What is the need for judicial activism in India?
(note: this explanation assumes understanding of several U.S.
landmark cases) Judicial activism is closely tied with the personal
standpoint of "liberal." It is basically being more "activist" or
more in turn with "adding" to the U.S. Constitution rather than
merely interpreting it (judicial restraint). Three major cases that
have been touted as judicial activism abuse include Roe v. Wade,
Lawrence v. Texas, and Brown v. Board of Education (abortion,
homosexuality, and racial segregation, respectively). Without
judicial activism, the U.S. would still be stuck with the Dredd
Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, regarding African Americans'
rights. Without judicial activism, Lochner v. New York would stand
as a legal precendent, and the minimum wage would be illegal on the
basis that it violates the right to business contracts.
Additionally, it could be argued that judicial activism is
necessary because it is difficult to decide court cases based on
the U.S. Constitution when the framers' are long dead, their intent
unknown, and the Constitution written in an age before the modern
or digital age.