I have two question..
1) Recently the HC of J & K mentioned that the pracitcality and implementation of beef ban is under the purview of state government. As per my thoughts, HC has to decide the validity of the law on this beef ban, that is the job of HC. i feel it cannot transfer the implementation aspects to Jammu and Kasmir govt. if the law is there government has either to implement the law or abrogate the law. the implementation aspect cannot be decided by the government. it is the responsiblity of the state to implement the law,rather than narrowing the concept to the hands of government.government come and go. but state remains the same. the validity and implementation aspect should be having only exclusive to courts,it cannot be given to anybody.
2) Judicial adventurism and judicial activism are two different things in fact opposite things. judicial adventurism is negitive way that courts intervene on a matter that is not supposed to intervene and gives wrong judgment.
judicial activism is positive way that
a)it intervenes and considering one case and giving the directions to executive in broad aspects.(for example suggesting that uniform civil code implementation by court n number of times)
b) suo moto cases.
Please clarify on my thoughts if there any wrong or enhancement to get more knowledge on this.