"Judges now seem to engage themselves with boundless enthusiasm in complex socio-economic issues raising myriads of factual details and ideological issues that cannot be adjudicated by judicially manageable standards," Justice Srikrishna said, speaking on 'Judicial activism' at the 18th Lalit Doshi Memorial Lecture here.
In the recent times, India has witnessed a disturbing trend of using the judiciary to "second guess" unambiguously legislative or executive powers, he said.
"Indeed, our judges have succumbed to the temptation to interfere even with well-recognised executive powers such as treaty-making or foreign relations," Srikrishna said.
A Delhi High Court judgement in 2002 made a treaty signed with a sovereign foreign state virtually inoperable by striking down an administrative order connected with it, on the ground that the Court did not like the policy being effectuated by it, the former SC judge said.
"Judicial assays into the realm of executive policies seem to have become the norm of the day...One shudders to think whether, for example, the constitutionality of a declaration of war, or peace treaty signed by India could also be questioned in a court of law?"
If the courts were to strike down the peace treaty as being "unconstitutional", would the armed forces be compelled to prosecute the war under a judicial mandamus, he asked.
Activist judges have often ignored or sidestepped binding legal precedents to arrive at preconceived results which conform to their conception of justice. However honest and bonafide this exercise may be, its legal legitimacy is open to question, he said. (More)