Judicial activism a term frequently debated and occasionally contested, refers to the judiciary proactively interpreting and applying constitutional principles to address societal issues and perceived injustices, often going beyond a strict literal interpretation of the law. While the Constitution of India does not explicitly define or provide a specific framework for judicial activism, its inherent structure, particularly the provisions guaranteeing fundamental rights and the power of judicial review, lays the groundwork for this dynamic role of the judiciary.

The concept of judicial activism gained prominence in India in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a period marked by social unrest and a perceived inaction or inadequacy of the executive and legislative branches in addressing pressing public concerns. The judiciary, armed with the power of judicial review under Articles 13, 32, 226, and 142 of the Constitution, began to actively intervene in matters of public interest.

Article 32, guaranteeing the right to constitutional remedies, became a potent tool in the hands of the Supreme Court. Through the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the court opened its doors to individuals and organizations acting on behalf of marginalized groups and public causes. Landmark cases like S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), which liberalized the locus standi rule, paved the way for wider public participation in seeking judicial redressal.

The judiciary in its activist role, has expanded the interpretation of fundamental rights. The right to life under Article 21 has been broadened to include the right to a clean environment (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Oleum Gas Leak case), the right to livelihood (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation), the right to education (Unni Krishnan J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh), and the right to privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India). These interpretations, often driven by the judiciary's concern for social justice and human dignity, exemplify judicial activism in expanding the scope of fundamental rights beyond their literal textual meaning.

Article 142, granting the Supreme Court the power to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, has also been instrumental in judicial activism. The Court has utilized this article to issue directions and formulate guidelines in various areas where legislative or executive action was deemed insufficient, such as environmental protection, sexual harassment at the workplace (Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan), and road safety.

However, judicial activism is not without its critics. Concerns are often raised about the judiciary overstepping its constitutional boundaries and encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and the executive, thus potentially disrupting the separation of powers. The argument of "judicial overreach" suggests that excessive activism can lead to policy-making by the judiciary, which is not its elected mandate.

Despite these criticisms, proponents of judicial activism argue that it plays a crucial role in ensuring accountability, protecting fundamental rights, and addressing societal injustices, especially when other branches of the government fail to do so. They emphasize that the Constitution, as a living document, requires dynamic interpretation to remain relevant to the evolving needs of society.

In conclusion while the Constitution of India does not explicitly provide for judicial activism, its provisions for fundamental rights and judicial review inherently empower the judiciary to play a proactive role in safeguarding constitutional values and ensuring justice. Landmark cases demonstrate the judiciary's willingness to go beyond a literal interpretation of the law to address pressing social issues. The ongoing debate surrounding judicial activism highlights the delicate balance between the judiciary's role as the guardian of the Constitution and the imperative of respecting the separation of powers within a democratic framework. The key lies in ensuring that judicial activism remains within the broad contours of the Constitution, driven by the pursuit of justice and the upholding of fundamental rights, without transgressing into the exclusive domains of the other branches of the state.