After independence social and political developments in the country produced several conditions, many of which could be expected even at the time of Constitution making. Some significant ones are:

1. Dedifferentiation and lack of clear distinction between politics, administration and law

2. Weakening of state due to pressure from the top as well as bottom

3. Poor governance and widespread perjury and venality

4. Double standards in politics and administration

5. High degree of litigancy

In this environment judicial activism leads to some hope. However, judicial activism does not exist in vacuum. It is closely connected with the social environment. I can visualize two scenarios: one in which due to various movements, in which civil society action has to play an important role, there is a change in the value orientation of Indian people, establishing equality and justice as two cardinal values; and second in which there is no change in the value framework and more and more people rely on law, lawyers and judiciary for seeking justice. For various historical reasons most Indians suffer from lack of a social sensitivity and empathy. For us equality is a value in individual’s striving for success but not with regard to our relations with those who are less fortunate than us. If there is a strong movement for equality in all its ramifications then any institutional framework will work. I think this is too idle to expect to happen in the near future. The other scenario is that without a change in the value framework of India we keep a check on excesses of working state. Judicial activism appears as one possibility. In this scenario, to use a phrase from Nani Ardeshir Palkhivala (1994) we are looking for a backward constitution for a backward nation in which the judiciary is uneducated, slow, equally corrupt and unrepresentative.