There is something called “Judicial Activism”, a certain proactivity which admits that a law may be “constitutional” and yet “bad” or out of sync with the realities of the people.
Our Parliament have made laws which were more “political” in nature, to safeguard a certain political interest even if out if sync with human rights or international best standards. Judicial Activism comes in handy here.
Thus, the Judiciary does not just interpret the law but examines how that law conforms to a country’s obligations and commitments under international law, best practices from other jurisdictions and how such a law enlarges freedoms and rights. The Judiciary is citizens’ last bastion of hope and security and their best bet for the greater enlargement of freedom and rights. Judicial Activism helps….
The Public Order Act or its challenged provisions may be “Constitutional’, the Lord’s say it is. But is it a ‘good” piece of law, one necessary in a democracy, in line with our commitments, enlarging our rights and freedoms? The Lords were tasked with its interpretations and they argued it is Constitutional.
Judicial Activism may have helped to put the search light on the contested law, if it was actually in the best interest of human rights and necessary in a democracy.
