Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint in India : Balancing Justice and Constitutional Boundaries

The balance of power among the government's organs is still influenced by the interaction between judicial activism and restraint, which has shaped India's constitutional landscape. Judicial activism is marked by the judiciary’s proactive role in upholding fundamental rights and filling legislative gaps. It often stands in contrast to judicial restraint, which emphasises deference to the legislature and adherence to the meaning of the law. This paper provides a comparative discussion of these two judicial philosophies, focusing on landmark Indian cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala , Golaknath v. State of Punjab , and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan , which demonstrates the transformative potential of judicial intervention. This abstract highlights the role of judicial creativity in constitutional interpretation, particularly in contexts where legislative action is absent or inadequate. At the same time, it reflects on the need for balance, cautioning against judicial overreach. Ultimately, the paper argues for a nuanced and judicious application of activism that respects democratic boundaries while safeguarding constitutional values and human rights.