• COOMI KAPOOR: When does judicial activism turn into judicial overreach? Could you give us some concrete examples?

Well, the rule of law is the bedrock of democracy. If someone comes to me and says he is not getting his due because some authority, or person in power, is not doing his job as required by law, I, too, as a judge, cannot throw up my hands and say, ‘I can’t do anything.’ That would be a negation of the rule of law, and people would tend to resort to extralegal remedies, leading to anarchy. So the judiciary does need to step in to mandate performance of duty by an authority. But it should do so responsibly, without taking over that job itself. The problem is not with activism; the problem is when judicial intervention becomes overreach.

• COOMI KAPOOR: But in Delhi, the Supreme Court decides which buildings will be demolished, where the monkeys will go, what fuel should be used, and a host of such things. In your opinion, is that activism or overreach?

I will give you a few examples. When it was clear that the environment was being degraded, or when a petition demanded a ban on certain drugs said to be harmful, we followed the principle that it was important to compel the statutory bodies that were set up do those jobs to do them. If they weren’t doing what they should be doing, our job was to somehow make sure they did — by monitoring their functioning, not by taking over their functions.

... contd.