislature, executive, and judiciary (see Polity0021 — Separation of Powers and Judicial Review).
• Supporters call PIL and judicial activism a safety valve. It works when the legislature or executive will not or cannot act, especially for people who cannot otherwise be heard.
• Whether a ruling counts as “activism” or “overreach” often depends on who is judging it, not on a fixed legal rule. The same judgment can look like a rights victory to one side, and an unelected court overstepping to the other.

Current Affairs

• On 8 April 2025, the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu invoked Article 142. It deemed 10 long-withheld bills as assented, and set a three-month timeline for governors and the President to act on future bills. (Source: Wikipedia)
• President Droupadi Murmu referred 14 questions about this judgment back to the Supreme Court on 13 May 2025, under Article 143(1). (Source: News on AIR)
• On 20 November 2025, a five-judge Constitution Bench — CJI B.R. Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A.S. Chandurkar — gave a unanimous advisory opinion walking the ruling back. It held that Article 142 “cannot supplant constitutional provisions,” and that courts cannot deem a bill assented, or impose binding timelines under Articles 200 and 201. (Source: Supreme Court Observer)
• The reversal itself shows the debate is unsettled. The judiciary pulled back from an activist stance once the other two branches pushed back, through the Presidential Reference route.