Question Description
The Judiciary has been assigned active role under the constitution. Judicial activism and judicial restraint are facets of that uncourageous creativity and pragmatic wisdom. The concept of Judicial activism is thus the polar opposite of Judicial restraint. Judicial activism and Judicial restraint are the two terms used to describe the philosophy and motivation behind some judicial decision.At most level, judicial activism refers to a theory of judgment that takes into account the spirit of the law and the changing times, while judicial restraint relies on a strict interpretation of the law and the importance of legal precedent. There is broad (though not absolute) separation of powers in the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India did not provide for the judiciary to be a super legislature or a substitute for the failure of the other two organs. When Judges start thinking they can solve all the problems in society and start performing legislative and executive functions (because the legislature and executive have in their perception failed in their duties), all kinds of problems are bound to arise.Judges can no doubt intervene in some extreme cases, but otherwise they neither have the expertise nor resources to solve major problems in society. Also, such encroachment by the judiciary into the domain of the legislature or executive will almost invariably have a strong reaction from politicians and others.Thus, the need arises for the judiciary to lay down its own limitations. The Constitution has clearly defined the duties and responsibilities of every organ of the state. It has established the ancient Indian ethos of "Maryada" as far as Authorities and Institutions of State power are concerned. The spirit of the Constitution has to be upheld by adherence to this "Maryada" by the functionaries in the discharge of their duties.Q. A petition is filed for the protection and welfare of animals declaring "all members of the animal kingdom including birds and aquatic life have similar rights as humans" and animals throughout the state as "legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person." Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above, if the court takes conservative stance, which of the following would be most correct:a)Court will carry out a creative interpretation encompassing animal kingdom as legal entities.b)Judiciary will allow the petitions and recommend the petitioners to file the case in the Supreme Court.c)Judiciary will adjourn the matter.d)Judicial will dismiss the matter, act within the judicial limitation respecting the Separation of Powers and exercise judicial restraint.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The Judiciary has been assigned active role under the constitution. Judicial activism and judicial restraint are facets of that uncourageous creativity and pragmatic wisdom. The concept of Judicial activism is thus the polar opposite of Judicial restraint. Judicial activism and Judicial restraint are the two terms used to describe the philosophy and motivation behind some judicial decision.At most level, judicial activism refers to a theory of judgment that takes into account the spirit of the law and the changing times, while judicial restraint relies on a strict interpretation of the law and the importance of legal precedent. There is broad (though not absolute) separation of powers in the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India did not provide for the judiciary to be a super legislature or a substitute for the failure of the other two organs. When Judges start thinking they can solve all the problems in society and start performing legislative and executive functions (because the legislature and executive have in their perception failed in their duties), all kinds of problems are bound to arise.Judges can no doubt intervene in some extreme cases, but otherwise they neither have the expertise nor resources to solve major problems in society. Also, such encroachment by the judiciary into the domain of the legislature or executive will almost invariably have a strong reaction from politicians and others.Thus, the need arises for the judiciary to lay down its own limitations. The Constitution has clearly defined the duties and responsibilities of every organ of the state. It has established the ancient Indian ethos of "Maryada" as far as Authorities and Institutions of State power are concerned. The spirit of the Constitution has to be upheld by adherence to this "Maryada" by the functionaries in the discharge of their duties.Q. A petition is filed for the protection and welfare of animals declaring "all members of the animal kingdom including birds and aquatic life have similar rights as humans" and animals throughout the state as "legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person." Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above, if the court takes conservative stance, which of the following would be most correct:a)Court will carry out a creative interpretation encompassing animal kingdom as legal entities.b)Judiciary will allow the petitions and recommend the petitioners to file the case in the Supreme Court.c)Judiciary will adjourn the matter.d)Judicial will dismiss the matter, act within the judicial limitation respecting the Separation of Powers and exercise judicial restraint.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The Judiciary has been assigned active role under the constitution. Judicial activism and judicial restraint are facets of that uncourageous creativity and pragmatic wisdom. The concept of Judicial activism is thus the polar opposite of Judicial restraint. Judicial activism and Judicial restraint are the two terms used to describe the philosophy and motivation behind some judicial decision.At most level, judicial activism refers to a theory of judgment that takes into account the spirit of the law and the changing times, while judicial restraint relies on a strict interpretation of the law and the importance of legal precedent. There is broad (though not absolute) separation of powers in the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India did not provide for the judiciary to be a super legislature or a substitute for the failure of the other two organs. When Judges start thinking they can solve all the problems in society and start performing legislative and executive functions (because the legislature and executive have in their perception failed in their duties), all kinds of problems are bound to arise.Judges can no doubt intervene in some extreme cases, but otherwise they neither have the expertise nor resources to solve major problems in society. Also, such encroachment by the judiciary into the domain of the legislature or executive will almost invariably have a strong reaction from politicians and others.Thus, the need arises for the judiciary to lay down its own limitations. The Constitution has clearly defined the duties and responsibilities of every organ of the state. It has established the ancient Indian ethos of "Maryada" as far as Authorities and Institutions of State power are concerned. The spirit of the Constitution has to be upheld by adherence to this "Maryada" by the functionaries in the discharge of their duties.Q. A petition is filed for the protection and welfare of animals declaring "all members of the animal kingdom including birds and aquatic life have similar rights as humans" and animals throughout the state as "legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person." Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above, if the court takes conservative stance, which of the following would be most correct:a)Court will carry out a creative interpretation encompassing animal kingdom as legal entities.b)Judiciary will allow the petitions and recommend the petitioners to file the case in the Supreme Court.c)Judiciary will adjourn the matter.d)Judicial will dismiss the matter, act within the judicial limitation respecting the Separation of Powers and exercise judicial restraint.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The Judiciary has been assigned active role under the constitution. Judicial activism and judicial restraint are facets of that uncourageous creativity and pragmatic wisdom. The concept of Judicial activism is thus the polar opposite of Judicial restraint. Judicial activism and Judicial restraint are the two terms used to describe the philosophy and motivation behind some judicial decision.At most level, judicial activism refers to a theory of judgment that takes into account the spirit of the law and the changing times, while judicial restraint relies on a strict interpretation of the law and the importance of legal precedent. There is broad (though not absolute) separation of powers in the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India did not provide for the judiciary to be a super legislature or a substitute for the failure of the other two organs. When Judges start thinking they can solve all the problems in society and start performing legislative and executive functions (because the legislature and executive have in their perception failed in their duties), all kinds of problems are bound to arise.Judges can no doubt intervene in some extreme cases, but otherwise they neither have the expertise nor resources to solve major problems in society. Also, such encroachment by the judiciary into the domain of the legislature or executive will almost invariably have a strong reaction from politicians and others.Thus, the need arises for the judiciary to lay down its own limitations. The Constitution has clearly defined the duties and responsibilities of every organ of the state. It has established the ancient Indian ethos of "Maryada" as far as Authorities and Institutions of State power are concerned. The spirit of the Constitution has to be upheld by adherence to this "Maryada" by the functionaries in the discharge of their duties.Q. A petition is filed for the protection and welfare of animals declaring "all members of the animal kingdom including birds and aquatic life have similar rights as humans" and animals throughout the state as "legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person." Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above, if the court takes conservative stance, which of the following would be most correct:a)Court will carry out a creative interpretation encompassing animal kingdom as legal entities.b)Judiciary will allow the petitions and recommend the petitioners to file the case in the Supreme Court.c)Judiciary will adjourn the matter.d)Judicial will dismiss the matter, act within the judicial limitation respecting the Separation of Powers and exercise judicial restraint.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 Judiciary has been assigned active role under the constitution. Judicial activism and judicial restraint are facets of that uncourageous creativity and pragmatic wisdom. The concept of Judicial activism is thus the polar opposite of Judicial restraint. Judicial activism and Judicial restraint are the two terms used to describe the philosophy and motivation behind some judicial decision.At most level, judicial activism refers to a theory of judgment that takes into account the spirit of the law and the changing times, while judicial restraint relies on a strict interpretation of the law and the importance of legal precedent. There is broad (though not absolute) separation of powers in the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India did not provide for the judiciary to be a super legislature or a substitute for the failure of the other two organs. When Judges start thinking they can solve all the problems in society and start performing legislative and executive functions (because the legislature and executive have in their perception failed in their duties), all kinds of problems are bound to arise.Judges can no doubt intervene in some extreme cases, but otherwise they neither have the expertise nor resources to solve major problems in society. Also, such encroachment by the judiciary into the domain of the legislature or executive will almost invariably have a strong reaction from politicians and others.Thus, the need arises for the judiciary to lay down its own limitations. The Constitution has clearly defined the duties and responsibilities of every organ of the state. It has established the ancient Indian ethos of "Maryada" as far as Authorities and Institutions of State power are concerned. The spirit of the Constitution has to be upheld by adherence to this "Maryada" by the functionaries in the discharge of their duties.Q. A petition is filed for the protection and welfare of animals declaring "all members of the animal kingdom including birds and aquatic life have similar rights as humans" and animals throughout the state as "legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person." Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above, if the court takes conservative stance, which of the following would be most correct:a)Court will carry out a creative interpretation encompassing animal kingdom as legal entities.b)Judiciary will allow the petitions and recommend the petitioners to file the case in the Supreme Court.c)Judiciary will adjourn the matter.d)Judicial will dismiss the matter, act within the judicial limitation respecting the Separation of Powers and exercise judicial restraint.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The Judiciary has been assigned active role under the constitution. Judicial activism and judicial restraint are facets of that uncourageous creativity and pragmatic wisdom. The concept of Judicial activism is thus the polar opposite of Judicial restraint. Judicial activism and Judicial restraint are the two terms used to describe the philosophy and motivation behind some judicial decision.At most level, judicial activism refers to a theory of judgment that takes into account the spirit of the law and the changing times, while judicial restraint relies on a strict interpretation of the law and the importance of legal precedent. There is broad (though not absolute) separation of powers in the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India did not provide for the judiciary to be a super legislature or a substitute for the failure of the other two organs. When Judges start thinking they can solve all the problems in society and start performing legislative and executive functions (because the legislature and executive have in their perception failed in their duties), all kinds of problems are bound to arise.Judges can no doubt intervene in some extreme cases, but otherwise they neither have the expertise nor resources to solve major problems in society. Also, such encroachment by the judiciary into the domain of the legislature or executive will almost invariably have a strong reaction from politicians and others.Thus, the need arises for the judiciary to lay down its own limitations. The Constitution has clearly defined the duties and responsibilities of every organ of the state. It has established the ancient Indian ethos of "Maryada" as far as Authorities and Institutions of State power are concerned. The spirit of the Constitution has to be upheld by adherence to this "Maryada" by the functionaries in the discharge of their duties.Q. A petition is filed for the protection and welfare of animals declaring "all members of the animal kingdom including birds and aquatic life have similar rights as humans" and animals throughout the state as "legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person." Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above, if the court takes conservative stance, which of the following would be most correct:a)Court will carry out a creative interpretation encompassing animal kingdom as legal entities.b)Judiciary will allow the petitions and recommend the petitioners to file the case in the Supreme Court.c)Judiciary will adjourn the matter.d)Judicial will dismiss the matter, act within the judicial limitation respecting the Separation of Powers and exercise judicial restraint.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The Judiciary has been assigned active role under the constitution. Judicial activism and judicial restraint are facets of that uncourageous creativity and pragmatic wisdom. The concept of Judicial activism is thus the polar opposite of Judicial restraint. Judicial activism and Judicial restraint are the two terms used to describe the philosophy and motivation behind some judicial decision.At most level, judicial activism refers to a theory of judgment that takes into account the spirit of the law and the changing times, while judicial restraint relies on a strict interpretation of the law and the importance of legal precedent. There is broad (though not absolute) separation of powers in the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India did not provide for the judiciary to be a super legislature or a substitute for the failure of the other two organs. When Judges start thinking they can solve all the problems in society and start performing legislative and executive functions (because the legislature and executive have in their perception failed in their duties), all kinds of problems are bound to arise.Judges can no doubt intervene in some extreme cases, but otherwise they neither have the expertise nor resources to solve major problems in society. Also, such encroachment by the judiciary into the domain of the legislature or executive will almost invariably have a strong reaction from politicians and others.Thus, the need arises for the judiciary to lay down its own limitations. The Constitution has clearly defined the duties and responsibilities of every organ of the state. It has established the ancient Indian ethos of "Maryada" as far as Authorities and Institutions of State power are concerned. The spirit of the Constitution has to be upheld by adherence to this "Maryada" by the functionaries in the discharge of their duties.Q. A petition is filed for the protection and welfare of animals declaring "all members of the animal kingdom including birds and aquatic life have similar rights as humans" and animals throughout the state as "legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person." Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above, if the court takes conservative stance, which of the following would be most correct:a)Court will carry out a creative interpretation encompassing animal kingdom as legal entities.b)Judiciary will allow the petitions and recommend the petitioners to file the case in the Supreme Court.c)Judiciary will adjourn the matter.d)Judicial will dismiss the matter, act within the judicial limitation respecting the Separation of Powers and exercise judicial restraint.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The Judiciary has been assigned active role under the constitution. Judicial activism and judicial restraint are facets of that uncourageous creativity and pragmatic wisdom. The concept of Judicial activism is thus the polar opposite of Judicial restraint. Judicial activism and Judicial restraint are the two terms used to describe the philosophy and motivation behind some judicial decision.At most level, judicial activism refers to a theory of judgment that takes into account the spirit of the law and the changing times, while judicial restraint relies on a strict interpretation of the law and the importance of legal precedent. There is broad (though not absolute) separation of powers in the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India did not provide for the judiciary to be a super legislature or a substitute for the failure of the other two organs. When Judges start thinking they can solve all the problems in society and start performing legislative and executive functions (because the legislature and executive have in their perception failed in their duties), all kinds of problems are bound to arise.Judges can no doubt intervene in some extreme cases, but otherwise they neither have the expertise nor resources to solve major problems in society. Also, such encroachment by the judiciary into the domain of the legislature or executive will almost invariably have a strong reaction from politicians and others.Thus, the need arises for the judiciary to lay down its own limitations. The Constitution has clearly defined the duties and responsibilities of every organ of the state. It has established the ancient Indian ethos of "Maryada" as far as Authorities and Institutions of State power are concerned. The spirit of the Constitution has to be upheld by adherence to this "Maryada" by the functionaries in the discharge of their duties.Q. A petition is filed for the protection and welfare of animals declaring "all members of the animal kingdom including birds and aquatic life have similar rights as humans" and animals throughout the state as "legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person." Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above, if the court takes conservative stance, which of the following would be most correct:a)Court will carry out a creative interpretation encompassing animal kingdom as legal entities.b)Judiciary will allow the petitions and recommend the petitioners to file the case in the Supreme Court.c)Judiciary will adjourn the matter.d)Judicial will dismiss the matter, act within the judicial limitation respecting the Separation of Powers and exercise judicial restraint.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The Judiciary has been assigned active role under the constitution. Judicial activism and judicial restraint are facets of that uncourageous creativity and pragmatic wisdom. The concept of Judicial activism is thus the polar opposite of Judicial restraint. Judicial activism and Judicial restraint are the two terms used to describe the philosophy and motivation behind some judicial decision.At most level, judicial activism refers to a theory of judgment that takes into account the spirit of the law and the changing times, while judicial restraint relies on a strict interpretation of the law and the importance of legal precedent. There is broad (though not absolute) separation of powers in the Indian Constitution. The Constitution of India did not provide for the judiciary to be a super legislature or a substitute for the failure of the other two organs. When Judges start thinking they can solve all the problems in society and start performing legislative and executive functions (because the legislature and executive have in their perception failed in their duties), all kinds of problems are bound to arise.Judges can no doubt intervene in some extreme cases, but otherwise they neither have the expertise nor resources to solve major problems in society. Also, such encroachment by the judiciary into the domain of the legislature or executive will almost invariably have a strong reaction from politicians and others.Thus, the need arises for the judiciary to lay down its own limitations. The Constitution has clearly defined the duties and responsibilities of every organ of the state. It has established the ancient Indian ethos of "Maryada" as far as Authorities and Institutions of State power are concerned. The spirit of the Constitution has to be upheld by adherence to this "Maryada" by the functionaries in the discharge of their duties.Q. A petition is filed for the protection and welfare of animals declaring "all members of the animal kingdom including birds and aquatic life have similar rights as humans" and animals throughout the state as "legal entities having a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person." Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above, if the court takes conservative stance, which of the following would be most correct:a)Court will carry out a creative interpretation encompassing animal kingdom as legal entities.b)Judiciary will allow the petitions and recommend the petitioners to file the case in the Supreme Court.c)Judiciary will adjourn the matter.d)Judicial will dismiss the matter, act within the judicial limitation respecting the Separation of Powers and exercise judicial restraint.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.