Distinguish between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism and also cite the important decisions of the Supreme Court on the two subjects.

Judicial Review

Courts examine laws and executive actions for constitutional compliance, invalidating those that violate constitutional provisions, as in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), which established the basic structure doctrine limiting Parliament’s power.

Judicial Activism

Courts proactively shape policies and expand rights, using tools like Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and broad interpretations of fundamental rights, exemplified by Vishaka (1997) which addressed workplace harassment, and Navtej Singh Johar (2018) decriminalizing homosexuality.

Judicial Review’s Role

It protects fundamental rights and federalism, seen in S.R. Bommai (1994) which curtailed misuse of Article 356, and NJAC (2015) where the Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission to safeguard judicial independence.

Judicial Activism’s Impact

Expanded rights under Article 21, including privacy in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), addressed social issues through PILs tackling corruption and environmental concerns, and filled policy gaps like in the Singur Land Acquisition case (2016), where land was returned to farmers to protect agrarian interests.

Key Decisions

Kesavananda Bharati (1973), S.R. Bommai (1994), NJAC (2015), K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), and Navtej Singh Johar (2018) illustrate the scope and balance of judicial review and activism in India’s constitutional framework.