Well, that is how Justice M.Katju’s observations on judicial activism must be known as. Today, the Times of India has carried Soli Sorabjee’s response to Justice Katju’s observation on April 21 that the Executive could ignore the Court’s directions, if they are illegal. The Times of India’s account of the hearing of the case on April 21 is being linked for addition to our discussion on PILs and Judicial activism. The HT's report giving the details of the case is here.
The TOI report says: "Sorabjee agrees with Justice Katju that the courts should exercise restraint while dealing with PILs questioning the validity or legality of executive's decisions on fiscal and policy matters. But how could the executive be bestowed with the power to decide which of the court orders were null and void and which of them were within the parameters drawn by the Constitution, the former AG wondered."
"Judicial restraint in fiscal and policy matters may be desirable, but permitting the executive to decide whether a court order is beyond its jurisdiction and to treat it as null and void — a ground for disobeying it — is tantamount to subversion of rule of law and independence of judiciary," Sorabjee said.