Between Text and Transformation: Judicial Activism and Judicial Overreach in Constitutional Interpretation

Paper Code: AIJACLAV09RP2026

Category: Research Paper

Date of Publication: Sep 10, 2026

Citation: Mr. Ajith Kumar V, “Between Text and Transformation: Judicial Activism and Judicial Overreach in Constitutional Interpretation", 6, AIJACLA, 68-74 (2026), <https://www.aequivic.in/post/between-text-and-transformation-judicial-activism-and-judicial-overreach-in-constitutional-interpre>

Author Details: Mr. Ajith Kumar V, Student, LL.M. (Constitutional Law), School of Legal Studies, CMR University

Download PDF

Abstract

The judiciary in modern constitutional democracies is an aspect that is significant in the interpretation of the Constitution and guarding of individual rights. Courts have over times gone beyond the strict reading of the law and have taken a more proactive approach and is commonly referred to as judicial activism. In this paper, the researcher will discuss the distinction of judicial activism and judicial overreach using the perspective of constitutional interpretation. It describes the effects of various approaches to the interpretation of texts like the textual and purposive approaches on the decision of the judiciary. The paper illustrates that judicial activism may be effective in the expansion of rights and delivery of justice particularly to the marginalized groups in the society. However, when courts go too far and interfere in the functions of the legislature or executive it may disturb the balance of power. The paper will also cover the concept of constitutional morality and its application in the courts to act as a justification of their rulings. Although this notion is in favor of progressive judgments and it may even result in uncertainty when not used with caution. Hence there is a need to keep measures on judicial authority. The paper has determined that there should be a balance between activism and restraint. Courts are supposed to defend rights, but these are also expected to uphold the functions of other arms of government. A middle ground will assist in the maintenance of justice as well as democracy.

Keywords: Judicial Activism, Constitutional Interpretation, Judicial Overreach, Separation of Powers, Constitutional Morality, Judicial Review.

Paper Code: AIJACLAV09RP2026

1. INTRODUCTION                           

The interaction between justice and law is not fixed. In constitutional democracies the judiciary acts as the supreme protector of the constitutional values and has the interpretive role of applying the basic legal texts to new realities of the society. Judicial activism and judicial overreach are the two poles of a complex spectrum. The former is commonly praised as a needed process to make sure that constitutional guarantees are fulfilled to the maximum the latter is decried as an unnecessary and undeserted encroachment on the democratic prerogatives of elected branches. The boundary between the two phenomena is not absolute and agreed upon but varies with the constitutional culture, political situation and commentator ideological predispositions.

India is a place that offers a great opportunity to answer these questions. More than 70 years of jurisprudence have evolved by the Supreme Court of India that has redefined fundamental rights and invented new doctrines like the basic structure theory and has addressed energetically the social justice and environmental protection and democratic governance. These changes have brought both appreciation and criticism that makes the Indian experience an invaluable case study in the world discourse of judicial power. This paper aims to sail through this landscape by considering the theoretical premises of judicial activism tracing its frontiers in relation to the notion of judicial activism and considering the place of constitutional morality as a controlling and possibly disruptive guideline. Based on landmark decisions of the Indian constitutional law and scholarly literature, the analysis comes up with a framework of principled judicial engagement.

2. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION

2.1 Textualism and Originalism

Textualism supports the view that the ordinary meaning of words at the time of enactment is used to derive meaning of a constitutional provision. This school of thought, associated with such American thinkers as Antonin Scalia, is a celebration of predictability and democratic legitimacy that argues that unelected judges must not impose their own preferences upon the preferences of the framers or the lawmakers. Originalism is a similar but separate doctrine that the interpretation of the constitution must be pegged on the original intent or original public meaning of the framers. The Indian context In the early post-independent years, textual interpretation was the school of thought that prevailed. The rulings of the Supreme Court in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras was a mirror image of this trend in which the Supreme Court took a compartmentalized approach to the fundamental rights that could not be interpreted holistically. This method was however later abandoned when the Court realized the weakness of textualism in solving the complicated constitutional issues.

2.2 Purposive and Living Constitution Approaches

The purposive interpretation method is based on the fact that the courts have to interpret the underlying purpose and values which a constitutional provision was intended to accomplish. This strategy gives a judge much freedom to adjust constitutional meaning to adapt to evolving social circumstances, which its supporters as well as critics admit. The theory of the "living Constitution" that is the leading one in Canada and is gaining momentum in India views the Constitution as a living document that has to be applied to the current values and requirements.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India took a fairly liberal purposive approach in which the Supreme Court of India rejected the strict interpretation of Article 21 and decreed that the procedure set up by law would need to meet the demands of reasonableness, fairness and justice. This interpretation revolution was the foundation of a dramatic growth of fundamental rights jurisprudence in the following decades.

2.3 Structural and Doctrinal Approaches

Structural interpretation is based on constitutional meaning of the general design and structure of the constitutional text the relations between the institutions as well as the distribution of the powers and structural commitments under the constitutional scheme. The fundamental structure doctrine as stated in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala is arguably the most glorified example of structural constitutional interpretation in the Indian law. The Court relied on structural assumptions concerning constitutional identity and democratic continuity which are independent of the provisions of any single text by believing that the basic features of the Constitution are beyond amendment by Parliament.

3. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: CONCEPT, JUSTIFICATION AND LANDMARKS

3.1 Defining Judicial Activism

Judicial activism is a procedure of judges playing an interpretive role that is wider and involving more than a literal or conservative interpretation of the law to promote constitutional values, protect fundamental rights and seal loopholes left by the legislators. It contrasts with judicial restraint that promotes respect to the elected arms and moderation in constitutional innovation. Judgment activism is not necessarily analogous to error or illegitimacy, in fact, several of the most hailed cases in constitutional history in the United States of America like Brown v. Board of Education and in India like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India have been characterized as activism.

3.2 Justifications for Judicial Activism

Judicial activism is justified by the normative case that has a number of foundations. To begin with, constitutional texts are always open-textured and incomplete, meaning that interpretation is not only possible but inevitable. Second, the will of a democratic majority can systematically undervalue or actively repress the interests of the vulnerable minorities; the judiciary, being above the reach of the electoral politics, is ideally placed to guard the rights of minorities against the majoritarian excesses. Third, passive judicial restraint in the context of deep social inequalities can in turn be seen as injustice, and structural disadvantages may be overlooked by the constitutional norms.

3.3 Landmark Cases of Judicial Activism in India

The activist intervention of the Supreme Court of India covers an extensive scope. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the Court devised detailed recommendations regarding sexual harassment in the workplace in the revolving of a legislative failure, and played a quasi- legislative role in filling an acute void in rights. The Court built up the principle of absolute liability of dangerous businesses in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and became one of the influential courts in Indian environmental law.

This is possibly the greatest institutional innovation in the Indian judicial history the evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by the Court in the late 1970s. The Supreme Court greatly broadened its jurisdiction by opening its standing rules and permitting any citizen of the good faith to petition the Court on behalf of those who could not access justice, and this change made it not a dispute-resolution body as before, but a social transformation tool. More recently, the ruling of the Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to acknowledge privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, and its ruling in Navtej Singh Johar, decriminalizing consensual homosexual behavior between adults, demonstrate the Court still being keen to realize constitutional norms by all possible ways in the service of human dignity.

4. JUDICIAL OVERREACH: CROSSING CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES

4.1 Conceptualizing Judicial Overreach

Judicial overreach is the result of the courts going beyond their constitutional authority, and interfering with the legislative or executive branches to the extent that it interferes with the separation of powers. Judicial overreach, in contrast to judicial activism which executes its constitutional mandate to promote constitutional values, is the replacement of judicial preference with legislative or executive judgment on issues which are constitutionally assigned to the other two branches. The idea is also disputed in nature, where one critic will view it as an act of overreach, another might view it as a matter of activism on principle.

4.2 Indicators of Judicial Overreach

A number of indicators may be used to determine judicial overreach. They are: issuance of directives of a legislative nature, not constitutional; oversight of policy execution by use of continuing mandamus which virtually delegates administrative authority to the Court; in the area of expertise, the substitution of expert regulatory agencies; and the arrogation of budgetary or fiscal determinations traditionally the prerogative of the legislature.

Interventions by the Supreme Court in the management of cricket ( BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar ), in the regulation of liquor sales along highways and some elements in its environmental jurisprudence have been quoted as examples of the point where the directives of the Court arguably went beyond constitutional adjudication and into policy-making. According to critics, this kind of intervention, despite its good intent, weakens democratic accountability and institutional competence.

4.3 Separation of Powers and the Institutional Balance

The most important normative restriction on judicial overreach is the doctrine of separation of powers which is manifested in the constitutional form of the Indian tripartite system of government. The branches of government have their sphere of unique jurisdiction and coordinate check, but not subordination, is the desired kind of relationship between the branches. When courts usurp either legislative or executive roles, they upset this balance in a manner that can both weaken good governance and democratic legitimacy.

The Supreme Court has since been occasionally recognizing the necessity of institutional restraint. The Court in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India has acknowledged that the judiciary can not review the issues that are politically committed to the elected arms. On the same note, in the case of Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass, the Justice Markandey Katju gave a scathing comment on judicial overreach, but cautioned that the courts should not succumb to the lure of encroaching on areas that are the prerogative of the legislature and the executive.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY: DOCTRINE, PROMISE AND PERIL

5.1 Origins and Meaning

Constitutional morality is a notion based on the ideas of B.R. Ambedkar and elaborated in the discourse of Indian courts, which denotes a cluster of values and commitments that are internal to the constitutional text and structure values of dignity, equality, fraternity and democratic participation that courts must enforce even in opposition to popular morality. Ambedkar used the constitutional morality during the Constituent Assembly discussions to say that the constitutional governance would succeed when the citizens and institutions internalize the spirit of the Constitution rather than the letter.

5.2 Judicial Application

The Supreme Court has used constitutional morality as a dogma in a number of legendary decisions. In Navtej Singh Johar, the Court was categorical in comparing constitutional morality with popular morality and it was the former that had to obtain in the event of conflict between the two. The Court had justification that the constitutional obligation of equal dignity must not be subordinated to majoritarian bigotry, no matter how deep rooted. On the same note, constitutional morality was applied in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala(the Sabarimala case) in order to outweigh religious custom that was claimed to discriminate against women.

5.3 Critiques and Limitations

The constitutional morality doctrine has been subject to a lot of criticisms. Certain scholars believe that it gives a blank cheque to the courts to exercise their own values in the name of constitutional mandate without sufficient methodological restrictions. When constitutional morality may be applied to interpret statutory text and popular sentiment aside, it will be dangerous that it is used as the instrument of judicial legislation instead of constitutional adjudication. It has been observed by others that the substantive content of the concept is in itself controversial, and that its application in practice can represent the ideological inclination of certain benches, and not any consistent constitutional standard.

These fears do not advise the wholesale rejection of constitutional morality as a doctrine; it has played an important part in the progressive constitutional adjudication. But, they also propose the necessity of a more methodological transparency in its application when the courts should state the principle criteria of recognizing constitutional moral norms, and when the courts should show how the constitutional norms are rooted in constitutional text, structure and precedent.

6. COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES

A comparative lens will make the study of judicial activism and overreach richer. In America, the debate of judicial activism has traditionally followed ideological lines, with the right-wing arguing that the Warren Court had become activist in the areas of civil rights and criminal procedure, and the left making similar arguments about the activism of the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts in electoral politics and campaign finance.

One of the most powerful apex courts in the world, the German Federal Constitutional Court, has established an elaborate jurisprudence of proportionality that offers a systematic approach to the process of trade-offs between conflicting constitutional values. The proportionality framework which demands that the restrictions on rights be appropriate, necessary, and proportional in the strict sense provides a possible pattern on which Indian courts can attempt to impose more analytical rigour in the resolution of basic claims to rights.

The Constitutional Court of South Africa, founded in the post-apartheid period, has evolved a constitutionalism of transformation that directly accepts the role of the Court in the fulfillment of the commitment of the substantive equality and dignity of the Constitution of 1996. The South African strategy of textual fidelity and attention to social context can teach us some useful lessons about what the Indian experience of activist constitutionalism might be like in a society characterized by such profound historical injustice.

7. BALANCING ACTIVISM AND RESTRAINT: TOWARD A PRINCIPLED FRAMEWORK

The above discussion indicates that judicial activism without qualifications and judicial restraint do not offer a sufficient basis of constitutional adjudication in a complex democracy. It is a principled approach that is needed that allows the courts to provide the constitutional norms with the maximum expression without violating the institutional limits that maintain the democratic governance.

Such an approach may be guided by a number of principles. To start with, courts are supposed to implement interpretive methodologies that are transparent, consistent and based on constitutional text, structure and purpose methodology should be making the results rather than the other way round. Second, there are special reasons why courts must adopt special care before giving prescriptions which have a legislative nature, and rather seek to establish constitutional norms and leave the implementation to the proper arm. Third, the environmental regulation, public health courts should usually leave to expert regulatory bodies the domain of economic policy which is technically sophisticated, but has the power to revise perceived manifest constitutional violations.

Fourth, the principle of proportionality which is increasingly accepted in Indian constitutional law offers a systematic approach to assessing rights restrictions to a middle ground between judicial action and institutional humility. Fifth, and arguably most essentially, courts should be sensitive to the relational aspect of constitutional decision making: it is not just the soundness of individual decisions which leads to judicial legitimacy, but the integrity of the institutional relationship between the judicial system and the other arms of government.

Special attention should be paid to the PIL jurisdiction that has served as the instrument of some of the most prominent judicial activism in India. Although PIL has been a revolutionary move in making justice more accessible and enforcing constitutional rights, it has been abused and in some cases dragged the Court into spheres that are not best taken to court. It would be better to limit PIL to the cases with actual constitutional violations and enforce the monitoring mechanisms and the more attention to the implementation, which would contribute to the increased legitimacy and the effectiveness of this jurisdiction.

8. CONCLUSION

The controversy over judicial activism and judicial overreach is essentially a controversy concerning the nature and boundaries of judicial power in a constitutional democracy. Both the overcautious and the overconfident courts will be left homeless, as the former will be left without their key role of guaranteeing constitutional rights, and the latter will be left without the democratic principles the legitimacy of their powers will rest upon. It has been presented in this paper that the answer to this tension is not in a fixed formula but in a long-term commitment to principled adjudication interpretation which is founded on constitutional text and constitutional structure, responsive to constitutional purpose and changing social circumstances, cognizant of institutional relationships and comparative experience, publicly committed to its methodological commitments. Properly interpreted and judiciously employed, the doctrine of constitutional morality can become a part of this endeavor because it will help to remind the courts that constitutional interpretation is not a technical task but a continual attempt to fulfill the transformative dreams of the constitutional order. The development of the Indian Supreme Court as a conservative textual judge, then constitutional activist, and more indicates how far such an expansive judicial role can go with the dangers that it presents. The challenge left to the Court together with constitutional scholarship is to come up with structures that can be used to achieve the progressive promise of judicial activism without compromising institutional and democratic prices of overreach. The light to be followed in this venture should always be the Constitution itself: a document which is a monument at once of a historic battle against injustice and of a continuing democratic experiment.

REFERENCES

1. Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (Princeton University Press, 1997).

2. Keith E. Whittington, Constitutional Interpretation: Textual Meaning, Original Intent, and Judicial Review (University Press of Kansas, 1999).

3. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.

4. Aharon Barak, Purposive Interpretation in Law (Princeton University Press, 2005).

5. Peter W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (5th edn, Thomson Carswell, 2007).

6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

7. Charles L. Black Jr., Structure and Relationship in Constitutional Law (Louisiana State University Press, 1969).

8. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.

9. Keenan D. Kmiec, "The Origin and Current Meanings of Judicial Activism" (2004) 92 California Law Review 1441.

10. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

11. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.

12. Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire (Harvard University Press, 1986).

13. John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Harvard University Press, 1980).

14. Upendra Baxi, The Future of Human Rights (3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2012).

15. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.

16. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086.

17. S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits (Oxford University Press, 2002).

18. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

19. Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Democracy and Constitutionalism in India: A Study of the Basic Structure Doctrine (Oxford University Press, 2009).

20. Mark Tushnet, Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts (Princeton University Press, 1999).

21. P.P. Craig, Administrative Law (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2016).

22. BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2016) 8 SCC 535.

23. Nick Robinson, "Expanding Judiciaries: India and the Rise of the Good Governance Court" (2009) 8 Washington University Global Studies Law Review 1.

24. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th edn, LexisNexis, 2018).

25. Granville Austin, Working a Democratic Constitution: A History of the Indian Experience (Oxford University Press, 1999).

26. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361.

27. Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass, (2008) 1 SCC 683.

28. Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Tarunabh Khaitan and Gautam Bhatia (eds), The Indian Constitution: Conversations with the Framers (Oxford University Press, 2022).

29. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1.

30. Madhav Khosla, The Indian Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2012).

31. Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts (Harper Collins India, 2019).

32. Tarunabh Khaitan, "Constitutional Directives: Morally Committed Political Constitutionalism" (2019) 79(3) The Modern Law Review 569.

33. Cass R. Sunstein, One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court (Harvard University Press, 1999).

34. Alec Stone Sweet and Jud Mathews, "Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism" (2008) 47 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 72.

35. Karl Klare, "Legal Culture and Transformative Constitutionalism" (1998) 14 South African Journal on Human Rights 146.

36. T.R. Andhyarujina, Judicial Activism and Constitutional Democracy in India (N.M. Tripathi Pvt Ltd, 1992).

37. Alok Prasanna Kumar, "The Proportionality Principle in Indian Constitutional Law" (2019) 19 Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 243.

38. Varun Gauri and Daniel M. Brinks (eds), Courting Social Justice: Judicial Enforcement of Social and Economic Rights in the Developing World (Cambridge University Press, 2008)..