In the context of persistent legislative dysfunction in India, analyze the evolving role of judicial activism in shaping public policy and governance. Using examples from landmark court cases, evaluate the effectiveness of judicial interventions in addressing governance gaps and safeguarding pluralism.

Judicial activism refers to the activity of the judiciary to promulgate laws deliver judgement that has the effect of low of the legislature.

Persistent legislative dysfunction has been due to:

i) Low use of parliamentary committees to make laws - decline quality of bills and escape scrutiny.

ii) Populist policies of the state undermining the principles of constitution.

iii) Lack of progressive legislation by the government.

iv) Inactivity due to fear of protests and vote bank.

Judiciary through its various judgements has shaped public policy and governance

i) Right to food as part of Right to life (A21) - PUCL vs Union of India case.

ii) Right to speedy justice - Hussainara Khatoon case.

iii) Police reforms - Prakash Singh Judgment

iv) Prevention of sexual Harassment guidelines - Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan

v) Right to clean environment (A14 and A21) - Ranjit sick vere (Great Indian Bustard case)

vi) Subcategorisation of SCs and STs allowed overturning judgement in Chenaich case

Effectiveness of judicial intervention

The judiciary must also ensure restraint on its part to allow legislature to prevent any unintended consequences of the judgement.

HC judgement allowing ST status to Manipur Nantis led to large scale ethnic clashes in the Manipur state.

Judicial restraint as seen in Subnig case where supreme court left it on the central government to decide on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Judicial activism is necessary to nudge the government to act. However it should not turn into adventurism and maintaining a restraint is necessary.