Stare decisis.

There is a lot of hue and cry amongst politicians and and segments of legal fraternity over the trangression of powers by Judges who are seen as usurpers of legislative powers when they lay down the law when called upon to decide Public interest petitions or simply on the cases before them.

An good example of judicial law is Vishaka case.In this case the judges enumerated what constituted molestation of women in work place and laid down the guide lines towards their decent and respectable treatment in such places.This decision an landmark one ,was circulated in all offices. The judges came to the protection of women since there was no law to do so.

There is a raging debate that those who file these PIL's may actually have an inner agenda,to deride a party or govt in power and that it is not up to mark.

The important thing to remember is that Judges deciding them have no such agenda.They are not going to stand in elections or aspire for the Bharat ratna[[has a judge ever got one?]. They are just being human.

If the state fails to act or enact laws on issues staring at its face and it is brought to the precincts of justices what is wrong if men with impeccable credentials, with no bias or favour are stirred to alleviate the miseries of people knocking on their doors?

Judicial activism is nothing but a reflection of, humane nature . To extend help when it is not forth coming from other quarters.

Is it wrong to be human?