Comparative Analysis of Judicial Activism and Judicial Overreach Between India and The United States of America

Mr. Ayush Mudgal & Dr. Shashank Chaturvedi
DOI:

Abstract

Judicial activism is often celebrated as a doctrine of affirmative jurisprudence, while judicial overreach represents its distortion. Both India and the United States of America (U.S.)—constitutional democracies rooted in divergent political philosophies—have grappled with defining the boundary between legitimate interpretation and judicial legislation. This paper undertakes a comparative study of judicial activism and overreach in India and the U.S., tracing their historical trajectories, constitutional foundations, and landmark case law. It argues that Indian courts, influenced by welfare-state commitments, have exercised activism expansively to fill legislative and executive gaps, whereas the U.S. Supreme Court has primarily deployed activism to protect civil liberties and minority rights within a strict separation of powers framework. By offering a comparative synthesis, the paper highlights convergences, divergences, and lessons that each system may draw from the other, ultimately stressing the need for proportionality between judicial activism and restraint.

Keywords

Judicial Activism, Judicial Overreach, India & United States, Constitutional Supremacy, Parliamentary Sovereignty, Separation of Powers, Welfare Jurisprudence