The Evolving Role of the Judiciary in Safeguarding Minority Rights: A Historical and Comparative Analysis

Abstract

This article examines the dynamic evolution of judicial approaches to minority rights protection across democratic systems over the past century. Through comprehensive analysis of landmark cases, jurisprudential philosophies, and institutional developments, it argues that courts have progressively transformed from passive interpreters of law to active guardians of minority interests despite persistent theoretical and practical challenges. The research identifies four distinct phases in this evolution: formalistic equality (late 18th to early 20th century), substantive protection (mid-20th century), structural intervention (late 20th century), and dialogic constitutionalism (early 21st century to present). Each phase reflects broader sociopolitical changes and reconceptualizations of equality, justice, and the judicial role. While judicial intervention has significantly expanded minority protections, it continues to face countermajoritarian criticism, implementation gaps, and political backlash. Through comparative analysis of judicial approaches across North America, Europe, South Asia, and Africa, this article demonstrates that effective minority rights protection requires a delicate balance between judicial activism and restraint, contextualized within specific institutional frameworks and historical contexts. The findings suggest that future judicial approaches should emphasize both doctrinal development and institutional design that enhances judicial legitimacy while acknowledging the inherent limitations of court-centered minority protection strategies.