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. Based on the author's arguments in the passage above, which of the following statements is least essential as a part of the argument made in the above passage?a)The spirit of Constitution depends upon execution of duties by state functionaries keeping in mind the concept of "Maryada" and the responsibilities of each state organ.b)The well-defined roles and duties of state organs and the functionaries was important to ensure that there are checks and balances in the Indian democracy.c)The process of holding the functionaries of the Indian state accountable for their actions is faulty and thus the ethos of "Maryada" remains only on paper but is not followed in practice.d)The ethos of "Maryada" would put adequate restraints on state power and institutions such that they can function properly without hindering the process of other state organs.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. Based on the author's arguments in the passage above, which of the following statements is least essential as a part of the argument made in the above passage?a)The spirit of Constitution depends upon execution of duties by state functionaries keeping in mind the concept of "Maryada" and the responsibilities of each state organ.b)The well-defined roles and duties of state organs and the functionaries was important to ensure that there are checks and balances in the Indian democracy.c)The process of holding the functionaries of the Indian state accountable for their actions is faulty and thus the ethos of "Maryada" remains only on paper but is not followed in practice.d)The ethos of "Maryada" would put adequate restraints on state power and institutions such that they can function properly without hindering the process of other state organs.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. Based on the author's arguments in the passage above, which of the following statements is least essential as a part of the argument made in the above passage?a)The spirit of Constitution depends upon execution of duties by state functionaries keeping in mind the concept of "Maryada" and the responsibilities of each state organ.b)The well-defined roles and duties of state organs and the functionaries was important to ensure that there are checks and balances in the Indian democracy.c)The process of holding the functionaries of the Indian state accountable for their actions is faulty and thus the ethos of "Maryada" remains only on paper but is not followed in practice.d)The ethos of "Maryada" would put adequate restraints on state power and institutions such that they can function properly without hindering the process of other state organs.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. Based on the author's arguments in the passage above, which of the following statements is least essential as a part of the argument made in the above passage?a)The spirit of Constitution depends upon execution of duties by state functionaries keeping in mind the concept of "Maryada" and the responsibilities of each state organ.b)The well-defined roles and duties of state organs and the functionaries was important to ensure that there are checks and balances in the Indian democracy.c)The process of holding the functionaries of the Indian state accountable for their actions is faulty and thus the ethos of "Maryada" remains only on paper but is not followed in practice.d)The ethos of "Maryada" would put adequate restraints on state power and institutions such that they can function properly without hindering the process of other state organs.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. Based on the author's arguments in the passage above, which of the following statements is least essential as a part of the argument made in the above passage?a)The spirit of Constitution depends upon execution of duties by state functionaries keeping in mind the concept of "Maryada" and the responsibilities of each state organ.b)The well-defined roles and duties of state organs and the functionaries was important to ensure that there are checks and balances in the Indian democracy.c)The process of holding the functionaries of the Indian state accountable for their actions is faulty and thus the ethos of "Maryada" remains only on paper but is not followed in practice.d)The ethos of "Maryada" would put adequate restraints on state power and institutions such that they can function properly without hindering the process of other state organs.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. Based on the author's arguments in the passage above, which of the following statements is least essential as a part of the argument made in the above passage?a)The spirit of Constitution depends upon execution of duties by state functionaries keeping in mind the concept of "Maryada" and the responsibilities of each state organ.b)The well-defined roles and duties of state organs and the functionaries was important to ensure that there are checks and balances in the Indian democracy.c)The process of holding the functionaries of the Indian state accountable for their actions is faulty and thus the ethos of "Maryada" remains only on paper but is not followed in practice.d)The ethos of "Maryada" would put adequate restraints on state power and institutions such that they can function properly without hindering the process of other state organs.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. Based on the author's arguments in the passage above, which of the following statements is least essential as a part of the argument made in the above passage?a)The spirit of Constitution depends upon execution of duties by state functionaries keeping in mind the concept of "Maryada" and the responsibilities of each state organ.b)The well-defined roles and duties of state organs and the functionaries was important to ensure that there are checks and balances in the Indian democracy.c)The process of holding the functionaries of the Indian state accountable for their actions is faulty and thus the ethos of "Maryada" remains only on paper but is not followed in practice.d)The ethos of "Maryada" would put adequate restraints on state power and institutions such that they can function properly without hindering the process of other state organs.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. Based on the author's arguments in the passage above, which of the following statements is least essential as a part of the argument made in the above passage?a)The spirit of Constitution depends upon execution of duties by state functionaries keeping in mind the concept of "Maryada" and the responsibilities of each state organ.b)The well-defined roles and duties of state organs and the functionaries was important to ensure that there are checks and balances in the Indian democracy.c)The process of holding the functionaries of the Indian state accountable for their actions is faulty and thus the ethos of "Maryada" remains only on paper but is not followed in practice.d)The ethos of "Maryada" would put adequate restraints on state power and institutions such that they can function properly without hindering the process of other state organs.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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. Based on the author's arguments in the passage above, which of the following statements is least essential as a part of the argument made in the above passage?a)The spirit of Constitution depends upon execution of duties by state functionaries keeping in mind the concept of "Maryada" and the responsibilities of each state organ.b)The well-defined roles and duties of state organs and the functionaries was important to ensure that there are checks and balances in the Indian democracy.c)The process of holding the functionaries of the Indian state accountable for their actions is faulty and thus the ethos of "Maryada" remains only on paper but is not followed in practice.d)The ethos of "Maryada" would put adequate restraints on state power and institutions such that they can function properly without hindering the process of other state organs.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.