The Supreme Court's latest ruling barring liquor shops, pubs, bars within 500 meters of National Highways has brought to the fore the question of whether the Judiciary is overreaching its ambit. In March this year the Court had refused to intervene in the Ayodhya dispute case suggesting amicable solution between the two warring factions. While there are a considerable number of cases where the Judiciary's intervention has been sought and lauded there are some cases where its intervention has been questioned - most notably the day-to-day running of BCCI. Critics argue that when the Courts are clogged with thousands of cases it is a futile exercise on the part of the Judiciary to spent time administering the functions of our apex cricket body. However, activists are in favour of the Court's intervention vis-a-vis subversion of fundamental rights - like access to food, healthcare, issues farm distress. Therefore we ask are the Judicial interventions due to under reach & failure on the part of the executive? Are we seeing a more pro-active role on the part of the Judiciary?
