The news item is undoubtedly aimed at judges, in whatever mesh of words it is expressed, particularly when it fountains from a leading Supreme Court lawyer like Indiara Jaisingh. There is a lot that can be said on this subject in which the parties involved are more than limited to judiciary. Does one expect the role of SC limited to judicial interpretation without human touch, where a common man is involved ? And which is the matter of Parliament where a common man is not involved ? Should this country be left to law framing masses enjoying powers out of a constitution that was made over 60 years earlier and the class of people framing them were of entirely a different class that could even not dream of a class that is prevailing in present parliament ? It is uncomfortable for those who are effected by such interpretations and have invented "judicial activism". Did it never exist in earlier judgements of SC ? Only thing is the dilution of Parliamentary ethics of conduct and more intolerance, that has led to more "judicial activism". Obviously only those err who act, not those who preach. Such error may be reviewed but it absolutely tangential shoot-out to say that "judicial activism" is not desirable, particularly whien the law-makers have made their own castles of existence on roads and elsewhere and even advocate protection to law-breakers if they are MPs.
