1. WHAT IS JUDICIAL ACTIVISAM.

EXPLAIN THE JUDICAL ACTIVISM UNDER THE GVISE OF

JUDICIAL INTER PRETATION.
MEANING OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM MEANS JUDICIARY IS ACTIVE AND INTERFERING with the functions of other
organs of the constituion. The anxiety of the court is to find out an appropriate remedy to the
aggrevied party basing on the existing law or by formalating the new rule to settle the conflicting
questions in the event of lawlessnon or un certains laws.
ENGLAND: There are two courts:
1.equity courts.
2. common law courts.
JUDICIAL REVIEW:
It means the court has the power to see, whether the Act of each organ is with in its constitution
limits or not.
the judicial review is one of the bsic features of the constitutions as per the decisions of the SCin
kesavananda bhabati case.
PUBLIC INTREST LITIGATION:
According to PIL anymember of the public can approach the court for remedy to the public injury.
INTERPRETATION: If the words, phrases, expressions or clauses used in the statte or Act are clear,
no quation of the interpretation does or clauses used in the statates are not clear than questio of
interpretation does arise . the interpretation always advance the remedy and supress the mischief.
inrerpretation means to ascertain the true intersion of legislatyive with regard to meaning of the
words vsed in the statute. but the judiclary under the gise of interpretation making the laws or rules
or doctrines etc. this can be witnssed in the following cases.
M.C METHA Vs UOI (Absolute Liability
In this case, there was a leakage of olieum gas from sri rama foods and fertilizers at new delhi on
4th Dec.1985 as a results an advocate died and caused injury to several persons. the petitioner MC.
metha asenior most practising advocate in the SC filed a PIL before the SC under Act 32 of the
constitution. the SCcreated a new tort namely absolute libility . According to this tort, as a result of
running of dangerous activity if any injury caused to any person the employer is liable. His Liability
is absolute.
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ROTLAM Vs VARDHICHAND
In this case , ratlam muncipality of madya pradesh laid new road and constructed Nala in the
middle of the road. The entire Nala was not coverd, It was kept open at the road, where there were
slum dwellus and industries. The industrialist were discharging untreated trde cffiuents into Nala on
the othr hand. the slum dwellers treated the open Nala as thir own toilets as a results mosquitoes
were developed beyond control and caused health problems to residents of that area.
The residents gave a complint to sub-divisional magistrate uls 133 of cr.p.c1973. the subdivisional magistrate give directions to the municipality. Ultimately the case come before the SC.
The SC directed the municipality to cover the SC. The entire Nala and submit complaint reports to
the SC.
PUDR Vs UOI:
The petitioner in the petition stated that there was violation of various laws by the govt. The SC
read the constitutional law into law and held that non pament of minium wages amounts to violation
of Act 21 of the constitution.
CROWN ALUMINIUM WORKS VsTHEIR WORKMEN
The SC held that the employer to when the minimum wages Act applies is not allowed to run his
indistry with out paying minimum wages.
SARAL MUDGAL Vs UOI (Uniform Civil code)
In this case several petitions were involved first marrage was performed under indu law.

Husband converted into islam and got another marrage. The suprime court held that once the
marrage is solemonised under hindus law. It has to be dissolved onely under hindu law. There fore
secound marriage amounted to bigamy. Further the supreme court directed the then p.m narsinha
rao to bring a legislation on uniform civil code