2017 · Q8b · Judicial activism (10 marks)

Source: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 2017.pdf, PDF page 1 · Answer allocation: 10 marks

Original examination question

Write substantive notes on any TWO of the following: (10 each) (a) Zero based budgeting (b) Judicial Activism (c) Social Policy

This page answers option/part (b). All options are supplied for revision; follow the paper’s choice instructions in the examination.

Bullet outline

• Distinguish activism from ordinary judicial review.
• Explain rights-protection arguments.
• Assess overreach, expertise and implementation concerns.
• Use Pakistan as a balanced institutional example.
• Support principled intervention and restraint.

Full exam-ready answer

Concept

Judicial activism describes an assertive judicial role in interpreting rights, reviewing public action or requiring institutional change. It is a contested label rather than a single legal doctrine. Judicial review is an established legal function; calling a decision activist requires explaining how its approach extends judicial involvement.

Justification

Active intervention may protect people who cannot obtain remedies through ordinary political or administrative channels. Courts can require authorities to fulfil legal duties, explain arbitrary decisions and respect fundamental rights. Where other institutions fail, this can make constitutional commitments meaningful.

In Pakistan, public-interest proceedings have brought attention to administrative failures and abuses. Their value should be assessed through legal reasoning and actual relief, rather than publicity alone.

Risks

Courts may lack the information and expertise required for detailed service management. Broad orders without feasible financing or clear responsibility can produce compliance on paper. Excessive intervention can weaken legislative and executive accountability by allowing elected institutions to shift difficult decisions to judges.

Due process also matters. Urgency should not remove adequate hearing, reliable evidence or clear jurisdiction. Judicial independence does not make judicial preferences a substitute for every lawful policy choice.

Conclusion

Judicial activism can strengthen accountability when it enforces rights and legal limits. It becomes problematic when it assumes routine administrative control without institutional competence. The appropriate balance is principled intervention, reasoned remedies and respect for the lawful responsibilities of other branches. Historical examples should be distinguished from the jurisdiction provided by the Constitution as subsequently amended.

Study note: This is an original model answer, not an official FPSC marking scheme. The outline is for revision; the prose below it provides the complete answer. Marks guide relative depth rather than a prescribed word count.