Judicial Activism

Judicial Activism
Active Judiciary, passive executive

In normal circumstances, judicial activism should not be encouraged. But the circumstances are not normal. The political system is in a mess. In several areas, there is a situation to administrative paralysis.

Take the recent Hawala case, which is a good example of judicial activism. What transpired in this case is very instructive.

In this case the prime minister's name was also involved, and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is under the direct charge of the prime minister. And therefore, most of the parties involved were not interested in expediting the investigation.

So should the Supreme Court ask for another investigative agency to intervene? There is no good investigative agency other than the CBI.

So, the CBI had to be insulated from government pressures. One way of doing that was by demanding the resignation of the prime minister. This was not a plausible option.

A special prosecutor had to be set up who could assist the investigative agency. But where do you get such a investigator who could remain above any government pressure?

So, the Supreme Court took the practical decision of monitoring the investigation of the CBI.

However, judicial activism is not a permanent solution.

It can only work as a threat if nothing if nothing else works. However, even with regard to judicial activism, there should be a sense of practicability.

Wherever a decision involves detailed and practical knowledge, which is outside the normal comprehension of the judge, the court should restrain from commenting on that area.

For instance, the Supreme Court ordered the municipality to collect garbage. However, I don't know how the judiciary can enforce the implementation of such an order. After the judge passed the order, it was found