There is a very thin difference between judicial activism and judicial interference and it is perhaps unfortunate that our judiciary is moving towards the latter (“ >SC questions U-turn by Centre ”, May 6). Debating laws and their legislation is the duty of the legislature, and the judiciary is required to confirm their validity with the Constitution. I feel that by getting the judiciary to decide the validity of a law which talks about their appointments, vested interests are bound to raise their voices.
Tej Kankaria,
Chennai
Differences between the judiciary and executive are unavoidable, and even necessary as it ensures that in the friction, some checks and balances are introduced. Hence, no wing should have the status of unquestionable primacy. I feel the argument put forward by Justice J.S. Khehar, almost implying that the government changes its position everyday is not befitting to the judicial community as a whole. The very fact that he is referring to a stand taken by a Government 22 years ago does raise eyebrows.
R. Khasa,
Rohtak, Haryana
