Judicial Activism

A two member bench of the Indian Supreme Court mentioned that Judges should have self restraint and should not encroach on the executive and the legislature. Is Judicial activism unconstitutional? If the legislature fails to have a vision, is that constitutional? If the executive branch of the government stands by such a decision and does not kick start a momentum to foresee, is that constitutional?

A smaller bench has to abide by the decision of a larger bench and if they upset or overturn a judicial precedent, is that constitutional? A judge is called an "activist" based on his or her interpretation of the law or based on the legal remedy chosen.

According to our constitution, impeachment is the last resort for judicial mis-conduct. The legislature has not impeached those judges who determined the Jagadambika pal case or the Jharkhand Assembly case, because a conscious mind knows that given the situation it is the "right-thing-to-do". If such a decision enables a court to make a most effective contribution to the government, how can it be termed a judicial aberration or simply put "unconstitutional"?

If all the three organs of the government fail to appreciate and understand, I am not sure how the notion "broad separation of powers" and a "delicate constitutional balance" can co-exist. The broad separation of powers work well only within the network of like minded people. An "activist" judge exists because there exists an inactive legislature and/or an inactive executive branch of the government.

Who is the best of the two evils, an "activist" judge or an "inactivist" member of the parliament?

What happens in Malaysia, should stay in Malaysia

Tamilnadu's politicians are bothered about what is happening to minorities in Malaysia. News media pours petrol over the issue. The Indian Prime Minister has taken an unprecedented step and commented on a rally taken out by Malaysian citizens. Malaysian police used batons, tear gas and water canon to stop the rally. The police in India would be doing the same if that happened in India.

Where was the PM when "real" Indian citizens were kidnapped by the Taliban and beheaded? What was the PM doing when an adivasi woman in guwahati was stripped naked and beaten last week? What is he doing for the villagers of Nandigram? What has he done for those who live in camps in Gujarat? Such are few events among a very long list and don't get me started to list'em all now.

What was the PM thinking when he spoke about the Malaysian rally? Who is he to talk about what Malaysian government does to its citizens? And why didn't he comment on a previous rally in Malaysia for electoral reforms? And what would he do if other governments talk about Nandigram and Godhra? Why isn't he talking "more" on the 123 deal? And even here, don't get me started .

One and the only reason I can think of is that he is under immense pressure from the south.