Judicial activism

The superior judiciary has been, lately, showing a lot of judicial activism. There are two opinions about it amongst the jurists. Its apologists say that as long as there is a lack of good governance in the country the common man would continue to knock the door of the superior courts for redressal of his grievances. Since there has been an abysmal failure of other state institutions to deliver, the common man was left with no option but to have a recourse to move the courts for solution of his day -to- day problems.
In stark contrast to the afore-mentioned view point, the detractors of judicial activism maintain that it isn’t the job of the judges to meddle into the domain of other state organs and they had better keep themselves aloof from them. They go to the extent of suggesting that the judges should speak only through their written verdicts and they had better refrain from entering into unnecessary dialogue with the defence counsels during the course of proceedings of under trial criminal , civil and political cases in the court rooms because by doing so they advertently or inadvertently speak out their mind in the process which sends wrong signals to the parties locked in disputes before them about their partiality.
Both the above-mentioned view points are quite weighty in their own place.
The judicial activism reached its zenith during the stint of the outgoing CJP, Mr justice Nisar Saqib during the past couple of years. The reason for it was the failure of the executive, the police and many other state institutions to come up to the expectations of the people and solve their problems timely and effectively. Indications are that his successor too would follow the suit.