Judiciary in India has started taking a wider view of its functions. For instance, the courts have allowed individuals to file petitions on matters of important public concern. Such cases are known as Public Interest Litigation (PILs). There have been instances where the courts of their own accord, without anyone complaining or filing a petition, have taken note of matters of public concern (Suo moto). This wider view taken by the Judiciary of its functions has been termed as ‘Judicial Activism’.
In recent years, Judicial Activism has led to the courts examining the legality of the decision of the executive over a wide variety of issues including the ones referred to above. Moreover, in many instances, they have also either issued orders on what should be done over many issues or have directed the executive to take action about the same in a specified time period.
There has been much debate over Judicial Activism. Some feel that the judiciary was compelled to intervene because the executive was not discharging its functions properly, while others believe that the courts are exceeding their powers by looking into matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the executive or legislative.