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?