Introduction

Judicial activism has a very important place in the Indian judicial system as it helps in
interpreting and enforcing the constitutional provisions to ensure social justice and protect the
marginalized communities. Since 1970s and 1980s, judicial activism was aimed at allowing
the judiciary step forward into dealing with problems previously neglected by the executive
or legislature. The keystone of this activism is Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which
guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws. This article is essential for
promoting fairness and non-discrimination especially for disadvantaged groups. However,
such groups continue suffering from poverty, illiteracy among others despite constitutional
safeguards. The key objective of this project is to analyse the influence exercised by judicial
activism over Article 14 enforcement through selected landmark cases where intervention by
judiciary was necessary in protecting these categories of individuals.
By reviewing legal literature such as “S.I. Amir, Article 14 of Indian Constitution: A Glance,
6 Int'l J. Health Sci. S2, at 14912 (2022)” to study the text, application and implication done
by courts of Article 14, Romil Bhatkoti, Human Rights and Judicial Activism in India, 72
Indian J. Pol. Sci. 437 (2011) to study judicial activism in India in relation to human rights
and judicial decisions among other resources like journals, books, databases etc.
The project at hand, intends to evaluate and solve the problem, how effective or limited have
been attempts at achieving real equality and justice through judicial activism in India, in
relation to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and how has it been helpful to the
marginalised sections of the society.

Understanding Judicial Activism and Article 14

Definition and Scope of Judicial Activism
The theory of separation of powers, which was put forth by Montesquieu (1684-1755),
emphasizes a distinct division among the three branches of government: the executive, the
legislature, and the judiciary; this ensures that no branch oversteps its boundaries. In India,
however, this idea isn't quite as strict, as checks and balances are in place that allow the
judiciary to invalidate unconstitutional laws enacted by the legislature, which is crucial for
safeguarding fundamental rights and maintaining the government’s smooth operation.
Judicial activism is characterized by the active involvement of the judiciary in the
interpretation and application of the Constitution to promote justice, which often happens
when the legislative and executive branches of the government are unable to address the
social issues. This concept was first recognized in India during the 1970s and 1980s, which
was a period of transformation from the usual judicial process of short adjudication to a
policy of more widely regulatory intervention, during this period the courts took up more
social issues and widened the limited scope of the fundamental rights.
One turning point in the long history of judicial activism in India was the introduction of
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. The
PIL gave opportunities to any citizen or organization with the public's interests at heart to file
petitions on behalf of those who could not approach the courts themselves due to constraints
like poverty and illiteracy. This legal route in question had the goal of offering access to
justice for each, especially the disadvantaged and underprivileged.
The Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) case portrays judicial activism at its best.
The whole case started with the Supreme Court itself, which took suo motu cognizance based
on some newspaper reports about some of the undertrial prisoners' situation. This was the
beginning of the end for undertrial prisoners becoming outcasts of society, as the court
undertook considerable reforms in the criminal justice system and stressed the citizens' right
to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judiciary has been subject to an overbearing process of judicial activism and had its
normative scope redefined to achieve and uphold fundamental rights, principally of equality
under the law as ensured in Article 14, which promises fairness before the law and equal
protection of the laws. By doing so, the judiciary expanded the meaning of Article 14 to
include the essential principles of non-arbitrariness, reasonable classification, and substantive
equality, thus making the laws not only non-discriminatory among individuals based on
validated categories.
The judiciary's functions of upholding the right to equality and non-discrimination receive the
spotlight in important instances like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) and Navtej
Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018). In Maneka Gandhi, Article 14 had its scope broadened
by the Supreme Court to embrace reasonableness and non-arbitrariness as well.
Judicial activism has changed in India, in which way has it been an effective tool in the
protection of essential rights and values of the constitution. They set out a roadmap to
accomplish this through the usage of methods that provide creative legal responses and
documentation of landmark judgements by judiciary that entail their dedication to bring focus
to its role in maintaining justice and equality. This process has cemented it as a significant
pillar of Indian democracy.

Article 14 : Right to Equality

Fundamental rights belong to the list of basic rights that wrap the freedom and rights of a
person with the statutory protection against the arbitrary invasion by the state, along with
ensuring their well-being in a democratic social context. These rights are manifested in the
Indian Constitution's part III, which means they can be supplemented by the courts and thus
claimable and actionable by the public. 1Among these, Article 14 is the one to be counted as a
basic precondition that is the equality of all individuals before the law and the possibility for
them to enjoy equal protection of the laws within the territory of India comes with.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution reads, "The State shall not deny to any person equality
before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." Despite the
fact that it speaks in negative language, this provision sets forth a strong forbidding to the
state from initiating discriminatory practices. It serves as a guarantee that every person
despite their background will undergo the same treatment before the law and will be
judicially treated fairly no matter what.
The main reason why Article 14 is so important is its wide interpretation and its functions that
highly endorse the cause of social justice. The judiciary has judicially guaranteed the broad
interpretation of this article to not just conceive of the formal equality but the substantive
inequality, thus making sure that no law is regarded as discriminatory. This in turn has been
the most crucial force in defending the rights of the marginalized and popularizing the
affirmative action processes. The most well-known court case such as that of Indra Sawhney
v. Union of India (1992) ruling reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) for
achieving substantive equality, thus the disadvantaged groups cannot be denied opportunities
on the basis of their social status.
Article 14 is special due to the fact that it works as a bad duty on the government, showing
that while the government must not create or put into practice certain rules which make
unwanted distinctions among people. Nevertheless, such as calling attention on these
discriminatory laws and actions by specifying individuals’ rights surely abides for state. Thus,
this dynamic creates balance between protecting rights and state being able to take measures
aimed at addressing inequalities if they are rational and defendable.

The significance of Article 14 lies in its enforceability. In case one’s right to equality is
infringed upon, an individual may turn to the High Courts or the Supreme Court for remedy.
According to Dr B.R Ambedkar, this provision is the heartbeat of our Constitution – which
guarantees every citizen their fundamental right(s) without having them become mere
platitudes.

In summary, Article 14 is a basic right contained in Part III of the Indian Constitution against
creation of any discriminatory laws by the state through negative language. Henceforth, it
enables individuals to claim and preserve their own claim thus playing a vital part in
delivering equity and justice within the Indian society at large.

The Intersection of Judicial Activism and Article 14

The interaction of judicial activism and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution has played a
fundamental role in carving the landscape of equality and non-discrimination in the country.
Article 14 that includes a right to legal equality and the principle of equal protection of the
laws, is the one that implies not an absolute but reasonable classification. In other words,
while the goal is equal treatment for all, people who are not the same should not be treated
equally, therefore, it is possible to provide some sort of preferential treatment to the
marginalized groups.
It is the magic of the courts as they have been interpreting the Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution so that differential treatment to different groups is inspired by logical and
rational criteria. The case of Balaji v. State of Mysore is one of the most prominent examples
of this approach where Justice Gajendragadkar who delivered the opinion put forward the
idea that reservations for weaker sections provided in Article 15(4) should not be more than
50% of the total seats, thus ensuring that everybody has equal opportunities and at the same
time maintaining the balance of equality. The interpretation was a step to assure that, though
the special provisions for backward classes were essential, they must not become the grounds
to extinguish the fundamental right to equality.
In one of the important cases, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India
had renewed that idea when it was found that reservations should not go beyond 50% and the
creamy layer of backward classes should not be included in this positive discrimination. This
order was made as a response to the comments about the compatibility of the Mandal
Commission's suggestions, thus suggesting the Assistant Management should assume the
involvement of discord between the court's role in promoting compensatory discrimination
and the universal right to equality.
By these judgments, the judiciary has not only come up with remedies to the ignored rights of
the sections of society that have been pushed into the wall but also acted as the protector of
the principle of equality. The courts applied the proportionality test to the reservations,
making sure that it is strictly based on the total opportunities that are available. Therefore,
they prevented the possibility of excessive measures that would infringe the right of equality.
In short, the inclusion of the value principle in the application of the nontraditional law of the
court under Article 14 has been crucial to social justice in India and the maintenance of the
principle of equality in a way that meets the needs of the entire Indian population. Such an
inventive method of interpreting Article 14 has enabled the courts to tackle inequalities
efficiently and still to keep the main thing which is equality that the Constitution guarantees.

Case Studies of Judicial Activism Protecting Marginalized

Recent SC Ruling on Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes
The Supreme Court in a significant judgment on 1 August 2024 has permitted the quarters of
the Scheduled Castes (SCs) to be sub-classed in order to provide the less fortunate with
reservation benefits. This ruling is introspectively related to the subjects of liberal
jurisprudence as well as equality through the Indian Constitution's Constitution of India's
Article 14 which offers the guarantee of equal treatment before the law and equal protection
of the laws.
The Apex Court declared that SCs are not a uniform social class; rather, each individual state
may sub-categorize these sub-groups in its affirmative action plans for the purpose of
bringing about social justice more effectively. The Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud
said that the SCs have been homogeneous in reality and this has been supported by the
empirical evidence of the dramatic differences in the levels of inequality among the SCs
which were used to justify the need for sub-categorization to embark the disparities. The
court functionary ruled that such differentiation must be based on rational principles and
quantifiable data, thus state actions are subjected to judicial review.
In this legal ruling, the exact meaning of the provision in the Constitution, namely that all
persons are equal before the law and there shall be no discrimination shall be exposed. By the
inclusion of the clause of sub-classification, the Court has adjusted constitutional provisions
to the current social condition, thus the primary function of liberal jurisprudence as
equalizing relationships that guarantee the rights of people in vulnerable situations is shown.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case plays a key role in showing how judicial
activism and Article 14 of the Indian Constitution work together. This big decision changed
what Article 14 means and showed how judicial activism can protect basic rights.
In this case, Maneka Gandhi fought the government's choice to take her passport. She said
this went against her right to travel, which she believed was a basic right. The Supreme
Court's ruling made Article 14 mean more than before. Article 14 promises that everyone is
equal under the law and gets the same protection from laws. The Court's choice helped move
from just looking at equality on paper to understanding it as something fair and reasonable in
real life.
In the past, people saw Article 14 as being about equal treatment under the law. But the
Maneka Gandhi case changed things up. It stressed that equality also means fair procedures.
The Court decided that any law or government action that affects someone's rights needs to
line up with equality principles. On top of that, it also has to meet fairness and justice
standards.
This case showcases judicial activism at its heart: the Supreme Court stepped in to widen
how we understand constitutional rights and make sure the government didn't act on a whim.
By connecting Article 14 to the right to personal freedom in Article 21, the Court highlighted
that Article 14 does more than just offer basic equality - it demands that laws and how we use
them are fair and make sense.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India shows how judicial activism can stretch constitutional
protections for people on the fringes who might face unfair treatment all the time. The ruling
proved that when judges take the lead in reading and enforcing Article 14, it can boost
protection for individual rights. This helps make sure we stick to the ideas of equality and
justice.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 217

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) is a groundbreaking decision of the Supreme Court
that has been the subject of the ongoing conversations on reservations and jurisprudence, the
constitutional provision of Article 14 is one of the notable contributions. The most significant
case paved the way for the state action of reservations in the light of the guarantees of
equality and justice. Moreover, its decision has been a point of reference for the legal and
social communities in the modern-day.
Indra Sawhney is landmark terms because of its deft approach to achieving the two sided two
sides of the coin of social justice that upholds the merit-based principle of Article 14, which
provides that equality ought to be upheld under the law. The controversy was about the
Mandal Commission’s suggestion to earmark 27% of the job opportunities and education in
the public sector for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The court has to adjudicate on the
issue keeping in mind the demands of the Constitution for fairness and equality.
Relevance:
Equality versus Meritocracy: In its resolution, the court-law Bauer (1989) held by it that it
was of critical importance that in order to address the historical injustices that of course
reservations were indispensable but it was equally such as that there was a bar on merit. It has
been contended the Court of about 50% Reservation Rule of the Tamil Nadu State. The Court
has implemented the Reservation Quota for the scheduled tribes and schedules caste people
for the higher education, thereby extending the creamy layer.
Reinforcing Article 14: The ruling of the Court illuminated the Article 14, which is the
dynamic nature of it, ensuring that the equality before the law is not merely a theoretical
concept but an active principle guiding the implementation of policies. By disapproving the
reservations based on economic criteria and giving priority to backward social groups, this
judgment showed that the constitutional guarantees of equality should be customized to the
particular historical and social disparities.
Judicial Activism: This case can be considered an example of judicial activism, as it
demonstrated how the judiciary plays an active part in policy making by ensuring it meets the
constitutional standards. Judicial ascertainment not only resolved immediate legal issues but
also created a template for setting reservations policies in the future one that indicated serious
considerations about these policies' far-reaching societal effects at the same time.
Impact:
In the legal framework, the Indra Sawhney case has reshaped its form with the introduction of
rules to determine the applicability and interpretation of reservations. It has thrown light at
the edges and scope of affirmative action, dithering on the knowledge that it serves its
purpose without an infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14. The
decision has not only had an effect on legal interpretations and policy implementations but it
has also opened up debates on the relationship between equality, merit, and social justice in
India.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India is due to the reason that it displays the judiciary's
intervention required to shield the dispossessed while at the same time staying committed to
the constitutional commitment to equality.

Effectiveness and Limitations of Judicial Activism

Success Stories
Judicial activism in India has yielded notable successes, highlighting its potential for positive
impact:
1. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PILs have democratized access to justice, leading to
advancements in environmental protection, child rights, and social justice. For instance, the
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India case led to stricter pollution regulations,
significantly improving environmental standards.
2. Human Rights Protection: The judiciary's proactive stance has safeguarded fundamental
rights. The Supreme Court's decision in Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh established
the right to education as a fundamental right under Article 21, enhancing educational
opportunities and social equity.
3. Addressing Injustice: Judicial activism has rectified systemic injustices, such as the release
of mentally ill under-trials held beyond their potential sentences. This not only addressed
individual cases but also highlighted broader issues in the criminal justice system, prompting
necessary reforms.

Challenges and Criticisms

Judicial activism also faces significant challenges and criticisms:
1. Judicial Overreach: Critics argue that judicial activism can lead to judicial overreach,
where courts make decisions that encroach upon the executive or legislative domains. For
example, involvement in policy decisions such as resource allocation or educational
reservations can be seen as overstepping.
2. Implementation Difficulties: The effective implementation of judicial directives can be
problematic due to bureaucratic inertia or lack of resources. This can dilute the impact of
judicial activism, as seen in cases requiring systemic changes.
3. Balancing Activism and Restraint: Striking a balance between activism and restraint is
crucial. While activism aims to address immediate issues, excessive intervention can disrupt
the balance of power among government branches. Ensuring judicial actions do not
undermine legislative and executive functions is essential for a healthy democratic system.

Comparative Analysis
Global Comparisons: Examining judicial activism globally can offer insights. In the United
States, cases like Brown v. Board of Education show how judicial intervention can drive
social change. Similarly, South Africa’s Constitutional Court has played a crucial role in
advancing human rights, highlighting how judicial activism can align with a robust
constitutional framework.
Lessons for India: India could benefit from studying global practices to manage the balance
between activism and restraint. For instance, the US’s concept of judicial restraint and South
Africa’s clear constitutional mandate provide frameworks that could help India navigate the
complexities of judicial intervention effectively.

Arguments and Context

Arguments for Judicial Activism:
1. Compensating Executive Failures: Activism often arises from executive inaction. When the
executive fails to enforce laws or address societal issues, the judiciary may intervene to
correct these failures.
2. Judicial Populism: Some view judicial activism as driven by a desire for visibility or public
favor, suggesting that certain judicial actions may be motivated by a quest for prominence
rather than legal principles.
3. Response to Socio-Economic Change: Judicial activism is also seen as a response to socio-
economic changes. As society evolves, the judiciary may need to adapt to address emerging
issues effectively, such as socio-economic rights and environmental concerns.

Balancing Activism and Restraint

Judicial activism and restraint must coexist. While activism plays a crucial role in upholding
rights and justice, it should be balanced with respect for the functions of other government
branches. Effective judicial intervention, combined with cooperation among branches, is key
to maintaining a functional and balanced democracy.

Conclusion
Judicial activism has had a significant impact on the interpretation and execution of Article
14 of the Indian Constitution, increasing the protection of vulnerable populations. The
judiciary has broadened the scope of equality with historic decisions such as Maneka Gandhi
v. Union of India and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, ensuring that laws and policies do not
perpetuate prejudice. These instances show the judiciary's responsibility in not only
protecting statutory equality but also resolving real inequities experienced by marginalized
groups.

The larger influence of judicial activism includes changing cultural views and promoting
democratic norms. Judicial rulings have promoted a more inclusive approach to justice by
acting in policy areas and protecting basic rights, reflecting Indian society's changing
demands. However, the impact of judicial activism is tempered by challenges such as
potential overreach and implementation difficulties.
To improve its efficacy, the judiciary must strike a balance between activity and restraint,
ensuring that interventions are meaningful while also respecting institutional bounds. Policy
suggestions should prioritize improving judicial processes and promoting thorough
enforcement tactics. Looking ahead, a proactive judiciary will continue to be critical in
furthering equality and preserving the rights of underprivileged people, reaffirming India's
basic democratic ideals.