This challenges the conventional understanding put forward by socio-legal scholars that it is “repeat players” in this case the government, PSU’s or big business which possess greater wealth, experience, and
rapport with the political groups, are more likely to influence judicial outcomes than “powerless groups. It also challenges a growing body of literature on the “neoliberal court” which suggests that the Supreme Court since mid 1990s has moved away from addressing questions of redistributive justice and has largely supported economic liberalization. Sahu notes an exception to the pattern in cases dealing with infrastructure projects such as the Tehri dam or the Narmada dam, where the courts are reluctant to interfere.