Question

Should courts be allowed to change the objectives of law if they believe the law to have little social value? Or should the courts have to wait for Congress to change the law? Is there a line we can draw for judicial activism that makes sense?

Answer 1

Courts should be allowed to change the objectives of law with little relevance. However, this power should be split between high courts and the supreme courts so that there is decentralisation of power. Waiting for the Congress to amend trivial laws does not make sense because as it is the judges of Supreme courts are appointed/ recommended by the president.

Having in place laws that have little social value lays excess burden on the courts. It also slows down the decision making process as many a time cases get stuck because of an irrelevant complication in the constitution that exists on paper but is of no relevant that day. Such trivial laws create loopholes in the judicial system and give the lawyers and offenders to exploit the fair working of the judicial system, and of justice per se.

It is very rational to work towards such judicial activism that speeds up the process of decision making- but one without compromising the integrity of the judicial system. Hence decentralisation of power becomes an important consideration in this aspect. On the other hand, it also imperative to actively work against those policies which distort the integrity of the constition- or the people as a whole. Hence, judicial activism is extremely important to maintain limited political influence in the judicial system (again a point in favour of decentralisation of power)