Judicial activism is both a safeguard and a challenge to democratic governance. Critically examine.

Judicial activism refers to the proactive role of the judiciary in protecting citizens' rights and promoting constitutional morality, often utilizing mechanisms like Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and the extraordinary powers under Article 142. While it serves as a crucial democratic shield, its excess threatens the institutional balance of power.

As a Safeguard to Democratic Governance

• Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court has creatively expanded Article 21 to cover the Right to Privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy case) and the Right to a Clean Environment (M.C. Mehta cases), defending citizens against state apathy.
• Checking Executive Arbitrariness: The judiciary acts as a bulwark against executive overreach. For instance, curbing the misuse of President’s Rule under Article 356 (S.R. Bommai case) and striking down the opaque Electoral Bonds scheme to protect voter transparency.
• Filling Legislative Vacuums: In the absence of laws, the judiciary has stepped in to protect vulnerable groups, notably by framing the Vishaka Guidelines against workplace sexual harassment before Parliament enacted the 2013 law.

As a Challenge to Democratic Governance

• Breach of Separation of Powers: The Constitution mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive (Article 50). Stepping into day-to-day administration or policy formulation transforms activism into "judicial overreach."
• Lack of Domain Expertise & Policy Paralysis: Judges lack the economic and technical expertise required for complex governance. Decisions like banning liquor sales along highways or cancelling all 2G telecom licenses caused severe, unintended economic disruptions and revenue losses.
• Accountability Deficit: Unelected judges are not directly accountable to the electorate. When the judiciary assumes a legislative role, it bypasses the democratic mandate and democratic debate.

Conclusion As the Supreme Court itself cautioned in the Mathura case and others, the judiciary must not act as a "super-legislature." While judicial activism is a vital cure for executive stagnation, it must be tempered with judicial restraint. A functional democracy relies on "cooperative constitutionalism" where the legislature, executive, and judiciary respect each other's boundaries.

---

How to Improve (Examiner's Tips):

1. Balance the Directive: "Critically examine" requires giving equal weight to both the positive impacts (safeguards) and the negative friction (challenges). Do not let the answer skew into a purely pro-judiciary essay.
2. Ground in the Constitution: Always link your arguments to specific Constitutional articles. Citing Article 50 (Separation of Powers) and Article 142 (Power to do complete justice) immediately elevates your answer from a layman's opinion to a constitutional critique.
3. Use Concrete Examples: Theoretical arguments about "policy paralysis" are weak without examples. Citing the highway liquor ban or telecom license cancellations proves you understand the real-world governance impact of judicial overreach.