0
What is difference between public interest litigation and judicial activism?
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
- Public Interest Litigation: The term "Public Interest" means the larger interests of the public,
general welfare and interest of the masses ((Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edn.) Vol.Xll) and the
word "Litigation" means "a legal action including all proceedings therein, initiated in a court of
law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy." Thus, the expression `Public
Interest Litigation' means "any litigation conducted for the benefit of public or for removal of
some public grievance." In simple words, public interest litigation means. any public spirited
citizen can move/approach the court for the public cause (or public interest or public welfare) by
filing a petition in the Supreme Court under Art.32 of the Constitution or in the High Court under
Art.226 of the Constitution or before the Court of Magistrate under Sec. 133 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2.Judicial Activism: The expression `Judicial Activism' signifies the anxiety of courts to find out
appropriate remedy to the aggrieved by formulating a new rule to settle the conflicting questions in
the event of lawlessness or uncertain laws. The Judicial Activism in India can he witnessed with
reference to the review power of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and I (belt Courts under
Article 226 of the Constitution particularly in Public Interest Litigation.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is sources of authority?
Judicial Activism
How does judicial activism and judicial restraint affect the separation of powers?
Judicial activism weakens the separation of powers by involving the Court in what are traditionally executive and legislative functions. Judicial restraint reinforces separation of powers.
Contrast original intent with judicial activism?
The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus. Versus strict constructionism, and living document versus original intent.
How do you see Judicial Activism in Pakistan?
To hell with Pakistan and you...
The idea that judges should use their power broadly to further justice based ontheir own personal views or agenda is called?
judicial activism!
What is the opposite of judicial activism?
judicial restraintFor more information, see Related Questions, below.
This type of judicial philosophy called?
The types of judicial philosophy include judicial activism, judicial restraint, loose constructionism and strict constructionism.
What was the marshall court best known for?
for its period of Judicial Activism
What do you understand by PIL?
public interest litigation. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can be filed in any High Court or directly in the Supreme Court. It is not necessary that the petitioner has suffered some injury of his own or has had personal grievance to litigate. PIL is a right given to the socially conscious member or a public spirited NGO to espouse a public cause by seeking judicial for redressal of public injury. Such injury may arise from breach of public duty or due to a violation of some provision of the Constitution. Public interest litigation is the device by which public participation in judicial review of administrative action is assured. It has the effect of making judicial process little more democratic.
Who favors judicial activism?
A person who favors judicial activism is one who prefers a decision to be made via a personal opinion, rather than focusing on the law. A person who does this is considered unlawful or a federalist.
Was Judicial Activism or Judicial Restraint used in the Tinker v Des Moines case?
Judicial activism was used because the Court ruled that the school policy prohibiting the students from wearing the arm bands to protest symbolically the Vietnam War violated the students' free speech rights. By overturning a policy of the government (the public school's policy), the Court exercised judicial activism.
Compare Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism?
Judicial restraint is the theory that judges should limit their exercise of power and strike down laws only when they are obviously unconstitutional, and always follow precedents set by older courts. Judicial activism is the opposite view, and is sometimes meant to imply politically motivated judicial decisions.
