The stage is all set for a contempt of court proceeding. On one hand we have the highest court of the country ruling that no more ‘bull fighting’ or Jallikatu is to take place in the Country and on the other we have the performers getting set to defy the ban and pressurising the State government to do its best to vacate the stay. CJI KG Balakrishnan remains adamant on the non removal of stay calling it a barbaric practice reminiscent of the stone age.

“The Supreme Court declining permission to allow the cruel event is wonderful,” said Maneka Gandhi, India’s best-known animal rights activist.

So when animal rights groups called this practice as barbaric, I’m not sure they had this situation in mind. More and more over the past few years we are seeing dissent over the rulings of the Supreme Court. Perhaps the ills and cries of judicial activism have gotten on the people too who are now feeling there’s too much interference by the judiciary in their lives. When law is made by the existing democratic machinery, the remedy for its non obeyance and irregularity rests in the Court and the hands of the electorate. But sadly, no such mechanism exists for judge made law and the only option of expressing dissent is contempt. This is not judicial activism in its strict sense but an instance of how the judiciary is playing an increasing role in our daily lives and the question that then arises is if it is right or wrong to do so?