Administration of Justice, Judicial Intervention and Activism, and Judicial Commissions on Human Rights
(Indian Context)
The administration of justice occupies a central position in the protection and promotion of human rights in India. Courts are not merely dispute-settling institutions; they are guardians of constitutional values, individual liberties, and human dignity. In a society marked by social inequality, poverty, and structural injustice, the judiciary has often been called upon to play an interventionist and activist role to ensure that human rights move beyond constitutional promises and become enforceable realities.
Judicial intervention, judicial activism, and the work of judicial commissions together form an important framework through which the Indian state responds to human rights violations.
Administration of Justice and Human Rights
The administration of justice refers to the institutional processes through which laws are interpreted, enforced, and applied. In human rights terms, it involves:
- Access to courts and legal remedies
- Fair trial and due process
- Protection against arbitrary state action
- Enforcement of constitutional and legal rights
The legitimacy of the justice system depends on its ability to protect the weak, marginalized, and powerless. Where executive and legislative actions fail, courts become crucial sites for asserting human rights.
The foundation of this role lies in the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before law, personal liberty, and judicial remedies.
Judiciary as Guardian of Fundamental Rights
The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court of India, has been entrusted with the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution and safeguarding Fundamental Rights.
Through judicial review, courts examine:
- Constitutionality of laws
- Executive actions affecting rights
- Abuse or excess of state power
This function is critical to human rights protection, as it ensures that no authority operates beyond constitutional limits.
Judicial Intervention: Meaning and Significance
Judicial intervention refers to the active involvement of courts in correcting rights violations by the state or its agencies. Such intervention becomes necessary when:
- Administrative mechanisms fail
- Executive action is arbitrary or oppressive
- Marginalized groups lack access to political power
Judicial intervention in India has expanded the scope of rights related to life, liberty, dignity, and equality. Courts have stepped in to regulate prisons, police conduct, environmental protection, labour rights, and social welfare schemes.
From a human rights perspective, judicial intervention acts as a corrective mechanism within the constitutional system.
Judicial Activism and Human Rights
Judicial activism represents a more proactive judicial approach, where courts go beyond traditional adjudication to:
- Expand the meaning of rights
- Innovate new remedies
- Monitor implementation of court orders
Judicial activism in India is closely associated with the evolution of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which relaxed rules of locus standi and enabled individuals and groups to approach courts on behalf of those unable to do so themselves.
Through activism, courts have:
- Read socio-economic rights into the right to life
- Recognized rights to livelihood, health, education, and environment
- Humanized criminal justice and custodial law
This approach reflects the judiciary’s attempt to bridge the gap between formal rights and social reality.
Critiques and Limits of Judicial Activism
Despite its contributions, judicial activism has been subject to criticism:
- Allegations of judicial overreach into executive and legislative domains
- Lack of institutional capacity to enforce complex policy decisions
- Democratic concerns regarding unelected judges making policy choices
From a human rights standpoint, the challenge lies in maintaining a balance between judicial responsibility and democratic accountability. Courts can catalyze change, but sustained human rights protection requires administrative and political commitment.
Judicial Commissions and Human Rights
Judicial commissions play an important role in investigating serious human rights violations, particularly those involving:
- Custodial deaths and torture
- Communal violence
- Large-scale displacement and conflict
- Abuse of state power
These commissions are typically headed by sitting or retired judges and are tasked with fact-finding, accountability, and recommendations.
Role and Significance of Judicial Commissions
Judicial commissions serve several human rights functions:
- Establishing truth and documenting violations
- Giving voice to victims
- Recommending legal and institutional reforms
- Restoring public confidence in the justice system
Although their recommendations are usually advisory, their moral and evidentiary value is significant in shaping public discourse and policy responses.
Human Rights Institutions and Judicial Oversight
Judicial commissions often operate alongside statutory human rights bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission, which investigates violations, monitors detention facilities, and advises governments.
The judiciary frequently relies on reports and findings of such commissions, creating a complementary relationship between courts and human rights institutions.
Access to Justice and Judicial Creativity
One of the most important contributions of the Indian judiciary to human rights has been the expansion of access to justice. Measures such as:
- Legal aid
- PIL
- Relaxed procedural rules
have enabled courts to reach populations traditionally excluded from the legal system.
This judicial creativity reflects an understanding that procedural barriers can themselves become human rights violations.
Contemporary Challenges in the Administration of Justice
Despite judicial innovations, several challenges persist:
- Delay and backlog of cases
- Unequal access to legal resources
- Limited enforcement of judgments
- Overburdened courts
These challenges undermine the effectiveness of judicial intervention and raise concerns about justice being delayed or denied.
Administration of Justice, Democracy, and Human Rights
The administration of justice is a cornerstone of democratic governance. A judiciary that is independent, accessible, and rights-oriented strengthens:
- Rule of law
- Accountability of the state
- Public trust in institutions
Conversely, weak justice delivery systems erode human rights and democratic legitimacy.
Conclusion
The administration of justice, judicial intervention, judicial activism, and judicial commissions together form a vital architecture for human rights protection in India. Courts have played a transformative role in expanding the meaning of rights, holding the state accountable, and giving voice to marginalized groups.
At the same time, judicial mechanisms are not a substitute for effective governance. Sustainable human rights protection requires cooperation between the judiciary, executive, legislature, and civil society.
Ultimately, the Indian experience demonstrates that human rights flourish not merely through constitutional text, but through an active, responsive, and principled system of justice that remains committed to dignity, equality, and the rule of law.
References
- Austin, Granville. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation
- Baxi, Upendra. The Future of Human Rights
- Seervai, H.M. Constitutional Law of India
- Supreme Court of India Judgments on PIL and Human Rights
- National Human Rights Commission Reports
