This concept of judicial review came from the Constitution of India - (Article 13). The power of judicial review is developed to protect and enforce fundamental rights assented to in Part III of the Constitution. Judicial activism plays a more active role by the judiciary to deliver social justice.
Through judicial activism, the laws made by the legislature as well as the executive's actions are examined and amendments are suggested to make them more consistent with the constitutional. In India, judicial activism was established through the introduction of public interest litigation. In matters of great public interest within the limits of expertise and powers, the judiciary has decided the cases by self-knowledge or public interest litigation.
The difference between judicial activism and judicial overreach is very narrow. In simple terms, when judicial activism crosses its boundaries and becomes judicial adventurism it is known as judicial overreach. When the judiciary abdicates the powers given to it, it can interfere with the proper functioning of the legislative or executive organs of the government.
Judicial review means making decisions about conformity with the constitution of a law and act. On the other hand, judicial activism is concerned with a behavioral concept of a judge. It is mainly based on public interest, speedy disposal of cases etc. With the power of judicial review, courts act as protectors of fundamental rights. Thus, the power of judicial review is recognized as part of the basic constitution of India.
Judicial activism helps to make democracy even stronger. In its absence, democracy is not truly democracy. In addition, judicial activism takes into account the ideals of democracy.