Question

Should Supreme Court Justices practice judicial activism or judicial restraint? Explain and support why or why not.

Answer 1

In my opinion supreme court justices should practice judicial activism to exercise judicial review of a decision taken ,which is more willing to executive actions, decide constitutional issues, result oriented judging and to invalidate legislative . It is a theory which explains how the judges of supreme court interpret the prevailing laws. Judicial restraint is not at all unconstitutional. Hereby judges are able to express their views and opinions with regard to a decision. There are many positive impacts for the judicial activism activism as it helps to break the democratic deadlock, create dynamic approach, it redresses public wrong and injury, liberates locus standi etc. It creates the hope of the common public towards the court. Through the judicial restraint judges can change the law with the help of amendments.   

Judicial review or activism has an important role in protecting individual rights, public morality and civil rights. Judges have important role in creation and maintenance of maintenance policies. Although it benefits the masses because the public can Access the law and it has a greater scope in expanding the fundamental rights. It protects the rights of common men by using the scope of judicial activism.Juidicial activism is very much relevant and salutary. Thus supervene court judges should ensure that the activism must not become judicial adventurism. Purpose of an active system of judiciary is to defend the violation of fundamental rights of people.

the judicial activism is said to be appropriate and essential in the situation where there is good reason for not to believe or trust the fairness of majority or judgement. It is a protection guard against majoritarian dysfunction . It is th reponsibility of court to stand with the democratic majoroties. The constitutional theory support the need of judicial activism in popular branches. It is not the supreme word but the equal say lika other branches. An dwhere as judicila review encourages the equal participation too.

Judicial restriant encourages the supreme court judges to limit power to exercise. The judges must not be an activist but be a restraint .It is not the process of injecting thier own thoughts and concepts to the law.Thus is not unconstitutional.

SIGNIFICANCE OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM OR JUDICIAL RESTRAINT

* In the situation where the law fails the judges of supreme court is allowed for personal judgments.

* It gives power to the judges to raise voice against unjust.

* It increases the trust of common people in judicial system.

* It is necessary to revise the the law when the public power is misused.

* it gives speedy solution for the issues of majority.