What is the positive point of judicial activism?

Pros of Judicial Activism Judicial Activism provides judges to use their personal wisdom in cases where the law failed to provide a balance. Judicial Activism also provides insights into the issues. The reason why this is a good thing is that it shows the instilled trust placed in the justice system and its judgments.

What are the advantages of judicial precedent?

The main advantage of using precedent is that it provides certainty in the law. As cases with sufficiently similar material facts are bound by past decisions, it provides an idea of how the case will be decided. Another advantage is that it provides consistent decisions within the law, which also ensures fairness.

Why is judicial activism needed?

The Supreme Court of India is considered the sentinel qui vie and protects the fundamental and constitutional rights of the people. Judicial Activism means the rulings of the court based on political and personal rational and prudence of the Judges presiding over the issue.

What are disadvantages of judicial precedent?

The doctrine of precedent presents several disadvantages. These are: (i) Rigidity: There is inherent rigidity in the application of the doctrine which may sometimes cause hardship to litigants. (ii) Bulk and complexity: The vast number of reported cases makes it difficult to learn and apply the law.

How does the judicial precedent work?

Judicial precedent operates under the principle of stare decisis which literally means “to stand by decisions”. This principle means that a court must follow and apply the law as set out in the decisions of higher courts in previous cases.

What are the advantages and the disadvantages of judicial activism?

ADVANTAGES: It provides a system of checks and balances to the other branches of the government. It allows for people to vote judges . Provides some helpful insights. DISADVANTAGES:It could be influenced by personal affairs.

What is the objective of judicial activism?

Judicial activism describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. Sometimes judges appear to exceed their power in deciding cases before the Court. They are supposed to exercise judgment in interpreting the law, according to the Constitution.

What is the principle of judicial activism?

“Black’s Law Dictionary” defines judicial activism as “a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usually with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are …

Why is judicial precedent bad?

If courts can avoid follow precedent, or depart from their decisions, then court cases could be unpredictable. Also, different Supreme Court judges and Court of Appeal judges could depart from decisions and cause problems.

What are the benefits of judicial activism for judges?

Through judicial activism, judges can use their own personal feelings to strike down laws that they would feel are unjust. Whether it is an executive order, an immigration issue or a criminal proceeding, judges would have a good vantage point in deciding a certain case’s outcome.

Where did the term judicial activism come from?

Judicial Activism is a philosophy in the judiciary that actuates (motivates) judges to go beyond statutory precedents and adopt a progressive method in deciding cases. The term originated in the United States by Arthur Schlesinger in 1947.

How does judicial activism violate checks and balances?

In addition, judicial activism tends to violate checks and balances; the branches of government begin to overlap when judges read into the law to reach a certain outcome. Judicial activism occurs where a judge reaches a decision based upon personal or political preferences.

Why do we need an overly aggressive judiciary?

If we cannot assure that the judges tread the perfect middle ground (and we cannot), it is better to have an overly aggressive judiciary than an overly restrained one. Judicial review is not judicial supremacy. Judicial review allows courts an equal say with the other branches, not the supreme word.