The difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint

The Court held that a citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education, among other matters.

judicial activism essay

What is the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint? In the judicial restraint, the court should upload all acts of the congress and the state legislatures unless they are violating the constitution of the country.

In Judicial activism judges are given the power to overturn rulings, and laws when Constitutional bodies are felt to not be acting appropriately. You're trying to get involved in the political, even though the court is supposed to stay above the fray of the political, or another way to think about this is that Associate Justice Frankfurter subscribed to the idea of judicial restraint and felt that the other six justices that were voting in favor of Baker were practicing to some degree judicial activism.

Thus, the due process clause, which was consciously and deliberately avoided by the Constitution makers, was introduced by judicial activism of the Indian Supreme Court. They specifically believe that review of laws that has the effect of expanding or limiting the understanding of constitutional rights are too important to be decided by courts unless absolutely necessary.

In short, the courts should play an active role in shaping social policy on such issues as civil rights, protection of individual rights, political unfairness, and public morality. Conclusion When Judges start thinking they can solve all the problems in society and start performing legislative and executive functions because the legislature and executive have in their perception failed in their dutiesall kinds of problems are bound to arise.

is judicial activism a problem

In judicial restraint, the courts generally defer to interpretations of the Constitution by the Congress or any other constitutional body.

Sometimes judges appear to exceed their power in deciding cases before the Court. The proponents of Judicial Activism believe that the judicial interpretation of laws is the appropriate vehicle for developing legal standards and should be used whenever justified by the needs of society or public sentiment.

Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint are two opposite approaches. Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol.

Judicial restraint vs. judicial activism pros and cons

Charges of activism and demands for restraint encourage judges to defer to the political branches, resulting in the growth of government. In other systems, however e. City of New London , in which the U. Right to a fair trial, right to health and medical care, protection of tanks, ponds, forests etc which give a quality life, right to Family Pension, right to legal aid and counsel, right against sexual harassment, right to medical assistance in case of accidents, right against solitary confinement, right against handcuffing and bar fetters, right to speedy trial, right against police atrocities, torture and custodial violence, right to legal aid and be defended by an efficient lawyer of his choice, right to interview and visitors according to the Prison Rules, right to minimum wages etc. Judicial activism is a dynamic process of judicial outlook in a changing society. In the early period of its creation the Indian Supreme Court was largely conservative and not activist. Board of Education is one of the most popular examples of judicial activism to come out of the Warren Court.

Under this concept we are looking at judges limiting the exercise of their own power and only using their power if they feel that a law or verdict is unconstitutional Kemic,

Rated 7/10 based on 96 review
Download
Judicial activism and judicial restraint (video)