Starting from inventing the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy. In light of the statement, evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy.

Judicial activism — the judiciary's assertive use of review and interpretation to protect the Constitution and expand rights — has been central to India's democratic deepening, beginning with the invention of the basic structure doctrine in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

Role in Achieving Democratic Ideals

• Guarding constitutionalism: the doctrine saved democracy from majoritarian amendment — Indira Nehru Gandhi (1975), Minerva Mills (1980), and later the NJAC verdict (2015) protecting judicial independence.
• Democratising access: Public Interest Litigation relaxed locus standi, bringing undertrials (Hussainara Khatoon), bonded labourers (Bandhua Mukti Morcha) and the voiceless before the court.
• Expanding liberty: Maneka Gandhi (1978) read due process into Article 21, seeding rights to dignity, livelihood and a clean environment (the M.C. Mehta line of cases).
• Cleansing elections: candidate disclosure (ADR, 2002), instant disqualification of convicted legislators (Lily Thomas, 2013) and the NOTA option (2013).
• Enforcing accountability: cancellation of 2G licences (2012) and coal block allocations (2014); Vishaka guidelines (1997) filled a legislative vacuum on workplace sexual harassment.

Evaluation

• Activism corrected executive and legislative failure, but carries costs: judicial legislation without accountability, entry into policy domains against separation of powers, selectivity, and neglect of the judiciary's own pendency crisis.
• The line between activism and overreach must be drawn by judicial self-restraint, since no external check exists.

On balance, judicial activism has converted formal democracy into substantive democracy — provided it remains the exception that corrects, not the norm that governs.