Would you agree with Chief Justice Ahmadi that an activist role has been thrust upon the judiciary?
There are two theories about the functioning of the judiciary. One believes in judicial restraint and the other in judicial activism. When a constitutional issue comes before the judge, he has to make a choice dictated by his social philosophy. There are some like me who believe that the judge has to invest the law with meaning and content to advance human rights jurisprudence. When the executive fails to discharge its constitutional or legal duties and the legislature does not act, the judiciary has to step in. Though the judiciary is not elected, it is accountable to the people and committed to justice. Is this increase in judicial activism a temporary phenomenon? Judicial activism started in the early ’80s when Justice Krishna Iyer and I delivered several judgements. It is not necessarily a temporary feature. But its intensity depends on the extent to which the executive or the legislature fail to perform its constitutional or legal duties. You used to convert postcards and letters
