CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Tests  >  Legal Reasoning for CLAT  >  Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - CLAT MCQ Download as PDF

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - CLAT MCQ


Test Description

33 Questions MCQ Test Legal Reasoning for CLAT - Test: Legal Reasoning - 3

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 for CLAT 2024 is part of Legal Reasoning for CLAT preparation. The Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 questions and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus.The Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 MCQs are made for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 below.
Solutions of Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 questions in English are available as part of our Legal Reasoning for CLAT for CLAT & Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 solutions in Hindi for Legal Reasoning for CLAT course. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free. Attempt Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 | 33 questions in 25 minutes | Mock test for CLAT preparation | Free important questions MCQ to study Legal Reasoning for CLAT for CLAT Exam | Download free PDF with solutions
1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you? Download the App
Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 1

Passage - 1

Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are, in the absence of specific constitutional provisions, mainly enforceable against "the State". The definition of 'the State' in article 12 being an "inclusive" one, courts have ruled that where there is pervasive or predominant governmental control or significant involvement in its activity, such bodies, entities and organizations fall within the definition of "the State".
Article 14 is one of the most important Articles of the Indian constitution and it is also regarded as part of the golden triangle of the Constitution along with Article 19 and 21 .In India, this right is very important because there has been a widespread socio-economic difference which has been in existence from a long time. People have been discriminated on the basis of their gender or the religion they follow, therefore Article 14 was included in the Constitution to remove such inequalities and bring all the people under the equal protection of the law. Another important point about this Article is that it not only imposes a duty on the State to abstain from discriminating people but it also puts a positive duty to
take such action by which the inequalities can be bridged between the people. Article 19(1)(a) refers to "freedom of speech and expression". Article 21 refers to right to life.

Following Constitutional principles are need to be taken into perspective while dealing with questions:
1. Fundamental rights shall be made applicable only to the legislative or administrative actions of the state and not the private actions.
2. The State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
3. State means Parliament of India, State Legislatures, Government of India, State Governments and local authorities wherein the Government exercises voting right or right to appoint the management committee.
4. State shall provide and ensure fundamental right to free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years.
5. State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of sex, religion and place of birth.
6. Fundamental right of equality before the law means treating equals equally and unequal's unequally.
7. Any law or administrative action of the state which takes away or abridges fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen, to the extent of contravention, shall be void.
8. Kavita Madhukar, daughter of famous freedom fighter Late Raghu Madhukar, runs a chain of private unaided schools in the State of Madhya Bharat. Madhukar Vidyalaya introduces a new compulsory subject in the curriculum named 'Sex Education and Maternity Care' for all the girls above the age of 11 years. Child rights activist, Veena Dave challenges the new curriculum as violative of fundamental right of compulsory education and discriminates on basis of sex. 

Q. Decide which of the following statements can most reasonably be inferred by application of the above mentioned principles?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 1

The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation. You will have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of the case and evaluate the answer choices. Correct Answer is (d)
Aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that issue of unequal treatment in law and gender based discrimination cannot be raised as Madhukar Vidyalaya is a private unaided chain of schools. Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 2

Passage - 1

Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are, in the absence of specific constitutional provisions, mainly enforceable against "the State". The definition of 'the State' in article 12 being an "inclusive" one, courts have ruled that where there is pervasive or predominant governmental control or significant involvement in its activity, such bodies, entities and organizations fall within the definition of "the State".
Article 14 is one of the most important Articles of the Indian constitution and it is also regarded as part of the golden triangle of the Constitution along with Article 19 and 21 .In India, this right is very important because there has been a widespread socio-economic difference which has been in existence from a long time. People have been discriminated on the basis of their gender or the religion they follow, therefore Article 14 was included in the Constitution to remove such inequalities and bring all the people under the equal protection of the law. Another important point about this Article is that it not only imposes a duty on the State to abstain from discriminating people but it also puts a positive duty to
take such action by which the inequalities can be bridged between the people. Article 19(1)(a) refers to "freedom of speech and expression". Article 21 refers to right to life.

Following Constitutional principles are need to be taken into perspective while dealing with questions:
1. Fundamental rights shall be made applicable only to the legislative or administrative actions of the state and not the private actions.
2. The State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
3. State means Parliament of India, State Legislatures, Government of India, State Governments and local authorities wherein the Government exercises voting right or right to appoint the management committee.
4. State shall provide and ensure fundamental right to free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years.
5. State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of sex, religion and place of birth.
6. Fundamental right of equality before the law means treating equals equally and unequal's unequally.
7. Any law or administrative action of the state which takes away or abridges fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen, to the extent of contravention, shall be void.
8. Kavita Madhukar, daughter of famous freedom fighter Late Raghu Madhukar, runs a chain of private unaided schools in the State of Madhya Bharat. Madhukar Vidyalaya introduces a new compulsory subject in the curriculum named 'Sex Education and Maternity Care' for all the girls above the age of 11 years. Child rights activist, Veena Dave challenges the new curriculum as violative of fundamental right of compulsory education and discriminates on basis of sex. 

Q. If the legislature of Madhya Bharat introduces a similar change in curriculum of all the government schools, whether the same can be challenged to be in violation of fundamental right to free and compulsory education?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 2

The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation. You will have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of the case and evaluate the answer choices. Correct Answer is (d)
Fundamental Right of free and compulsory education does not encompass the right to have education of a particular subject. If at all the new curriculum by state can be challenged, it could be only as violation of equality before law.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 3

Passage - 1

Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are, in the absence of specific constitutional provisions, mainly enforceable against "the State". The definition of 'the State' in article 12 being an "inclusive" one, courts have ruled that where there is pervasive or predominant governmental control or significant involvement in its activity, such bodies, entities and organizations fall within the definition of "the State".
Article 14 is one of the most important Articles of the Indian constitution and it is also regarded as part of the golden triangle of the Constitution along with Article 19 and 21 .In India, this right is very important because there has been a widespread socio-economic difference which has been in existence from a long time. People have been discriminated on the basis of their gender or the religion they follow, therefore Article 14 was included in the Constitution to remove such inequalities and bring all the people under the equal protection of the law. Another important point about this Article is that it not only imposes a duty on the State to abstain from discriminating people but it also puts a positive duty to
take such action by which the inequalities can be bridged between the people. Article 19(1)(a) refers to "freedom of speech and expression". Article 21 refers to right to life.

Following Constitutional principles are need to be taken into perspective while dealing with questions:
1. Fundamental rights shall be made applicable only to the legislative or administrative actions of the state and not the private actions.
2. The State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
3. State means Parliament of India, State Legislatures, Government of India, State Governments and local authorities wherein the Government exercises voting right or right to appoint the management committee.
4. State shall provide and ensure fundamental right to free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years.
5. State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of sex, religion and place of birth.
6. Fundamental right of equality before the law means treating equals equally and unequal's unequally.
7. Any law or administrative action of the state which takes away or abridges fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen, to the extent of contravention, shall be void.
8. Kavita Madhukar, daughter of famous freedom fighter Late Raghu Madhukar, runs a chain of private unaided schools in the State of Madhya Bharat. Madhukar Vidyalaya introduces a new compulsory subject in the curriculum named 'Sex Education and Maternity Care' for all the girls above the age of 11 years. Child rights activist, Veena Dave challenges the new curriculum as violative of fundamental right of compulsory education and discriminates on basis of sex. 

Q. If State of Madhya Bharat enacts legislation granting an option to all the students above the age of eleven years to choose for subject of 'Sex Education and Maternity Care', whether the same can be held in violation of fundamental right?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 3

The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation. You will have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of the case and evaluate the answer choices. Correct Answer is (b)
Right to free and compulsory education does not bar the State from granting an option to choose a new subject. Further, granting such an option to all students does not violate equality before law.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 4

Passage - 1

Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are, in the absence of specific constitutional provisions, mainly enforceable against "the State". The definition of 'the State' in article 12 being an "inclusive" one, courts have ruled that where there is pervasive or predominant governmental control or significant involvement in its activity, such bodies, entities and organizations fall within the definition of "the State".
Article 14 is one of the most important Articles of the Indian constitution and it is also regarded as part of the golden triangle of the Constitution along with Article 19 and 21 .In India, this right is very important because there has been a widespread socio-economic difference which has been in existence from a long time. People have been discriminated on the basis of their gender or the religion they follow, therefore Article 14 was included in the Constitution to remove such inequalities and bring all the people under the equal protection of the law. Another important point about this Article is that it not only imposes a duty on the State to abstain from discriminating people but it also puts a positive duty to
take such action by which the inequalities can be bridged between the people. Article 19(1)(a) refers to "freedom of speech and expression". Article 21 refers to right to life.

Following Constitutional principles are need to be taken into perspective while dealing with questions:
1. Fundamental rights shall be made applicable only to the legislative or administrative actions of the state and not the private actions.
2. The State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
3. State means Parliament of India, State Legislatures, Government of India, State Governments and local authorities wherein the Government exercises voting right or right to appoint the management committee.
4. State shall provide and ensure fundamental right to free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years.
5. State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of sex, religion and place of birth.
6. Fundamental right of equality before the law means treating equals equally and unequal's unequally.
7. Any law or administrative action of the state which takes away or abridges fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen, to the extent of contravention, shall be void.
8. Kavita Madhukar, daughter of famous freedom fighter Late Raghu Madhukar, runs a chain of private unaided schools in the State of Madhya Bharat. Madhukar Vidyalaya introduces a new compulsory subject in the curriculum named 'Sex Education and Maternity Care' for all the girls above the age of 11 years. Child rights activist, Veena Dave challenges the new curriculum as violative of fundamental right of compulsory education and discriminates on basis of sex. 

Q. If Madhukar Vidyalaya would have been an aided chain of schools, whether the challenge filed by Mrs. Veena Dave could be upheld by a court of law?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 4

The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation. You will have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of the case and evaluate the answer choices. Correct Answer is (b)
Definition of State is exhaustive. Financial aid granted to private persons does not render the educational institutions to be state for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 5

Passage - 1

Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are, in the absence of specific constitutional provisions, mainly enforceable against "the State". The definition of 'the State' in article 12 being an "inclusive" one, courts have ruled that where there is pervasive or predominant governmental control or significant involvement in its activity, such bodies, entities and organizations fall within the definition of "the State".
Article 14 is one of the most important Articles of the Indian constitution and it is also regarded as part of the golden triangle of the Constitution along with Article 19 and 21 .In India, this right is very important because there has been a widespread socio-economic difference which has been in existence from a long time. People have been discriminated on the basis of their gender or the religion they follow, therefore Article 14 was included in the Constitution to remove such inequalities and bring all the people under the equal protection of the law. Another important point about this Article is that it not only imposes a duty on the State to abstain from discriminating people but it also puts a positive duty to
take such action by which the inequalities can be bridged between the people. Article 19(1)(a) refers to "freedom of speech and expression". Article 21 refers to right to life.

Following Constitutional principles are need to be taken into perspective while dealing with questions:
1. Fundamental rights shall be made applicable only to the legislative or administrative actions of the state and not the private actions.
2. The State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
3. State means Parliament of India, State Legislatures, Government of India, State Governments and local authorities wherein the Government exercises voting right or right to appoint the management committee.
4. State shall provide and ensure fundamental right to free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years.
5. State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of sex, religion and place of birth.
6. Fundamental right of equality before the law means treating equals equally and unequal's unequally.
7. Any law or administrative action of the state which takes away or abridges fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen, to the extent of contravention, shall be void.
8. Kavita Madhukar, daughter of famous freedom fighter Late Raghu Madhukar, runs a chain of private unaided schools in the State of Madhya Bharat. Madhukar Vidyalaya introduces a new compulsory subject in the curriculum named 'Sex Education and Maternity Care' for all the girls above the age of 11 years. Child rights activist, Veena Dave challenges the new curriculum as violative of fundamental right of compulsory education and discriminates on basis of sex. 

Q. If the State of Madhya Bharat decides to derecognize Madhukar Vidyalaya from its recognition for introducing the course of 'sex education and maternity care', whether such an action can be held to be in violation of fundamental right of free and compulsory education?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 5

The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation. You will have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of the case and evaluate the answer choices. Correct Answer is (d)
As such the right to free and compulsory education is of limited import. The present administrative action is violation of equal protection before law but not the right to free and compulsory education.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 6

Passage - 1

Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are, in the absence of specific constitutional provisions, mainly enforceable against "the State". The definition of 'the State' in article 12 being an "inclusive" one, courts have ruled that where there is pervasive or predominant governmental control or significant involvement in its activity, such bodies, entities and organizations fall within the definition of "the State".
Article 14 is one of the most important Articles of the Indian constitution and it is also regarded as part of the golden triangle of the Constitution along with Article 19 and 21 .In India, this right is very important because there has been a widespread socio-economic difference which has been in existence from a long time. People have been discriminated on the basis of their gender or the religion they follow, therefore Article 14 was included in the Constitution to remove such inequalities and bring all the people under the equal protection of the law. Another important point about this Article is that it not only imposes a duty on the State to abstain from discriminating people but it also puts a positive duty to
take such action by which the inequalities can be bridged between the people. Article 19(1)(a) refers to "freedom of speech and expression". Article 21 refers to right to life.

Following Constitutional principles are need to be taken into perspective while dealing with questions:
1. Fundamental rights shall be made applicable only to the legislative or administrative actions of the state and not the private actions.
2. The State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
3. State means Parliament of India, State Legislatures, Government of India, State Governments and local authorities wherein the Government exercises voting right or right to appoint the management committee.
4. State shall provide and ensure fundamental right to free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years.
5. State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of sex, religion and place of birth.
6. Fundamental right of equality before the law means treating equals equally and unequal's unequally.
7. Any law or administrative action of the state which takes away or abridges fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen, to the extent of contravention, shall be void.
8. Kavita Madhukar, daughter of famous freedom fighter Late Raghu Madhukar, runs a chain of private unaided schools in the State of Madhya Bharat. Madhukar Vidyalaya introduces a new compulsory subject in the curriculum named 'Sex Education and Maternity Care' for all the girls above the age of 11 years. Child rights activist, Veena Dave challenges the new curriculum as violative of fundamental right of compulsory education and discriminates on basis of sex. 

Q. Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person's fundamental rights. The organs of governance follow the doctrine of separation of powers and each organ is supposed to work within its own sphere. Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers file a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 6

The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation. You will have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of the case and evaluate the answer choices. Correct Answer is (c)
The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law. It's a constitutional mandate that every institution of governance shall work within its own respective sphere. Courts are entrusted with custody and interpretation of laws, they can issue guidelines but cannot direct the legislature to make a law.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 7

Passage - 1

Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are, in the absence of specific constitutional provisions, mainly enforceable against "the State". The definition of 'the State' in article 12 being an "inclusive" one, courts have ruled that where there is pervasive or predominant governmental control or significant involvement in its activity, such bodies, entities and organizations fall within the definition of "the State".
Article 14 is one of the most important Articles of the Indian constitution and it is also regarded as part of the golden triangle of the Constitution along with Article 19 and 21 .In India, this right is very important because there has been a widespread socio-economic difference which has been in existence from a long time. People have been discriminated on the basis of their gender or the religion they follow, therefore Article 14 was included in the Constitution to remove such inequalities and bring all the people under the equal protection of the law. Another important point about this Article is that it not only imposes a duty on the State to abstain from discriminating people but it also puts a positive duty to
take such action by which the inequalities can be bridged between the people. Article 19(1)(a) refers to "freedom of speech and expression". Article 21 refers to right to life.

Following Constitutional principles are need to be taken into perspective while dealing with questions:
1. Fundamental rights shall be made applicable only to the legislative or administrative actions of the state and not the private actions.
2. The State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
3. State means Parliament of India, State Legislatures, Government of India, State Governments and local authorities wherein the Government exercises voting right or right to appoint the management committee.
4. State shall provide and ensure fundamental right to free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years.
5. State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of sex, religion and place of birth.
6. Fundamental right of equality before the law means treating equals equally and unequal's unequally.
7. Any law or administrative action of the state which takes away or abridges fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen, to the extent of contravention, shall be void.
8. Kavita Madhukar, daughter of famous freedom fighter Late Raghu Madhukar, runs a chain of private unaided schools in the State of Madhya Bharat. Madhukar Vidyalaya introduces a new compulsory subject in the curriculum named 'Sex Education and Maternity Care' for all the girls above the age of 11 years. Child rights activist, Veena Dave challenges the new curriculum as violative of fundamental right of compulsory education and discriminates on basis of sex. 

Q. There is presumption of validity in favour of every law passed by legislature. Any law in violation of fundamental rights is void. Which of the following derivation is incorrect?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 7

The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation. You will have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of the case and evaluate the answer choices.
Correct Answer is (b)
There is only a presumption in favour of validity of laws. It cannot be said that legislature can never pass a void law (which violates fundamental rights). 
Incorrect Answers

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 8

Passage - 1

Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are, in the absence of specific constitutional provisions, mainly enforceable against "the State". The definition of 'the State' in article 12 being an "inclusive" one, courts have ruled that where there is pervasive or predominant governmental control or significant involvement in its activity, such bodies, entities and organizations fall within the definition of "the State".
Article 14 is one of the most important Articles of the Indian constitution and it is also regarded as part of the golden triangle of the Constitution along with Article 19 and 21 .In India, this right is very important because there has been a widespread socio-economic difference which has been in existence from a long time. People have been discriminated on the basis of their gender or the religion they follow, therefore Article 14 was included in the Constitution to remove such inequalities and bring all the people under the equal protection of the law. Another important point about this Article is that it not only imposes a duty on the State to abstain from discriminating people but it also puts a positive duty to
take such action by which the inequalities can be bridged between the people. Article 19(1)(a) refers to "freedom of speech and expression". Article 21 refers to right to life.

Following Constitutional principles are need to be taken into perspective while dealing with questions:
1. Fundamental rights shall be made applicable only to the legislative or administrative actions of the state and not the private actions.
2. The State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
3. State means Parliament of India, State Legislatures, Government of India, State Governments and local authorities wherein the Government exercises voting right or right to appoint the management committee.
4. State shall provide and ensure fundamental right to free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years.
5. State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of sex, religion and place of birth.
6. Fundamental right of equality before the law means treating equals equally and unequal's unequally.
7. Any law or administrative action of the state which takes away or abridges fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen, to the extent of contravention, shall be void.
8. Kavita Madhukar, daughter of famous freedom fighter Late Raghu Madhukar, runs a chain of private unaided schools in the State of Madhya Bharat. Madhukar Vidyalaya introduces a new compulsory subject in the curriculum named 'Sex Education and Maternity Care' for all the girls above the age of 11 years. Child rights activist, Veena Dave challenges the new curriculum as violative of fundamental right of compulsory education and discriminates on basis of sex. 

Q. Every citizen shall have a fundamental right to livelihood within the territory of India. Sukrit is a sincere and hardworking employee in Zenada Pvt. Ltd., a logistics firm in Ghaziabad. One morning when Sukrit reaches his office, he is served with a notice of termination of employment. He replies to the notice but not to the satisfaction of the Board of Directors and his termination became absolute. Sukrit files a writ petition as he pleads violation of his fundamental right to livelihood. Decide.

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 8

The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation. You will have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of the case and evaluate the answer choices. Correct Answer is (c)
Undoubtedly, there is loss of livelihood to Sukrit but it does not constitute violation of fundamental right because the entity which has caused the loss is a private entity and not a State. The remedy of protection of fundamental rights is available only against the State actions.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 9

Passage - 2

An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court, court of appeals, appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In most jurisdictions, the court system is divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort), which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts. A jurisdiction's supreme court is that jurisdiction's highest appellate court. Appellate courts may follow varying rules from country to country. The authority of appellate courts to review decisions of lower courts varies widely from one jurisdiction to another. In some places, the appellate court has limited powers of review. Generally speaking, an appellate court's judgment provides the final directive of the appeals courts with regard to the matter appealed, setting out with specificity the court's decision on whether the action that has been appealed should be affirmed, reversed, remanded or modified.
In the United States, both state and federal appellate courts are usually restricted to examining whether the lower court made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were. Furthermore, US appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal.
In most US states, and in US federal courts, parties before the court are allowed one appeal as a right. This means that a party who is unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that outcome. However, appeals may be costly, and the appellate court must find an error on the part of the court below that justifies upsetting the verdict. Therefore, only a small proportion of trial court decisions result in appeals. Some appellate courts, particularly supreme courts, have the power of discretionary review, meaning that they can decide whether they will hear an appeal brought in a particular case.

Q. Which of these is not an action usually performed by the US state and federal appellate courts?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 9

The third paragraph is about the functions of the courts.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 10

Passage - 2

An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court, court of appeals, appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In most jurisdictions, the court system is divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort), which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts. A jurisdiction's supreme court is that jurisdiction's highest appellate court. Appellate courts may follow varying rules from country to country. The authority of appellate courts to review decisions of lower courts varies widely from one jurisdiction to another. In some places, the appellate court has limited powers of review. Generally speaking, an appellate court's judgment provides the final directive of the appeals courts with regard to the matter appealed, setting out with specificity the court's decision on whether the action that has been appealed should be affirmed, reversed, remanded or modified.
In the United States, both state and federal appellate courts are usually restricted to examining whether the lower court made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were. Furthermore, US appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal.
In most US states, and in US federal courts, parties before the court are allowed one appeal as a right. This means that a party who is unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that outcome. However, appeals may be costly, and the appellate court must find an error on the part of the court below that justifies upsetting the verdict. Therefore, only a small proportion of trial court decisions result in appeals. Some appellate courts, particularly supreme courts, have the power of discretionary review, meaning that they can decide whether they will hear an appeal brought in a particular case.

Q. Which of the following courts is authorized to initially determine the facts of the cases?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 10

Refer to the first paragraph. The clue is 'initially'. It's the duty of the trial court.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 11

Passage - 2

An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court, court of appeals, appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In most jurisdictions, the court system is divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort), which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts. A jurisdiction's supreme court is that jurisdiction's highest appellate court. Appellate courts may follow varying rules from country to country. The authority of appellate courts to review decisions of lower courts varies widely from one jurisdiction to another. In some places, the appellate court has limited powers of review. Generally speaking, an appellate court's judgment provides the final directive of the appeals courts with regard to the matter appealed, setting out with specificity the court's decision on whether the action that has been appealed should be affirmed, reversed, remanded or modified.
In the United States, both state and federal appellate courts are usually restricted to examining whether the lower court made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were. Furthermore, US appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal.
In most US states, and in US federal courts, parties before the court are allowed one appeal as a right. This means that a party who is unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that outcome. However, appeals may be costly, and the appellate court must find an error on the part of the court below that justifies upsetting the verdict. Therefore, only a small proportion of trial court decisions result in appeals. Some appellate courts, particularly supreme courts, have the power of discretionary review, meaning that they can decide whether they will hear an appeal brought in a particular case.

Q. What does the word "discretionary" mean in the context of this passage?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 11

The word is used in the last sentence, and means that the courts decide whether to review a case or not.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 12

Passage - 2

An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court, court of appeals, appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In most jurisdictions, the court system is divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort), which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts. A jurisdiction's supreme court is that jurisdiction's highest appellate court. Appellate courts may follow varying rules from country to country. The authority of appellate courts to review decisions of lower courts varies widely from one jurisdiction to another. In some places, the appellate court has limited powers of review. Generally speaking, an appellate court's judgment provides the final directive of the appeals courts with regard to the matter appealed, setting out with specificity the court's decision on whether the action that has been appealed should be affirmed, reversed, remanded or modified.
In the United States, both state and federal appellate courts are usually restricted to examining whether the lower court made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were. Furthermore, US appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal.
In most US states, and in US federal courts, parties before the court are allowed one appeal as a right. This means that a party who is unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that outcome. However, appeals may be costly, and the appellate court must find an error on the part of the court below that justifies upsetting the verdict. Therefore, only a small proportion of trial court decisions result in appeals. Some appellate courts, particularly supreme courts, have the power of discretionary review, meaning that they can decide whether they will hear an appeal brought in a particular case.

Q. Which of the following best describes the tone of the author in this passage?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 12

The author neither preaches nor makes biased conclusions in the passage. So, (c) and (d) can be easily eliminated. Between (a) and (b), the latter is a better choice. The author doesn't structure the passage as a story. Rather, the author gives definitions and explains these in a comprehensive manner with a legal tone. Hence, (b) is the correct choice.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 13

Passage - 2

An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court, court of appeals, appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In most jurisdictions, the court system is divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort), which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts. A jurisdiction's supreme court is that jurisdiction's highest appellate court. Appellate courts may follow varying rules from country to country. The authority of appellate courts to review decisions of lower courts varies widely from one jurisdiction to another. In some places, the appellate court has limited powers of review. Generally speaking, an appellate court's judgment provides the final directive of the appeals courts with regard to the matter appealed, setting out with specificity the court's decision on whether the action that has been appealed should be affirmed, reversed, remanded or modified.
In the United States, both state and federal appellate courts are usually restricted to examining whether the lower court made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were. Furthermore, US appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal.
In most US states, and in US federal courts, parties before the court are allowed one appeal as a right. This means that a party who is unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that outcome. However, appeals may be costly, and the appellate court must find an error on the part of the court below that justifies upsetting the verdict. Therefore, only a small proportion of trial court decisions result in appeals. Some appellate courts, particularly supreme courts, have the power of discretionary review, meaning that they can decide whether they will hear an appeal brought in a particular case.

Q. What is the correct order in which the final verdict of a case is decided?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 13

The trial court gives the initial verdict, which may be appealed in the appellate court, and further appealed in the Supreme Court.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 14

Passage - 2

An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court, court of appeals, appeal court, court of second instance or second instance court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In most jurisdictions, the court system is divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort), which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts. A jurisdiction's supreme court is that jurisdiction's highest appellate court. Appellate courts may follow varying rules from country to country. The authority of appellate courts to review decisions of lower courts varies widely from one jurisdiction to another. In some places, the appellate court has limited powers of review. Generally speaking, an appellate court's judgment provides the final directive of the appeals courts with regard to the matter appealed, setting out with specificity the court's decision on whether the action that has been appealed should be affirmed, reversed, remanded or modified.
In the United States, both state and federal appellate courts are usually restricted to examining whether the lower court made the correct legal determinations, rather than hearing direct evidence and determining what the facts of the case were. Furthermore, US appellate courts are usually restricted to hearing appeals based on matters that were originally brought up before the trial court. Hence, such an appellate court will not consider an appellant's argument if it is based on a theory that is raised for the first time in the appeal.
In most US states, and in US federal courts, parties before the court are allowed one appeal as a right. This means that a party who is unsatisfied with the outcome of a trial may bring an appeal to contest that outcome. However, appeals may be costly, and the appellate court must find an error on the part of the court below that justifies upsetting the verdict. Therefore, only a small proportion of trial court decisions result in appeals. Some appellate courts, particularly supreme courts, have the power of discretionary review, meaning that they can decide whether they will hear an appeal brought in a particular case.

Q. Which of the following is not one of the effects an appellate court's judgment produced?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 14

The appellate court's judgment only affects the verdict, and there is no mention of retrial, since the trial court has already given its verdict after trial.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 15

Passage - 3

It is very difficult to trace the origin of judicial activism in India. Since the judiciary has come to be recognized as an independent and separate organ of the Government under the Constitution of India, it would be prudent to scan the period subsequent to 1950 for tracing the origin. However, there are a few instances even prior to that period, where certain selected judges of High Courts established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 exhibited certain flashes of judicial activism. Way back in 1893, Justice Mahmood of the Allahabad High Court delivered a dissenting judgment which sowed the seed for judicial activism in India. In that case which dealt with an under trial who could not afford to engage a lawyer, Justice Mahmood held that the pre-condition of the case being heard would be fulfilled only when somebody speaks.
At the outset, it has to be stated that there is no precise definition of judicial activism accepted by one and all. However, there is a widely accepted notion that it is related to problems and processes of political development of a country. In other words, judicial activism deals with the political role played by the judiciary, like the other two branches of the State, the legislature and the executive. An eminent Indian jurist defines judicial activism in the following words: Judicial Activism is that way of exercising judicial power which seeks fundamental recodification of power relations among the dominant institutions of State, manned by members of the ruling classes.
The same authority goes on to add that judicial activism is the use of judicial power to articulate and enforce counter-ideologies which when effective initiates significant re-codifications of power relations within the institutions of governance. An analysis of the above attempt by Upendra Baxi to define judicial activism shows that activism of the judiciary pertains to the political role played by it, like the other two political branches. The justification for the judicial activism comes from the near collapse of responsible government and the pressures on the judiciary to step in aid which forced the judiciary to respond and to make political or policy-making judgments. Judicial Activism and judicial restraint are the terms used to describe the assertiveness of judicial power. The user of these terms presumes to locate the relative assertiveness of particular courts or individual judges between two theoretical extremes. The extreme model of judicial activism is of a court so intrusive and ubiquitous that it virtually dominates the institutions of government. The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that the uses of judicial restraint are not entirely uniform. Often the terms are employed non-committally i.e., merely as descriptive short hand to identify some court or judges as more activist or more restrained than others. In this sense, the usage is neither commendatory nor condemnatory.
These expressions viz., judicial activism and judicial restraint are used from the angle of the personal or professional view of the right role of the Court. Accordingly, the courts may be condemned or commended for straying from or for conforming to that right role. In U.S.A., in more than two centuries of judicial review, superintended by more than one hundred justices who have served on the Supreme Court and who have interpreted a constitution highly ambiguous, in much of its text, consistency has not been institutional but personal. Individual judges have maintained strongly diverse notions of the proper or right judicial role.

Q. Indicate which of the statements given is consistent with the evolution of judicial activism?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 15

According to the 2nd paragraph of the passage the notion of judicial activism is related to the problems and processes of political development of a country. Therefore option (c) is the correct answer.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 16

Passage - 3

It is very difficult to trace the origin of judicial activism in India. Since the judiciary has come to be recognized as an independent and separate organ of the Government under the Constitution of India, it would be prudent to scan the period subsequent to 1950 for tracing the origin. However, there are a few instances even prior to that period, where certain selected judges of High Courts established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 exhibited certain flashes of judicial activism. Way back in 1893, Justice Mahmood of the Allahabad High Court delivered a dissenting judgment which sowed the seed for judicial activism in India. In that case which dealt with an under trial who could not afford to engage a lawyer, Justice Mahmood held that the pre-condition of the case being heard would be fulfilled only when somebody speaks.
At the outset, it has to be stated that there is no precise definition of judicial activism accepted by one and all. However, there is a widely accepted notion that it is related to problems and processes of political development of a country. In other words, judicial activism deals with the political role played by the judiciary, like the other two branches of the State, the legislature and the executive. An eminent Indian jurist defines judicial activism in the following words: Judicial Activism is that way of exercising judicial power which seeks fundamental recodification of power relations among the dominant institutions of State, manned by members of the ruling classes.
The same authority goes on to add that judicial activism is the use of judicial power to articulate and enforce counter-ideologies which when effective initiates significant re-codifications of power relations within the institutions of governance. An analysis of the above attempt by Upendra Baxi to define judicial activism shows that activism of the judiciary pertains to the political role played by it, like the other two political branches. The justification for the judicial activism comes from the near collapse of responsible government and the pressures on the judiciary to step in aid which forced the judiciary to respond and to make political or policy-making judgments. Judicial Activism and judicial restraint are the terms used to describe the assertiveness of judicial power. The user of these terms presumes to locate the relative assertiveness of particular courts or individual judges between two theoretical extremes. The extreme model of judicial activism is of a court so intrusive and ubiquitous that it virtually dominates the institutions of government. The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that the uses of judicial restraint are not entirely uniform. Often the terms are employed non-committally i.e., merely as descriptive short hand to identify some court or judges as more activist or more restrained than others. In this sense, the usage is neither commendatory nor condemnatory.
These expressions viz., judicial activism and judicial restraint are used from the angle of the personal or professional view of the right role of the Court. Accordingly, the courts may be condemned or commended for straying from or for conforming to that right role. In U.S.A., in more than two centuries of judicial review, superintended by more than one hundred justices who have served on the Supreme Court and who have interpreted a constitution highly ambiguous, in much of its text, consistency has not been institutional but personal. Individual judges have maintained strongly diverse notions of the proper or right judicial role.

Q. How did Justice Mahmood lay the foundation of judicial activism?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 16

According to 1st paragraph Justice Mahmood while fulfilling his duty made a judicial pronouncement leading to the political development by the initiation of a law of providing legal assistance thereby laying the foundation of judicial activism. So option (d) is the correct answer.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 17

Passage - 3

It is very difficult to trace the origin of judicial activism in India. Since the judiciary has come to be recognized as an independent and separate organ of the Government under the Constitution of India, it would be prudent to scan the period subsequent to 1950 for tracing the origin. However, there are a few instances even prior to that period, where certain selected judges of High Courts established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 exhibited certain flashes of judicial activism. Way back in 1893, Justice Mahmood of the Allahabad High Court delivered a dissenting judgment which sowed the seed for judicial activism in India. In that case which dealt with an under trial who could not afford to engage a lawyer, Justice Mahmood held that the pre-condition of the case being heard would be fulfilled only when somebody speaks.
At the outset, it has to be stated that there is no precise definition of judicial activism accepted by one and all. However, there is a widely accepted notion that it is related to problems and processes of political development of a country. In other words, judicial activism deals with the political role played by the judiciary, like the other two branches of the State, the legislature and the executive. An eminent Indian jurist defines judicial activism in the following words: Judicial Activism is that way of exercising judicial power which seeks fundamental recodification of power relations among the dominant institutions of State, manned by members of the ruling classes.
The same authority goes on to add that judicial activism is the use of judicial power to articulate and enforce counter-ideologies which when effective initiates significant re-codifications of power relations within the institutions of governance. An analysis of the above attempt by Upendra Baxi to define judicial activism shows that activism of the judiciary pertains to the political role played by it, like the other two political branches. The justification for the judicial activism comes from the near collapse of responsible government and the pressures on the judiciary to step in aid which forced the judiciary to respond and to make political or policy-making judgments. Judicial Activism and judicial restraint are the terms used to describe the assertiveness of judicial power. The user of these terms presumes to locate the relative assertiveness of particular courts or individual judges between two theoretical extremes. The extreme model of judicial activism is of a court so intrusive and ubiquitous that it virtually dominates the institutions of government. The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that the uses of judicial restraint are not entirely uniform. Often the terms are employed non-committally i.e., merely as descriptive short hand to identify some court or judges as more activist or more restrained than others. In this sense, the usage is neither commendatory nor condemnatory.
These expressions viz., judicial activism and judicial restraint are used from the angle of the personal or professional view of the right role of the Court. Accordingly, the courts may be condemned or commended for straying from or for conforming to that right role. In U.S.A., in more than two centuries of judicial review, superintended by more than one hundred justices who have served on the Supreme Court and who have interpreted a constitution highly ambiguous, in much of its text, consistency has not been institutional but personal. Individual judges have maintained strongly diverse notions of the proper or right judicial role.

Q. What is the relationship of judicial activism with the other two wings of the government?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 17

According to the 3rd paragraph, the concept of judicial activism provides counter-ideologies to the existing laws. This defines their relationship with the other wings. So option (b) is the correct answer.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 18

Passage - 3

It is very difficult to trace the origin of judicial activism in India. Since the judiciary has come to be recognized as an independent and separate organ of the Government under the Constitution of India, it would be prudent to scan the period subsequent to 1950 for tracing the origin. However, there are a few instances even prior to that period, where certain selected judges of High Courts established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 exhibited certain flashes of judicial activism. Way back in 1893, Justice Mahmood of the Allahabad High Court delivered a dissenting judgment which sowed the seed for judicial activism in India. In that case which dealt with an under trial who could not afford to engage a lawyer, Justice Mahmood held that the pre-condition of the case being heard would be fulfilled only when somebody speaks.
At the outset, it has to be stated that there is no precise definition of judicial activism accepted by one and all. However, there is a widely accepted notion that it is related to problems and processes of political development of a country. In other words, judicial activism deals with the political role played by the judiciary, like the other two branches of the State, the legislature and the executive. An eminent Indian jurist defines judicial activism in the following words: Judicial Activism is that way of exercising judicial power which seeks fundamental recodification of power relations among the dominant institutions of State, manned by members of the ruling classes.
The same authority goes on to add that judicial activism is the use of judicial power to articulate and enforce counter-ideologies which when effective initiates significant re-codifications of power relations within the institutions of governance. An analysis of the above attempt by Upendra Baxi to define judicial activism shows that activism of the judiciary pertains to the political role played by it, like the other two political branches. The justification for the judicial activism comes from the near collapse of responsible government and the pressures on the judiciary to step in aid which forced the judiciary to respond and to make political or policy-making judgments. Judicial Activism and judicial restraint are the terms used to describe the assertiveness of judicial power. The user of these terms presumes to locate the relative assertiveness of particular courts or individual judges between two theoretical extremes. The extreme model of judicial activism is of a court so intrusive and ubiquitous that it virtually dominates the institutions of government. The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that the uses of judicial restraint are not entirely uniform. Often the terms are employed non-committally i.e., merely as descriptive short hand to identify some court or judges as more activist or more restrained than others. In this sense, the usage is neither commendatory nor condemnatory.
These expressions viz., judicial activism and judicial restraint are used from the angle of the personal or professional view of the right role of the Court. Accordingly, the courts may be condemned or commended for straying from or for conforming to that right role. In U.S.A., in more than two centuries of judicial review, superintended by more than one hundred justices who have served on the Supreme Court and who have interpreted a constitution highly ambiguous, in much of its text, consistency has not been institutional but personal. Individual judges have maintained strongly diverse notions of the proper or right judicial role.

Q. Which of the following serves as a valid justification for the initiation of judicial activism?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 18

According to the 3rd paragraph the concept of judicial activism finds a valid justification when the legislative wing of the government fails to discharge its duty and the judiciary has to fulfil the duty. So option (c) is the correct answer.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 19

Passage - 3

It is very difficult to trace the origin of judicial activism in India. Since the judiciary has come to be recognized as an independent and separate organ of the Government under the Constitution of India, it would be prudent to scan the period subsequent to 1950 for tracing the origin. However, there are a few instances even prior to that period, where certain selected judges of High Courts established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 exhibited certain flashes of judicial activism. Way back in 1893, Justice Mahmood of the Allahabad High Court delivered a dissenting judgment which sowed the seed for judicial activism in India. In that case which dealt with an under trial who could not afford to engage a lawyer, Justice Mahmood held that the pre-condition of the case being heard would be fulfilled only when somebody speaks.
At the outset, it has to be stated that there is no precise definition of judicial activism accepted by one and all. However, there is a widely accepted notion that it is related to problems and processes of political development of a country. In other words, judicial activism deals with the political role played by the judiciary, like the other two branches of the State, the legislature and the executive. An eminent Indian jurist defines judicial activism in the following words: Judicial Activism is that way of exercising judicial power which seeks fundamental recodification of power relations among the dominant institutions of State, manned by members of the ruling classes.
The same authority goes on to add that judicial activism is the use of judicial power to articulate and enforce counter-ideologies which when effective initiates significant re-codifications of power relations within the institutions of governance. An analysis of the above attempt by Upendra Baxi to define judicial activism shows that activism of the judiciary pertains to the political role played by it, like the other two political branches. The justification for the judicial activism comes from the near collapse of responsible government and the pressures on the judiciary to step in aid which forced the judiciary to respond and to make political or policy-making judgments. Judicial Activism and judicial restraint are the terms used to describe the assertiveness of judicial power. The user of these terms presumes to locate the relative assertiveness of particular courts or individual judges between two theoretical extremes. The extreme model of judicial activism is of a court so intrusive and ubiquitous that it virtually dominates the institutions of government. The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution states that the uses of judicial restraint are not entirely uniform. Often the terms are employed non-committally i.e., merely as descriptive short hand to identify some court or judges as more activist or more restrained than others. In this sense, the usage is neither commendatory nor condemnatory.
These expressions viz., judicial activism and judicial restraint are used from the angle of the personal or professional view of the right role of the Court. Accordingly, the courts may be condemned or commended for straying from or for conforming to that right role. In U.S.A., in more than two centuries of judicial review, superintended by more than one hundred justices who have served on the Supreme Court and who have interpreted a constitution highly ambiguous, in much of its text, consistency has not been institutional but personal. Individual judges have maintained strongly diverse notions of the proper or right judicial role.

Q. Which of the following is the criticism of judicial activism in the passage?

Detailed Solution for Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 19

According to the 4th paragraph the extreme model of judicial activism is of a court so intrusive and ubiquitous that it virtually dominates the institutions of government. So option (a) is the correct answer.

Test: Legal Reasoning - 3 - Question 20