Judicial Activism Bound To Stay, Shouldn't Turn Into Judicial Terrorism, Adventurism: CJI Gavai
Last Updated:
Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on Friday said while judicial activism was bound to stay, it cannot be converted into judicial adventurism or judicial terrorism.
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Friday once again cautioned against judicial overreach, stressing that while judicial activism was bound to stay, it cannot be converted into judicial adventurism or judicial terrorism.
While speaking at an event organised by Nagpur district court bar association, the Chief Justice emphasised the importance of maintaining constitutional boundaries between the three organs of democracy.
He further said that when it is found that the legislature or the executive has failed in their duties to safeguard the rights of the citizens, the judiciary is bound to step in.
'All the three wings of the Indian democracy- legislature, executive and judiciary- have been given their limits and boundaries. All the three wings have to work as per law and its provisions. When the Parliament goes beyond the law or rule, the judiciary can step in then," he said as quoted by the news agencies.
CJI Gavai further said that if the judiciary tries to interfere unnecessarily in the functioning of the other two pillars, that must be avoided.
'However, I always say that though judicial activism is bound to stay, it should not be permitted to be converted to judicial adventurism and judicial terrorism," CJI Gavai said.
Judicial activism is necessary for upholding the Constitution and the rights of citizens, the CJI asserted.
He hailed legendary social reformer and jurist Dr BR Ambedkar and said the entire nation has to be thankful for the latter's immense contribution.
The Nagpur bar association is the most secular bar with members from all castes and religions, the CJI said, adding he had seen Hindu lawyers working for the cause of the Muslim community and vice versa.
The event was attended by Supreme Court justices Dipankar Datta, Prasanna Varale, and Atul Chandurkar, along with Bombay High Court Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, senior administrative judge of Nagpur bench Nitin Sambre, senior judge Anil Kilor, and others.
Earlier this month, the Chief Justice also emphasised on same issue while speaking at the Oxford Union, an event organised by advocate-on-record Tanvi Dubey.
He had said that while judicial activism will stay and play a role in India, it should not devolve into 'judicial terrorism", adding that there are times when people try to exceed the limits and try to enter into an area where, normally, the judiciary should not enter.
'…That power (judicial review) has to be exercised in a very limited area in very exception cases, like, say, a statute, is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, or it is in direct conflict with any of the fundamental rights of the Constitution, or if the statute is so patently arbitrary, discriminatory, the courts can exercise it, and the courts have done so," the CJI added.
Speaking at the event, CJI Gavai also highlighted that decades ago, millions of Indians were referred to as 'untouchables'.
However, the Constitution of India ensured that an individual from that same group is now addressing the Oxford Union as the holder of the country's highest judicial office.
First Published:
June 28, 2025, 07:43 IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
A ‘Nasbandi Colony' and a ‘Mata Indira Sanjay Act': 50 yrs later, ghosts are vivid at Turkman Gate
Along the Delhi-Ghaziabad border, adjoining Loni, lies 'Nasbandi Colony'. The name has stuck, 50 years on after the Emergency's sterilisation and resettlement drives uprooted residents of Turkman Gate, located in the Capital's heart, and dispatched many of them here, to its fringes. There are other things that remain the same in this colony, since it got the first of its Turkman Gate evacuees in the Eighties. Open drains line bumpy, pothole-marked roads, where two-wheelers weave their way through cattle. The smell of open garbage is pervasive. Residents say the government gave land, but no livelihood or shot at a new life – not even a school. Around 16 km away, at Turkman Gate, located in Delhi's Walled City, other families whose houses were razed during the Emergency now live in DDA flats they got as compensation. The flats, built 48 years ago, are in need of repair, while the cramped lanes sport endless electrical repair shops. As many here make a living as scrap dealers, used air-conditioners and coolers crowd public spaces. As per the Shah Commission that went into the Emergency excesses, six people were killed when police opened fire in the Turkman Gate area on April 19, 1976, on protesters, days into a demolition drive. Over 1.5 lakh structures were pulled down across Delhi during the Emergency, but Turkman Gate remains the most vivid example of the drive. While the protests at Turkman Gate on April 19, 1976, were over the demolitions, anger was also bubbling over sterilisations. On April 15, a sterilisation camp had been inaugurated at nearby Dujana House by Sanjay Gandhi and then Lieutenant Governor Krishan Chand. Overall, as per the Shah Commission, over 1.1 crore sterilisations were carried out between 1975 and 1977, against the government's target of 65 lakh, and over 1,774 died during the sterilisation procedures. Amid the steady clatter of machines turning out envelopes at a small factory near the same Dujana House, Zakir Ahmed, 69, sits quietly at his dispensary unit. He first started working at the age of 7 at a wedding card workshop, which still exists across the road, and was not yet a teen when the sterilisation teams arrived. 'They targeted outsiders – labourers, beggars, construction workers… those just walking by,' Ahmed says. Officials offered inducements to meet their sterilisation targets – sometimes money, often a 4-litre tin of Dalda (refined oil), rarely a transistor. Ahmed remembers one incident in particular. On April 18, 1976, as a van carrying men and boys for sterilisation crossed the neighbourhood, a woman snuck up and opened the back door. 'Unko azad kara diya nasbandi se pehle (She freed them from sterilisation).' Ahmed adds: 'Nobody could be saved from nasbandi in those days. Those who said anything would be jailed under the MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act).' The very next day, April 19, came the bulldozers. 'Those months were very difficult,' Ahmed says. 'People were terrified… Families… Hindu, Muslim… all would beg their loved ones not to travel after dark, offer each other shelter. Every time one left home, one was scared.' To ward off action, 'many put up photographs of Indira Gandhi at their shops'. Such was the contempt for the PM and her son, says Muhammed Shahid Gangohi, one of the founding members of the Turkman Gate Welfare and Coordination Committee, that 'people referred to the MISA Act as Mata Indira Sanjay Act'. If there is another name that invites similar derision, it is Rukhsana Sultana, a socialite and boutique owner who had risen quickly within the Congress in Delhi due to her proximity to Sanjay. Safi Dehlvi, 75, a former Congress leader, says Sultana took the lead in implementing Sanjay's sterilisation targets in the Walled City, as the one overseeing the camp at Dujana House. 'In April 1976, Sanjay came here and received a hostile reception… He looked around and said he saw a 'mini-Pakistan'. Within a few days, bulldozers were at Turkman Gate's doors.' The afternoon of April 19, Gangohi recalls, he was on his way for his BA first-year exams at Zakir Husain College. 'Around 4.30 pm, there was an announcement that students from our area should meet the Principal. We sensed something had happened… We were told that at 1.45 pm, police and military had come, there was a lathicharge as well as police firing. Around 500 people were arrested… beaten so brutally that it was equivalent to being killed.' Gangohi's family house shared a boundary wall with a mosque; they thought that gave them some immunity. 'But it was also demolished.' Most of the displaced were sent to Trilokpuri initially, while a few were moved to Nand Nagri, Ranjit Nagar and Shahdara. Gangohi says that the two appeals the displaced made were that 'families not be split' and that they get 'built-up area' as compensation. 'But the accommodations at Trilokpuri and Nand Nagri were completely barren… with no roads. It was a jungle.' Mohd Rizwan, 75, points to a spot along Asif Ali Road near Turkman Gate: 'This is where Sanjay Gandhi addressed the public, telling them the benefits of the sterilisation programme… After four-five days, the demolitions started.' One of his relatives, Abdul Malik, 23, was among those killed, Rizwan says. Another old-time resident of Turkman Gate, who was in school then and is now a senior government official, says on the condition of anonymity: 'Teachers would pressure us (on the issue). Near Chandni Chowk Market, we would run into Youth Congress volunteers raising slogans of 'Hum do, hamare do (Us two, ours two).' Government employees were afraid their promotions would be stalled if they put up resistance, he says. Historian Sohail Hashmi, who was himself a witness to Emergency crackdowns as a student at Jawaharlal Nehru University, talks about the experience of his mother, the headmistress of a government school in Kidwai Nagar. 'Teachers were expected to present two sterilisation certificates every month… It were the poor, the rickshaw-pullers, the drug addicts, who bore the brunt of this policy.' Santosh Gupta, who was among the first settlers at the 'Nasbandi Colony' and continues to live there, says his mother Sashi Bala was among those who volunteered for sterilisation. His father, who earned a living as a tailor, his brother and he never discussed the subject, Gupta says. 'I was too young to ask, and she never told us anything.' He wonders though if it was for land. In exchange for undergoing the procedure, Bala received a 90 sq yard plot in 'Nasbandi Colony'. In 1985, the family moved there. In 1998, Gupta opened a small shop on the plot, and lives in an adjoining house with his wife and four children. Bala and her husband are now deceased, as is Gupta's elder brother. He is now thinking of moving, perhaps to Karawal Nagar, which offers at least better amenities as well as connectivity, Gupta says. His 'Nasbandi Colony' plot could fetch Rs 55 lakh, he says. But could the ghosts of Emergency end with that? Ahmed, who has lived his lifetime in the shadows of it, still recalls the lifting of the provision, and their anticipation of a new start. 'The streets erupted in celebration, Delhi felt as joyous as Eid or Diwali. Outside the Tiz Hazari court, there were such long queues that shops ran out of liquor,' he says, before he breaks into a cough that has become chronic, a reminder of decades spent inhaling paper dust.
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
Birthright citizenship case: US Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions – what it means for immigrants
The US Supreme Court has curtailed the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the way for President Donald Trump's controversial order to end birthright citizenship to take effect in over half the country. The ruling does not address whether the order is constitutional but allows it to be enforced in 28 states that had not challenged it, while keeping it temporarily blocked in 22 Democratic-led states. Immigrant rights groups have warned the decision could result in stateless newborns and a chaotic patchwork of laws across the US. The 6–3 decision came in response to President Donald Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented or temporary visa holders on US soil. The ruling was immediately hailed by Trump as a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' while immigrant rights groups and Democratic leaders voiced concern that it could lead to a patchwork of legal standards across the country and leave some newborns stateless. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo Although the policy remains blocked in 22 Democratic-led states that sued to stop the order, the Supreme Court imposed a 30-day delay before it can take effect in the rest of the country. That window gives immigrant rights groups time to regroup and possibly file new challenges as class-action lawsuits. But with the door now open for selective enforcement, immigration advocates warn that confusion and legal uncertainty could have devastating consequences for vulnerable families. What Is Birthright Citizenship? Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right enshrined in the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War to ensure citizenship for formerly enslaved people. It states, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' The principle was reinforced in the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case *United States v. Wong Kim Ark*, where the court ruled that a man born in the US to Chinese parents was a citizen, regardless of his parents' immigration status. Since then, birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of US constitutional law. Exceptions have been extremely limited, such as children born to foreign diplomats. Trump's order seeks to broaden those exceptions dramatically. Trump's executive order and the legal backlash Signed in January, Trump's executive order attempts to end automatic citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders. He has described the policy as a 'magnet for illegal immigration,' arguing that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment justifies excluding these children from citizenship. Lower federal courts, however, repeatedly blocked the order from taking effect. 'This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' said US District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle. In Maryland, Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's view of the 14th Amendment. Despite these rulings, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of the order itself, focusing instead on the scope of the injunctions issued by the lower courts. The Supreme Court's ruling: what it changes The court's conservative majority, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal district judges do not have the authority to block a presidential policy nationwide. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,' Barrett wrote. The decision sends the current challenges back to the lower courts, instructing them to narrow their injunctions to only cover plaintiffs with standing in the 22 states that sued. In the remaining 28 states — including Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas — Trump's order could go into effect after the 30-day delay. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution.' What comes next for immigrants? Immigrant rights groups are already adjusting their legal strategies, preparing class-action lawsuits in states like Maryland and New Hampshire. However, legal experts warn that such efforts face numerous procedural hurdles. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem,' said Suzette Malveaux, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. The immediate concern is for babies born during the transition period. In the 28 states where the order may soon apply, children born to undocumented or temporary residents may be denied citizenship, risking statelessness and potential deportation. Sotomayor urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly' in adjudicating new challenges to the executive order, while Trump indicated he would move quickly on a broader slate of policies that had previously been blocked by nationwide injunctions. 'This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law,' Trump declared at the White House, flanked by Attorney General Pam Bondi. 'We can now promptly proceed with numerous policies, including birthright citizenship.'
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Many South Asians, Muslims in NYC and beyond electrified by Mamdani's mayoral primary triumph
The success of Zohran Mamdani in New York City's Democratic primary for mayor is euphoric for Hari Kondabolu, a stand-up comedian who's been friends with the candidate for 15 years. Mamdani stunned the political establishment when he declared victory in the primary on Tuesday, a ranked choice election in which his strongest competition, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, conceded defeat. When he launched his campaign, the unabashed democratic socialist ranked near the bottom of the pack. Now, the 33-year-old state assemblyman has a chance to be New York City's first Asian American and Muslim mayor. Mamdani's family came to the United States when he was 7, and he became a citizen in 2018. He was born to Indian parents in Kampala, Uganda. For Kondabolu, this moment is not just exciting, but emotional. 'I think so many of us have had those experiences in New York of being brown and in a city that has always been really diverse and feels like ours. But after 9/11, like you start to question it like, is this our city too,' Kondabolu said. 'And 25 years later ... it's surreal, like this is the same city but it's not because we've elected this person.' Mamdani's campaign has piqued the interest of many Indian, Pakistani and other South Asian Americans, as well as Muslims — even those who may not agree with Mamdani on every issue. Despite that opposition, some still see his rise as a sign of hope in a city where racism and xenophobia erupted following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. South Asians and Muslims riveted by primary in New York, and beyond Many of New York City's over 300,000 South Asian residents have been inspired by Mamdani's extraordinary trajectory. 'My mom was texting her friends to vote for him. I've never seen my mother do that before,' Kondabolu said. 'So the idea that it's gotten our whole family activated in this way — this is, like, personal.' Snigdha Sur, founder and CEO of The Juggernaut, an online publication reporting on South Asians, has been fascinated by the response from some people in India and the diaspora. 'So many global South Asians ... they're like, 'Oh, this guy is my mayor and I don't live in New York City,'' Sur said. At the same time, some are also concerned or angered by Mamdani's past remarks about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who he publicly called a 'war criminal.' In Michigan, Thasin Sardar has been following Mamdani's ascent online. When he first heard him, he struck him as 'genuine' and he felt 'an instant connection,' he said. 'As a Muslim American, this victory puts my trust back in the people,' said Sardar, who was born and raised in India. 'I am happy that there are people who value the candidate and his policies more than his personal religious beliefs and didn't vote him down because of the color of his skin, or the fact that he was an immigrant with an uncommon name.' New York voter Zainab Shabbir said family members in California, and beyond, have also excitedly taken note. 'My family in California, they were very much like, 'Oh, it's so nice to see a South Asian Muslim candidate be a mayor of a major city,'' she said. A brother told her Mamdani's rise is a great example for his kids, she said. But the 34-year-old — who donated, voted and canvassed for Mamdani — said it was his vision for New York City that was the draw for her. She and her husband briefly chatted with Mamdani at a fundraiser and she found him to be 'very friendly and genuine.' She suspects that for some who aren't very politically active, Mamdani's political ascent could make a difference. 'There's a lot of Muslim communities like my parents' generation who are focused a lot more on the politics back home and less on the politics here in America,' said Shabbir. 'Seeing people like Zohran Mamdani be in office, it'll really change that perspective in a lot of people.' Embracing Indian and Muslim roots Supporters and pundits agree that Mamdani's campaign has demonstrated social media savvy and authenticity. He visited multiple mosques. In videos, he speaks in Hindi or gives a touch of Bollywood. Other South Asian American politicians such as Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna praised that. 'I love that he didn't run away from his heritage. I mean, he did video clips with Amitabh Bachchan and Hindi movies,' Khanna said, referencing the Indian actor. 'He shows that one can embrace their roots and their heritage and yet succeed in American politics.'
