🏛️ CJI Gavai Defends Judicial Activism, Warns Against ‘Judicial Terrorism’
In a bold and thought-provoking statement, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, quoting fellow judge Justice B.R. Gavai, asserted that judicial activism is here to stay, but also cautioned against a dangerous extreme: what he described as "judicial terrorism."
The remarks were made during a legal symposium that addressed the evolving role of the judiciary in India’s democratic framework—particularly in balancing checks and balances with judicial restraint.
⚖️ Judicial Activism: A Constitutional Necessity?
CJI Gavai emphasized that judicial activism is not judicial overreach. Instead, it is a constitutional mandate—particularly in situations where executive and legislative inaction infringes upon fundamental rights.
“When rights are at stake, silence is not neutrality—it is injustice,” said Gavai, aligning with a long-standing tradition of public interest litigation (PIL) in India.
🚨 What Did He Mean by ‘Judicial Terrorism’?
CJI Gavai warned against the misuse of judicial power, stating that when courts begin to govern rather than interpret the law, it can lead to “judicial terrorism”—a term evoking the overstepping of constitutional boundaries.
He stressed the importance of:
Maintaining judicial restraint
Avoiding intervention in executive and legislative matters
Upholding democratic separation of powers
The phrase has sparked debate across India’s legal and political spectrum.
📚 Key Takeaways from CJI Gavai’s Statement
Judicial activism will remain relevant to protect citizen rights
Judges must balance intervention with constitutional discipline
Overstepping can erode public trust in the judiciary
A call to uphold judicial independence without undermining governance
This statement comes at a time when the judiciary is often criticized for being both too passive and too active—depending on the political lens through which one views it.
❓ FAQs: Understanding the Debate Around Judicial Activism vs. Terrorism
Q1: What is judicial activism?
Judicial activism refers to proactive judicial rulings, often to protect fundamental rights or fill legislative gaps in public interest.
Q2: What is meant by ‘judicial terrorism’?
It’s a term used to describe the excessive or politically motivated misuse of judicial power, potentially undermining the democratic structure.
Q3: Is judicial activism unconstitutional?
No. Judicial activism is often necessary to enforce rights when other branches fail, but it must operate within constitutional limits.
Q4: Why is this topic controversial?
Because it sits at the crossroads of governance, law, and public perception, raising questions about judicial accountability and independence.
Q5: What impact does this have on Indian democracy?
Balanced judicial activism strengthens democracy, but unchecked overreach could harm institutional trust.
www.vizzve.com || www.vizzveservices.com
Follow us on social media: Facebook || Linkedin || Instagram