direction because of political reasons and
in this situation, an activist Court,
apolitical as it avowedly is, could get
into action and legislate broadly on the
lines as suggested by the petitioners in
theirwrittensubmissions.However,
laudable, desirable and attractive the
result may seem, it has happily been viewed
by our learned brother that an activist
court is not fully equipped to cope with
the details and intricacies of the
legislative subject and can at best advise
and focus attention on the State polity on
the problem and shake it from its slumber,
goading it to awaken, march and reach the
goal. for in whatever measure be the
concern of the court, it compulsively needs
to apply, somewhere and at sometime, brakes
to its self-motion, described in judicial
parlance as self restraint. We agree
therefore with brother K. Ramaswamy, J., as
summed up by him in the paragraph ending on
page 36 of his judgment that under the
circumstances it is not desirable to
declare the customs of tribal inhabitants
as offending Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the
Constitution and each case must be examined
when full facts are placed before the
Court.”
