Without claiming it to be a universal generalisation, I need to begin this foreword by referring to the Indian ambivalence towards the rule of law. At one end, we encounter a dismissive cynicism on the power of the law and how it is no more than a plaything of the powerful, on the other a legal solution is sought for every social problem. In fact, only when a legal solution is attempted, it is believed that a problem is being accorded serious consideration. On similar rationale, the conversion of every moral right into a legal entitlement is viewed as an inevitable course of action, if the realisation of a right is honestly intended. That such conversion may itself impede the realisation is a consequence that is not accorded much attention. Even though the failure of legal implementation is the most common lament that one encounters in both legal and non-legal circles, the concomitant question of whether the law was made taking the implementation travails into account is rarely, if ever, asked. This, despite the fact that it is obvious that for laws to be implemented they should be made in implementable form, and strategies should be evolved to deal with expected and unexpected obstacles. What is encountered, however, is a naïve belief that just the enactment of a law would result in its implementation because legal norms carry within them the threat of force. Hence, once enacted they would become the prevailing norm because they can be enforced.

It is this belief which prompts the move to seek juridification of socio-economic rights. Such juridification, it is believed, would give the hapless a redress forum when the government fails to fulfil its duties. The Courts, it is believed, would make the government act in accordance with the law. In drawing this connection, what is often missed is that, as a rule, Courts are not self-activating: they have to be moved by aggrieved persons. The process of activation requires resources of time, money and expertise. This resource is often not possessed by people for whom the juridification of socio-economic rights is being obtained. The provision of a judicial remedy, without more, does not improve the chances of actual realisation if the government chooses to be recalcitrant. Further, activating justiciability is not restricted to the beneficiary of the right.