The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Q. Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?a)The legislative and executive branches do not need the judiciary to interfere as they respect the Constitution.b)Judiciary has done this only to take more power than the other two branches.c)Judges claim that Judicial Activism is not working in a way as it was planned to.d)Judicial activism has helped ensure the faith of citizens in the Indian Constitution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > The judiciary is considered as the guardian ...

The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.

Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.

Q. Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?

a)
The legislative and executive branches do not need the judiciary to interfere as they respect the Constitution.
b)
Judiciary has done this only to take more power than the other two branches.
c)
Judges claim that Judicial Activism is not working in a way as it was planned to.
d)
Judicial activism has helped ensure the faith of citizens in the Indian Constitution.

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian C...

Statem ent (d), if true, strengthens the author's argument as the author talks about Judicial Activism and its functioning. Since he talks about the positive aspects, this argument will support the author's idea and hence strengthens the author's argument.

So, (d) is the correct option.

Incorrect Answers:(a), (b) and (c) weaken the argument of the author as they oppose the main idea of the passage and talks about the negative aspects of Judicial Activism. So, these are incorrect statements.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: Each set of questions in this section is based on the reasoning and arguments set out in the preceding passage. Please answer each question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the corresponding passage. Do not rely on any information or facts other than the ones supplied to you. In some instances, more than one option may be the answer to the question; in such a case, please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L.Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Which of the following, if true, strengthens the authors argument?

View answer

Direction: Each set of questions in this section is based on the reasoning and arguments set out in the preceding passage. Please answer each question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the corresponding passage. Do not rely on any information or facts other than the ones supplied to you. In some instances, more than one option may be the answer to the question; in such a case, please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L.Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument made by the author?

View answer

The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Q. Which of the following is similar to the line of reasoning of the author in the last paragraph?Otherwise he lets us manage the administration and office. He takes on our tasks too if we falter anywhere which helps to keep a check.

View answer

The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Q. Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument made by the author?

View answer

Direction: Each set of questions in this section is based on the reasoning and arguments set out in the preceding passage. Please answer each question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the corresponding passage. Do not rely on any information or facts other than the ones supplied to you. In some instances, more than one option may be the answer to the question; in such a case, please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L.Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Why does the author outline the powers of the three branches of the Government of India in the passage?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Q. Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?a)The legislative and executive branches do not need the judiciary to interfere as they respect the Constitution.b)Judiciary has done this only to take more power than the other two branches.c)Judges claim that Judicial Activism is not working in a way as it was planned to.d)Judicial activism has helped ensure the faith of citizens in the Indian Constitution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Q. Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?a)The legislative and executive branches do not need the judiciary to interfere as they respect the Constitution.b)Judiciary has done this only to take more power than the other two branches.c)Judges claim that Judicial Activism is not working in a way as it was planned to.d)Judicial activism has helped ensure the faith of citizens in the Indian Constitution.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Q. Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?a)The legislative and executive branches do not need the judiciary to interfere as they respect the Constitution.b)Judiciary has done this only to take more power than the other two branches.c)Judges claim that Judicial Activism is not working in a way as it was planned to.d)Judicial activism has helped ensure the faith of citizens in the Indian Constitution.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Q. Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?a)The legislative and executive branches do not need the judiciary to interfere as they respect the Constitution.b)Judiciary has done this only to take more power than the other two branches.c)Judges claim that Judicial Activism is not working in a way as it was planned to.d)Judicial activism has helped ensure the faith of citizens in the Indian Constitution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Q. Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?a)The legislative and executive branches do not need the judiciary to interfere as they respect the Constitution.b)Judiciary has done this only to take more power than the other two branches.c)Judges claim that Judicial Activism is not working in a way as it was planned to.d)Judicial activism has helped ensure the faith of citizens in the Indian Constitution.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 is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Q. Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?a)The legislative and executive branches do not need the judiciary to interfere as they respect the Constitution.b)Judiciary has done this only to take more power than the other two branches.c)Judges claim that Judicial Activism is not working in a way as it was planned to.d)Judicial activism has helped ensure the faith of citizens in the Indian Constitution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Q. Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?a)The legislative and executive branches do not need the judiciary to interfere as they respect the Constitution.b)Judiciary has done this only to take more power than the other two branches.c)Judges claim that Judicial Activism is not working in a way as it was planned to.d)Judicial activism has helped ensure the faith of citizens in the Indian Constitution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Q. Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?a)The legislative and executive branches do not need the judiciary to interfere as they respect the Constitution.b)Judiciary has done this only to take more power than the other two branches.c)Judges claim that Judicial Activism is not working in a way as it was planned to.d)Judicial activism has helped ensure the faith of citizens in the Indian Constitution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Q. Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?a)The legislative and executive branches do not need the judiciary to interfere as they respect the Constitution.b)Judiciary has done this only to take more power than the other two branches.c)Judges claim that Judicial Activism is not working in a way as it was planned to.d)Judicial activism has helped ensure the faith of citizens in the Indian Constitution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The judiciary is considered as the guardian and protector of Indian Constitution and supervises the implementation of fundamental rights and duties in the country. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar V. Union of India it has been held that the power of judicial review is a part of basic structure of the Indian Constitution.The emergence of judicial review gave birth to a new movement which is called Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism refers to a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. The Constitution of India divides the powers of government into three branches i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary and has defined their roles clearly.Legislature and executive are responsible for making the law of the land and judiciary is responsible for interpreting these laws and also has the power to review the law i.e. whether it is made in consonance with the basic principles of constitution or not. So, it is when the judiciary steps into the shoes of the executive and legislature and embarks on the work of lawmaking rather than interpreting laws, it is deemed to be judicial activism.Q. Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?a)The legislative and executive branches do not need the judiciary to interfere as they respect the Constitution.b)Judiciary has done this only to take more power than the other two branches.c)Judges claim that Judicial Activism is not working in a way as it was planned to.d)Judicial activism has helped ensure the faith of citizens in the Indian Constitution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam