In the hawala case, for instance, we introduced a phrase that has now gained common currency — ‘continuing mandamus’. In this we ask the statutory authority, say the CBI, to report the progress of its investigations to us on a continuing basis to ensure that it is doing its duty. We never stepped beyond that line.

If the court starts doing a job not supposed to be its, then, other than the problem of lack of expertise, it leaves the aggrieved party no forum to ventilate grievances. So the answer to your question is: whenever courts take over the function of other bodies or experts, it amounts to overreach; when they adjudicate a legal issue and the decision has a juristic basis, it is legitimate judicial activism and is justified.

• VARGHESE K. GEORGE: What happens in case of judicial failure?

It is true that there are a lot of cases pending in courts. Some former Chief Justices of India had said the “system has collapsed”. Well, I did not think so. I always had faith in the system. In the early 1990s there were more than 1 lakh cases pending in the Supreme Court. With a systematic approach and through concerted efforts of all, with hearings that continued till late in the evening, we were able to reduce these to manageable levels of less than a year’s backlog. This has been achieved through clubbing of similar cases and other measures. Just increasing the number of judges to solve this issue can be counterproductive. Because increasing the number of judges all at once is bound to compromise on quality.

... contd.