<p>Former judge of the Supreme Court Justice R V Raveendran on Thursday suggested that the hearing of PIL petitions be assigned to Constitution bench in apex court and full benches in high courts.</p>.<p>“This will have the effect of preventing all sundry cases being entertained in the name of PILs,” he said.</p>.'Stringent standard required for police force,' SC rejects man's plea on ground of acquittal.<p>Justice Raveendran was delivering the S G Sundaraswamy Centenary Memorial Lecture on “Judicial activism and separation of power under the Constitution.”</p>.<p>“Experience shows staying within limits of judicial activism and not crossing the line to judicial overreach is easier said than done,” he said. </p>.<p>He referred to the Vishaka decision by apex court, guidelines to combat sexual harassment at workplace, and said the decision was one of the most significant of activist decisions. He said while the decision was lauded for taking a proactive, bold and necessary step. But critics found this to be a textbook case of judicial overreach, infringing upon role of legislature, he said. </p>.<p>Justice Raveendran called for a conscious effort to ensure judicial activism does not result in straying into areas falling within the domain of the legislature and the executive. </p>
<p>Former judge of the Supreme Court Justice R V Raveendran on Thursday suggested that the hearing of PIL petitions be assigned to Constitution bench in apex court and full benches in high courts.</p>.<p>“This will have the effect of preventing all sundry cases being entertained in the name of PILs,” he said.</p>.'Stringent standard required for police force,' SC rejects man's plea on ground of acquittal.<p>Justice Raveendran was delivering the S G Sundaraswamy Centenary Memorial Lecture on “Judicial activism and separation of power under the Constitution.”</p>.<p>“Experience shows staying within limits of judicial activism and not crossing the line to judicial overreach is easier said than done,” he said. </p>.<p>He referred to the Vishaka decision by apex court, guidelines to combat sexual harassment at workplace, and said the decision was one of the most significant of activist decisions. He said while the decision was lauded for taking a proactive, bold and necessary step. But critics found this to be a textbook case of judicial overreach, infringing upon role of legislature, he said. </p>.<p>Justice Raveendran called for a conscious effort to ensure judicial activism does not result in straying into areas falling within the domain of the legislature and the executive. </p>