A STUDY ON THE CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL RESTRAINT

Abstract

Judicial restraint is a foundational principle that guides constitutional adjudication by emphasizing judicial self-control and respect for the separation of powers. It reflects the idea that courts should avoid encroaching upon the domain of the legislature and executive unless such intervention is necessary to uphold constitutional mandates. This concept assumes particular importance in democratic systems where unelected judges exercise the power of judicial review over elected institutions. Judicial restraint does not signify judicial inaction; rather, it represents a conscious limitation on judicial authority, exercised to preserve institutional balance and democratic legitimacy. The doctrine encourages courts to interpret laws as enacted, defer to legislative intent, and refrain from policy-making under the guise of constitutional interpretation. In India, judicial restraint has evolved alongside judicial activism, often functioning as its counterbalance. While activism seeks to expand the scope of rights and remedies, restraint aims to maintain constitutional boundaries. This article examines the conceptual framework of judicial restraint, its theoretical underpinnings, and its relevance in contemporary constitutional jurisprudence. By analysing its role in maintaining harmony among the branches of government, the study highlights judicial restraint as an essential mechanism for sustaining constitutional democracy and preventing judicial overreach.