Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said that while judicial activism is important, it must not cross its limits and become judicial terrorism. Speaking at the Oxford Union, he called for careful use of judicial review and highlighted the Constitution’s power to uplift the marginalized.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
ENGLAND: Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai gave a powerful and emotional speech at the Oxford Union on Tuesday, where he explained how the Indian judiciary should work and warned against crossing its proper limits.
ALSO READ: Cheque Bounce Cases: New Supreme Court Guidelines
He clearly said that judicial activism is important and here to stay in India, but it must be handled with care and responsibility.
“Judicial activism is bound to stay. At the same time, judicial activism should not be turned into judicial terrorism. So, at times, you try to exceed the limits and try to enter into an area where, normally, the judiciary should not enter,”
-the CJI said.
He explained that if the lawmakers or the government fail to protect people’s rights, then it is the duty of the courts to act and protect those rights.
But he also stressed that this power must not be misused or applied too often.
“…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,”
-he explained.
This special talk was hosted by the Oxford Union and organised with Advocate-on-Record Tanvi Dubey. The event was titled ‘From Representation to Realization: Embodying the Constitution’s Promise’, and in it, CJI Gavai reflected on the journey of India from a time of deep discrimination to today.
ALSO READ: CJI BR Gavai: “Judges Should Remain Free from External Influence”
He gave a personal and emotional reminder of how far the country has come. He pointed out that in earlier times, millions of people in India were treated as ‘untouchables’.
But now, someone from the same background can rise to the highest office in the Indian judiciary and speak at a global platform like Oxford.
“The Constitution of India carries within it the heartbeat of those who were never meant to be heard, and the vision of a country where equality is not just promised, but pursued. It compels the State not only to protect rights, but also to actively uplift, to affirm, to repair.”
Chief Justice Gavai also talked about the thoughts of Dr BR Ambedkar, the father of the Indian Constitution. He said Dr Ambedkar knew that just giving legal equality was not enough.
Power must also be shared with communities who had been kept away from it for generations.
“Representation, therefore, was a mechanism of redistributing power, not only between the legislature, executive and judiciary, but among social groups that had been denied a share for centuries.”
To end his speech, CJI Gavai quoted a very powerful line from a famous essay by scholar Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak titled ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’
“Yes, the subaltern can speak—and they have been speaking all along. The question is no longer whether they can speak, but whether society is truly listening,”
-he said.
Judicial Activism
Definition:
Judicial activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in upholding constitutional values, expanding rights, and filling legislative or executive gaps. Courts go beyond the literal interpretation of laws to serve justice and protect fundamental rights.
Key Features:
- Based on progressive interpretation of laws and the Constitution.
- Seen when courts intervene in matters of public interest (like through PILs).
- Aims to protect minority rights, environment, social justice, etc.
- Legal and accepted in constitutional democracies (though sometimes controversial).
Examples:
- Expanding the meaning of Right to Life under Article 21 in India to include clean air, education, and privacy.
- US Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education that ended racial segregation in schools.
View: Often praised as a necessary tool for justice in developing democracies or where other branches fail.
Judicial Terrorism
Definition:
“Judicial terrorism” is a highly critical and controversial term, often used rhetorically to condemn perceived overreach or abuse of power by the judiciary. It suggests that courts are using their authority in an oppressive or politically motivated manner, instilling fear instead of justice.
Key Features:
- Not a legal or academic term; more of a political accusation.
- Implies excessive judicial interference to the point of undermining democracy.
- Often used by critics to attack unpopular or aggressive judicial decisions.
- May be seen as delegitimizing the judiciary when the term is misused.
Examples:
- If a court is accused of targeting specific individuals or institutions with biased rulings without due process.
- Used in some countries to criticize judicial decisions that are seen as politically biased or authoritarian.
View: Largely pejorative and subjective — not accepted in legal discourse as a legitimate concept.
| Aspect | Judicial Activism | Judicial Terrorism |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning | Proactive role in delivering justice | Abusive or fear-driven judicial overreach |
| Tone | Neutral or positive | Negative and critical |
| Legitimacy | Legally recognized and debated | Not recognized formally in law |
| Intent | Serve public interest and justice | Accused of imposing fear or political bias |
| Examples | PILs, expanding rights | Biased, politically charged rulings |
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Judicial Activism
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
