Question Description
The weakness of the political process provides a propitious ground for judicial activism. In many instances the executive has almost invited the judiciary in; in many states, governments routinely seek judicial dispensation to give them political cover for unpopular decisions they might have to make. Judicial activism can mean many things: scrutiny of legislation to determine constitutionality, the creation of law, and the exercise of policy prerogatives normally reserved for the executive. But whatever its form, judicial activism raises two questions. Is it legitimate? Is it effective? The democrat in all of us is rightly suspicious of a few old (mostly) men assuming such broad powers over our destiny without much accountability. We may ruminate that we can throw the politicians out once in a while, but judges are shielded from accountability. On the other hand, our impatience with a debilitating political process whose usual results are inaction makes us thankful for an assertive judiciary. At least the judiciary can protect our rights, clean our air, call politicians to account and so forth. And it must be an unenviable task for judges to steer a middle course between usurping too much power on the one hand, and doing too little to sustainfundamental values on the other. But the prickly question remains: what justifies judicial activism? One possible answer is that judicial activism is justified to the extent that it helps preserve democratic institutions and values. After all, transient majorities in Parliament can barter away our democratic rights; representative institutions are too often burdened with the imperatives of money, power or inertia, that to call their decisions democratic and in the public interest is often something of a joke. If judges use their power to restore integrity to the democratic process, to make our rights, including social and economic ones more meaningful, if they advance the public interest, an assertive judiciary can be an instrument of democracy. This is the most plausible defence of an assertive judiciary.With reference to the passage, the author is concerned about the Judicial Activism because:1. The age and gender of the members of the judiciary may affect their judicial decisions.2. The accountability of the judiciary, even when judicial activism is not legitimate, is limited.3. Author believes that policymaking is not within the remit and jurisdiction of the Judiciary.4. Every decisions taken in the Parliament are against the public interest.Which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2 onlyd)Both 3 and 4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The weakness of the political process provides a propitious ground for judicial activism. In many instances the executive has almost invited the judiciary in; in many states, governments routinely seek judicial dispensation to give them political cover for unpopular decisions they might have to make. Judicial activism can mean many things: scrutiny of legislation to determine constitutionality, the creation of law, and the exercise of policy prerogatives normally reserved for the executive. But whatever its form, judicial activism raises two questions. Is it legitimate? Is it effective? The democrat in all of us is rightly suspicious of a few old (mostly) men assuming such broad powers over our destiny without much accountability. We may ruminate that we can throw the politicians out once in a while, but judges are shielded from accountability. On the other hand, our impatience with a debilitating political process whose usual results are inaction makes us thankful for an assertive judiciary. At least the judiciary can protect our rights, clean our air, call politicians to account and so forth. And it must be an unenviable task for judges to steer a middle course between usurping too much power on the one hand, and doing too little to sustainfundamental values on the other. But the prickly question remains: what justifies judicial activism? One possible answer is that judicial activism is justified to the extent that it helps preserve democratic institutions and values. After all, transient majorities in Parliament can barter away our democratic rights; representative institutions are too often burdened with the imperatives of money, power or inertia, that to call their decisions democratic and in the public interest is often something of a joke. If judges use their power to restore integrity to the democratic process, to make our rights, including social and economic ones more meaningful, if they advance the public interest, an assertive judiciary can be an instrument of democracy. This is the most plausible defence of an assertive judiciary.With reference to the passage, the author is concerned about the Judicial Activism because:1. The age and gender of the members of the judiciary may affect their judicial decisions.2. The accountability of the judiciary, even when judicial activism is not legitimate, is limited.3. Author believes that policymaking is not within the remit and jurisdiction of the Judiciary.4. Every decisions taken in the Parliament are against the public interest.Which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2 onlyd)Both 3 and 4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The weakness of the political process provides a propitious ground for judicial activism. In many instances the executive has almost invited the judiciary in; in many states, governments routinely seek judicial dispensation to give them political cover for unpopular decisions they might have to make. Judicial activism can mean many things: scrutiny of legislation to determine constitutionality, the creation of law, and the exercise of policy prerogatives normally reserved for the executive. But whatever its form, judicial activism raises two questions. Is it legitimate? Is it effective? The democrat in all of us is rightly suspicious of a few old (mostly) men assuming such broad powers over our destiny without much accountability. We may ruminate that we can throw the politicians out once in a while, but judges are shielded from accountability. On the other hand, our impatience with a debilitating political process whose usual results are inaction makes us thankful for an assertive judiciary. At least the judiciary can protect our rights, clean our air, call politicians to account and so forth. And it must be an unenviable task for judges to steer a middle course between usurping too much power on the one hand, and doing too little to sustainfundamental values on the other. But the prickly question remains: what justifies judicial activism? One possible answer is that judicial activism is justified to the extent that it helps preserve democratic institutions and values. After all, transient majorities in Parliament can barter away our democratic rights; representative institutions are too often burdened with the imperatives of money, power or inertia, that to call their decisions democratic and in the public interest is often something of a joke. If judges use their power to restore integrity to the democratic process, to make our rights, including social and economic ones more meaningful, if they advance the public interest, an assertive judiciary can be an instrument of democracy. This is the most plausible defence of an assertive judiciary.With reference to the passage, the author is concerned about the Judicial Activism because:1. The age and gender of the members of the judiciary may affect their judicial decisions.2. The accountability of the judiciary, even when judicial activism is not legitimate, is limited.3. Author believes that policymaking is not within the remit and jurisdiction of the Judiciary.4. Every decisions taken in the Parliament are against the public interest.Which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2 onlyd)Both 3 and 4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The weakness of the political process provides a propitious ground for judicial activism. In many instances the executive has almost invited the judiciary in; in many states, governments routinely seek judicial dispensation to give them political cover for unpopular decisions they might have to make. Judicial activism can mean many things: scrutiny of legislation to determine constitutionality, the creation of law, and the exercise of policy prerogatives normally reserved for the executive. But whatever its form, judicial activism raises two questions. Is it legitimate? Is it effective? The democrat in all of us is rightly suspicious of a few old (mostly) men assuming such broad powers over our destiny without much accountability. We may ruminate that we can throw the politicians out once in a while, but judges are shielded from accountability. On the other hand, our impatience with a debilitating political process whose usual results are inaction makes us thankful for an assertive judiciary. At least the judiciary can protect our rights, clean our air, call politicians to account and so forth. And it must be an unenviable task for judges to steer a middle course between usurping too much power on the one hand, and doing too little to sustainfundamental values on the other. But the prickly question remains: what justifies judicial activism? One possible answer is that judicial activism is justified to the extent that it helps preserve democratic institutions and values. After all, transient majorities in Parliament can barter away our democratic rights; representative institutions are too often burdened with the imperatives of money, power or inertia, that to call their decisions democratic and in the public interest is often something of a joke. If judges use their power to restore integrity to the democratic process, to make our rights, including social and economic ones more meaningful, if they advance the public interest, an assertive judiciary can be an instrument of democracy. This is the most plausible defence of an assertive judiciary.With reference to the passage, the author is concerned about the Judicial Activism because:1. The age and gender of the members of the judiciary may affect their judicial decisions.2. The accountability of the judiciary, even when judicial activism is not legitimate, is limited.3. Author believes that policymaking is not within the remit and jurisdiction of the Judiciary.4. Every decisions taken in the Parliament are against the public interest.Which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2 onlyd)Both 3 and 4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The weakness of the political process provides a propitious ground for judicial activism. In many instances the executive has almost invited the judiciary in; in many states, governments routinely seek judicial dispensation to give them political cover for unpopular decisions they might have to make. Judicial activism can mean many things: scrutiny of legislation to determine constitutionality, the creation of law, and the exercise of policy prerogatives normally reserved for the executive. But whatever its form, judicial activism raises two questions. Is it legitimate? Is it effective? The democrat in all of us is rightly suspicious of a few old (mostly) men assuming such broad powers over our destiny without much accountability. We may ruminate that we can throw the politicians out once in a while, but judges are shielded from accountability. On the other hand, our impatience with a debilitating political process whose usual results are inaction makes us thankful for an assertive judiciary. At least the judiciary can protect our rights, clean our air, call politicians to account and so forth. And it must be an unenviable task for judges to steer a middle course between usurping too much power on the one hand, and doing too little to sustainfundamental values on the other. But the prickly question remains: what justifies judicial activism? One possible answer is that judicial activism is justified to the extent that it helps preserve democratic institutions and values. After all, transient majorities in Parliament can barter away our democratic rights; representative institutions are too often burdened with the imperatives of money, power or inertia, that to call their decisions democratic and in the public interest is often something of a joke. If judges use their power to restore integrity to the democratic process, to make our rights, including social and economic ones more meaningful, if they advance the public interest, an assertive judiciary can be an instrument of democracy. This is the most plausible defence of an assertive judiciary.With reference to the passage, the author is concerned about the Judicial Activism because:1. The age and gender of the members of the judiciary may affect their judicial decisions.2. The accountability of the judiciary, even when judicial activism is not legitimate, is limited.3. Author believes that policymaking is not within the remit and jurisdiction of the Judiciary.4. Every decisions taken in the Parliament are against the public interest.Which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2 onlyd)Both 3 and 4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The weakness of the political process provides a propitious ground for judicial activism. In many instances the executive has almost invited the judiciary in; in many states, governments routinely seek judicial dispensation to give them political cover for unpopular decisions they might have to make. Judicial activism can mean many things: scrutiny of legislation to determine constitutionality, the creation of law, and the exercise of policy prerogatives normally reserved for the executive. But whatever its form, judicial activism raises two questions. Is it legitimate? Is it effective? The democrat in all of us is rightly suspicious of a few old (mostly) men assuming such broad powers over our destiny without much accountability. We may ruminate that we can throw the politicians out once in a while, but judges are shielded from accountability. On the other hand, our impatience with a debilitating political process whose usual results are inaction makes us thankful for an assertive judiciary. At least the judiciary can protect our rights, clean our air, call politicians to account and so forth. And it must be an unenviable task for judges to steer a middle course between usurping too much power on the one hand, and doing too little to sustainfundamental values on the other. But the prickly question remains: what justifies judicial activism? One possible answer is that judicial activism is justified to the extent that it helps preserve democratic institutions and values. After all, transient majorities in Parliament can barter away our democratic rights; representative institutions are too often burdened with the imperatives of money, power or inertia, that to call their decisions democratic and in the public interest is often something of a joke. If judges use their power to restore integrity to the democratic process, to make our rights, including social and economic ones more meaningful, if they advance the public interest, an assertive judiciary can be an instrument of democracy. This is the most plausible defence of an assertive judiciary.With reference to the passage, the author is concerned about the Judicial Activism because:1. The age and gender of the members of the judiciary may affect their judicial decisions.2. The accountability of the judiciary, even when judicial activism is not legitimate, is limited.3. Author believes that policymaking is not within the remit and jurisdiction of the Judiciary.4. Every decisions taken in the Parliament are against the public interest.Which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2 onlyd)Both 3 and 4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The weakness of the political process provides a propitious ground for judicial activism. In many instances the executive has almost invited the judiciary in; in many states, governments routinely seek judicial dispensation to give them political cover for unpopular decisions they might have to make. Judicial activism can mean many things: scrutiny of legislation to determine constitutionality, the creation of law, and the exercise of policy prerogatives normally reserved for the executive. But whatever its form, judicial activism raises two questions. Is it legitimate? Is it effective? The democrat in all of us is rightly suspicious of a few old (mostly) men assuming such broad powers over our destiny without much accountability. We may ruminate that we can throw the politicians out once in a while, but judges are shielded from accountability. On the other hand, our impatience with a debilitating political process whose usual results are inaction makes us thankful for an assertive judiciary. At least the judiciary can protect our rights, clean our air, call politicians to account and so forth. And it must be an unenviable task for judges to steer a middle course between usurping too much power on the one hand, and doing too little to sustainfundamental values on the other. But the prickly question remains: what justifies judicial activism? One possible answer is that judicial activism is justified to the extent that it helps preserve democratic institutions and values. After all, transient majorities in Parliament can barter away our democratic rights; representative institutions are too often burdened with the imperatives of money, power or inertia, that to call their decisions democratic and in the public interest is often something of a joke. If judges use their power to restore integrity to the democratic process, to make our rights, including social and economic ones more meaningful, if they advance the public interest, an assertive judiciary can be an instrument of democracy. This is the most plausible defence of an assertive judiciary.With reference to the passage, the author is concerned about the Judicial Activism because:1. The age and gender of the members of the judiciary may affect their judicial decisions.2. The accountability of the judiciary, even when judicial activism is not legitimate, is limited.3. Author believes that policymaking is not within the remit and jurisdiction of the Judiciary.4. Every decisions taken in the Parliament are against the public interest.Which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2 onlyd)Both 3 and 4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The weakness of the political process provides a propitious ground for judicial activism. In many instances the executive has almost invited the judiciary in; in many states, governments routinely seek judicial dispensation to give them political cover for unpopular decisions they might have to make. Judicial activism can mean many things: scrutiny of legislation to determine constitutionality, the creation of law, and the exercise of policy prerogatives normally reserved for the executive. But whatever its form, judicial activism raises two questions. Is it legitimate? Is it effective? The democrat in all of us is rightly suspicious of a few old (mostly) men assuming such broad powers over our destiny without much accountability. We may ruminate that we can throw the politicians out once in a while, but judges are shielded from accountability. On the other hand, our impatience with a debilitating political process whose usual results are inaction makes us thankful for an assertive judiciary. At least the judiciary can protect our rights, clean our air, call politicians to account and so forth. And it must be an unenviable task for judges to steer a middle course between usurping too much power on the one hand, and doing too little to sustainfundamental values on the other. But the prickly question remains: what justifies judicial activism? One possible answer is that judicial activism is justified to the extent that it helps preserve democratic institutions and values. After all, transient majorities in Parliament can barter away our democratic rights; representative institutions are too often burdened with the imperatives of money, power or inertia, that to call their decisions democratic and in the public interest is often something of a joke. If judges use their power to restore integrity to the democratic process, to make our rights, including social and economic ones more meaningful, if they advance the public interest, an assertive judiciary can be an instrument of democracy. This is the most plausible defence of an assertive judiciary.With reference to the passage, the author is concerned about the Judicial Activism because:1. The age and gender of the members of the judiciary may affect their judicial decisions.2. The accountability of the judiciary, even when judicial activism is not legitimate, is limited.3. Author believes that policymaking is not within the remit and jurisdiction of the Judiciary.4. Every decisions taken in the Parliament are against the public interest.Which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2 onlyd)Both 3 and 4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The weakness of the political process provides a propitious ground for judicial activism. In many instances the executive has almost invited the judiciary in; in many states, governments routinely seek judicial dispensation to give them political cover for unpopular decisions they might have to make. Judicial activism can mean many things: scrutiny of legislation to determine constitutionality, the creation of law, and the exercise of policy prerogatives normally reserved for the executive. But whatever its form, judicial activism raises two questions. Is it legitimate? Is it effective? The democrat in all of us is rightly suspicious of a few old (mostly) men assuming such broad powers over our destiny without much accountability. We may ruminate that we can throw the politicians out once in a while, but judges are shielded from accountability. On the other hand, our impatience with a debilitating political process whose usual results are inaction makes us thankful for an assertive judiciary. At least the judiciary can protect our rights, clean our air, call politicians to account and so forth. And it must be an unenviable task for judges to steer a middle course between usurping too much power on the one hand, and doing too little to sustainfundamental values on the other. But the prickly question remains: what justifies judicial activism? One possible answer is that judicial activism is justified to the extent that it helps preserve democratic institutions and values. After all, transient majorities in Parliament can barter away our democratic rights; representative institutions are too often burdened with the imperatives of money, power or inertia, that to call their decisions democratic and in the public interest is often something of a joke. If judges use their power to restore integrity to the democratic process, to make our rights, including social and economic ones more meaningful, if they advance the public interest, an assertive judiciary can be an instrument of democracy. This is the most plausible defence of an assertive judiciary.With reference to the passage, the author is concerned about the Judicial Activism because:1. The age and gender of the members of the judiciary may affect their judicial decisions.2. The accountability of the judiciary, even when judicial activism is not legitimate, is limited.3. Author believes that policymaking is not within the remit and jurisdiction of the Judiciary.4. Every decisions taken in the Parliament are against the public interest.Which of the following assumptions is/are valid?a)1 onlyb)2 onlyc)Both 1 and 2 onlyd)Both 3 and 4Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.