Ans: B

Exp:

Judicial activism denotes the judiciary’s assertive stance in protecting citizens’ rights and promoting justice. The judges actively trespass into the domain of lawmaking and administration.  It involves the judiciary taking an active and assertive approach to interpret and enforce the law, even if it means compelling the other branches of government to fulfil their constitutional duties. Judicial activism is characterised by a strong commitment to upholding fundamental rights and ensuring that justice prevails in society, often through landmark judgements and interventions.

Ans: C

Exp:

Statement 1 is correct: The concept of judicial activism is closely related to the concept of public interest litigation (PIL). It is the judicial activism of the Supreme Court that is the major factor in the rise of PIL. PIL is the most popular form (or manifestation) of judicial activism. The rise of PIL can be largely attributed to the proactive approach of the Supreme Court through judicial activism because the Court’s assertive role in protecting citizens’ rights and promoting justice encouraged and facilitated PIL as a means to address public interest issues and protect fundamental rights more effectively.

Statement 2 is correct: The introduction of PIL in India was facilitated by the relaxation of the traditional rule of ‘locus standi’. According to this rule, only that person whose rights are infringed alone can move the court for remedies, whereas the PIL is an exception to this traditional rule. In a PIL, any member of the public having ‘sufficient interest’ can approach the court to enforce the rights of other persons or redress a common grievance. 

Ans: C

Exp:

The Supreme Court evolved the principles in regard to public interest litigation over a period of time. One of the principles is that when issues of public importance and enforcement of the fundamental rights of a large number of people vis-a-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the state are raised, the court treats a letter or a telegram as a PIL. In such cases, the court relaxes the procedural laws and also the law relating to pleadings. Example- In the ‘Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India’ case, the court treated a letter as a writ petition. The Supreme Court appointed a Commission of Inquiry and ordered the release and rehabilitation of all bonded labourers. Hence, PIL has become the sole instrument of social revolution.

Ans: C

Exp:

One of the reasons for judicial activism is a legislative vacuum/lack of specific legislation in certain areas that have not been legislated upon. This situation may prompt the judiciary to engage in judicial legislation to address changing social needs. The judiciary starts interpreting existing laws broadly or formulating new legal principles through its decisions. Example- Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, the Supreme Court issued guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace in the absence of any specific legislation on the issue. 

Ans: D

Exp:

Judicial restraint acknowledges the need to preserve the delicate separation of power outlined in the Constitution. It underscores the judiciary’s limitations and refrains from overstepping its boundaries by taking on legislative and executive roles, which it may lack the expertise and resources to execute effectively. This restraint ensures that each branch of government operates within its designated sphere of influence, promoting a harmonious functioning of the democratic system.The courts must realise that administrative authorities have expertise in the field of administration while the court does not.