ROLE IN CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION VARIOUS THEORIES OF JUDICIAL ROLE

Constitutional adjudication represents one of the most significant functions of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy. Courts
play a vital role in interpreting constitutional provisions, safeguarding fundamental rights, and ensuring that the actions of the
legislature and executive remain within constitutional limits. Over time, several theories have emerged to explain the judicial role
in constitutional adjudication, reflecting different philosophies of constitutional interpretation. This paper examines major theories
such as judicial restraint, judicial activism, originalism, and the living constitution approach, which influence how judges interpret
and apply constitutional principles. Each theory offers a distinct perspective on the scope of judicial power and the extent to which
courts should intervene in matters of public policy and governance. The study analyses the relevance of these theories in shaping
constitutional jurisprudence and highlights their role in balancing democratic governance with the protection of constitutional
values. By examining doctrinal developments and significant judicial interpretations, the paper explores how courts contribute to
the evolution of constitutional law. The study concludes that a balanced judicial approach is essential to maintain constitutional
supremacy, protect individual rights, and uphold the rule of law in a democratic society.
Keywords
Constitutional Adjudication, Judicial Activism, Judicial Restraint, Originalism, Living Constitution, Judicial Review.