NO matter how good or benign its intentions, the Supreme Court cannot always produce solutions to knotty problems, particularly those requiring executive expertise and handling. Lack of relevant inputs at times hampers understanding of a situation, more so, if it is Kashmir. On Friday a Supreme Court Bench headed by Chief Justice JS Khehar could not resist the temptation to try a Kashmir solution even if it meant venturing beyond the judicial Lakshman Rekha. The Bench told the petitioner — the J&K Bar Association — that it could direct the suspension of the use of pellet guns by the security forces in the Valley for two weeks if an assurance was given that there would be no violence and stone-throwing. No political or other grouping at the moment wields such influence in Kashmir as to end street protests or violence. None of the stakeholders are interested in talks. Even well-meaning, neutral interlocutors’ efforts have born no fruit. Rejecting the J&K lawyers’ demand for “unconditional talks” with the jailed Hurriyat leaders, Attorney-General Mukul Rohtagi said, and rightly so, that “it was not for the court to commence a dialogue, but for the political parties.” Not just to the court, the A-G’s response, reflecting in part the Centre’s Kashmir policy, was also a rebuff to Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, who had after a meeting with the PM sought a Vajpayee-like intervention and resumption of talks with the separatists.  The Supreme Court’s well-intended peace efforts are a misplaced foray. It is time to recall and remind ourselves what the then Chief Justice, TS Thakur, had observed just a year ago. Dismissing on July 25, 2016, a petition seeking the apex court’s direction for introducing moral education in schools, the Thakur Bench observed: “It is unrealistic for the court to assume that it can provide solutions to vexed issues which involve drawing balances between conflicting dimensions that travel beyond the legal plane. Courts are concerned with issues of constitutionality and legality… Every good that is perceived to be in the interest of society cannot be mandated by the court. Nor is the judicial process an answer to every social ill….” Judicial overreach is not always helpful or welcome.