Question 1

Consider the following statements regarding the origin of judicial activism:
1. The doctrine of judicial activism was first introduced in the USA in the mid-1970s.
2. The term 'judicial activism' was coined by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., an American historian.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

2 only. The concept of judicial activism originated in the USA, and the term was coined there in 1947 by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. The doctrine was introduced in India, not the USA, in the mid-1970s. Therefore, only the second statement is correct.

Question 2

With reference to judicial activism, consider the following descriptions:
1. It is the antithesis of 'judicial dynamism'.
2. It denotes a proactive role by the judiciary in the promotion of justice.
3. It is a philosophy where judges may allow personal views on public policy to guide decisions.
4. It is a form of self-control exercised by the judiciary.
How many of the above descriptions are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only two. Judicial activism is also known as 'judicial dynamism', not its antithesis. It does involve a proactive role in promoting justice and can be guided by judges' personal views on public policy. The self-control exercised by the judiciary is known as 'judicial restraint', not activism. Thus, only two statements (2 and 3) are correct.

Question 3

Statement I: The concept of judicial activism is inherent in judicial review, which empowers the court to uphold the constitution.
Statement II: The rise of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India is considered a major outcome of judicial activism.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is not the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are factually correct. Judicial activism is a proactive way of exercising the power of judicial review. The development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a prominent example and outcome of judicial activism in India. However, the rise of PIL is a consequence of judicial activism, not the fundamental reason why activism is considered inherent in the power of judicial review itself. The two are correct but separate facts.

Question 4

Consider the following individuals:
1. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
2. Justice P.N. Bhagwati
3. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy
4. Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
How many of the individuals listed above are mentioned as having laid the foundations of judicial activism in India?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Justices V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, O. Chinnappa Reddy, and D.A. Desai are credited with laying the foundations of judicial activism in India. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. is an American historian who coined the term but was not involved in its foundation in India. Therefore, three of the listed individuals are correct.

Question 5

Consider the following statements:
1. Judicial activism is also known as 'judicial pessimism'.
2. The concept of judicial activism is closely related to Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
3. Judicial activism is the antithesis of 'judicial restraint'.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 only. The text distinguishes judicial activism from 'judicial pessimism', stating they are different. Statements 2 and 3 are correct descriptions; judicial activism is closely linked to PIL and is the conceptual opposite of judicial restraint. The question asks for the incorrect statement, which is statement 1.

Question 6

According to Dr. B.L. Wadehra,
which of the following are cited as reasons for judicial activism?
1. Near collapse of the responsible government.
2. Judicial enthusiasm for social reforms.
3. Existence of a legislative vacuum.
4. Indiscriminate exercise of contempt power.
How many of the above reasons are correct?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Dr. B.L. Wadehra identifies three primary reasons for judicial activism: the near collapse of responsible government, judicial enthusiasm for social reform, and the existence of a legislative vacuum. The indiscriminate exercise of contempt power is listed by Dr. Vandana as a trend reflecting judicial activism, not a reason for it according to Wadehra.

Question 7

Consider the following statements regarding the eventualities, as observed by Subhash Kashyap, where the judiciary may overstep its normal jurisdiction:
1. When the legislature fails to discharge its responsibilities.
2. In the case of a hung legislature resulting in a weak and insecure government.
3. When the judiciary itself becomes a victim of a craze for populism and publicity.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. Subhash Kashyap observes that the judiciary may intervene when the legislature fails, when a hung legislature creates a weak government, and also when courts themselves succumb to weaknesses like the craze for populism. All three statements reflect the observations attributed to him regarding the judiciary overstepping its domain.

Question 8

Consider the following pairs regarding activist groups and their focus areas as described by Upendra Baxi's typology:
1. Child Rights Groups : Focus on juveniles in custodial institutions.
2. Bonded Labour Groups : Ask for the annihilation of wage slavery.
3. Environmental Groups : Combat increasing environmental degradation.
4. Poverty Rights Groups : Agitate for issues of forest dwellers.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. Pair 1 is correct as Child Rights Groups focus on child labour and juveniles. Pair 2 is correct as Bonded Labour Groups seek to end wage slavery. Pair 3 is correct as Environmental Groups combat degradation and pollution. Pair 4 is incorrect; Poverty Rights Groups focus on issues like draught relief, while groups for forest dwellers and tribal rights are a separate category.

Question 9

Statement I: Judicial activism is often seen as a response to the failure of the legislature and the executive to protect the basic rights of citizens.
Statement II: The Constitution of India itself contains provisions that grant the judiciary sufficient scope to play an active role in governance.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Both statements are correct justifications for judicial activism mentioned in political analysis. Statement I describes a situation (failure of other organs) that necessitates judicial intervention. Statement II provides the underlying constitutional basis or justification that empowers the judiciary to undertake such an active role. Therefore, the constitutional scope mentioned in Statement II is a valid explanation for the judicial action described in Statement I.

Question 10

With reference to the trends reflecting judicial activism, consider the following statements:
1. It involves the expansion of judicial review over administrative actions.
2. It includes the promotion of open government.
3. It is characterized by a strict refusal to engage in judicial legislation, even in the face of a legislative vacuum.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

3 only. Statements 1 and 2 are correct trends reflecting judicial activism, as it involves expanding judicial control over administration and promoting open government. Statement 3 is incorrect because judicial activism is often characterized by the judiciary's willingness to indulge in judicial legislation to fill a 'legislative vacuum' and meet changing social needs. The question asks for the incorrect statement.

Question 11

Consider the following pairs:
Advocacy Group : Primary Issue of Agitation
1. Bar Associations : Autonomy of the judiciary
2. Media Groups : Accountability of the press
3. Gender Advocacy Groups : Dowry murders
4. Lawyers Groups : Accountability of state-owned media
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only three pairs. Pair 1 is correct as Bar Associations agitate for the autonomy of the judiciary. Pair 2 is correct as Media Groups focus on the accountability of the press. Pair 3 is correct as Gender Advocacy Groups agitate against dowry murders. Pair 4 is incorrect; Media Groups, not Lawyers Groups, are specified as focusing on the accountability of state-owned mass media.

Question 12

Consider the following statements regarding various advocacy groups:
1. Advocacy groups for gender equality agitate against issues like rape and dowry murders.
2. Bar associations are primarily concerned with the autonomy and accountability of the press.
3. Media groups focus on the accountability of instruments of mass media owned by the State.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

2 only. Statement 2 is incorrect. Bar associations agitate for issues concerning the autonomy and accountability of the Indian judiciary, not the press. Statement 1 is correct as gender equality groups agitate against rape and dowry murders. Statement 3 is also correct as media groups focus on the accountability of state-owned mass media.

Question 13

Consider the following issues:
1. Autonomy of the Indian judiciary
2. Accountability of the press
3. Gender-based violence
4. Autonomy of state-owned mass media
How many of the issues listed above are the focus of agitation for either Bar Associations or Media Groups?

Accepted Answer

Only three. Three of the listed issues are the focus of these groups. 'Autonomy of the Indian judiciary' is an issue for Bar Associations. 'Accountability of the press' and 'Autonomy of state-owned mass media' are issues for Media Groups. 'Gender-based violence' is an issue for Gender Equality advocacy groups, not Bar or Media groups.

Question 14

Statement I: Critically influential lawyers groups that agitate for various causes are identified as a distinct category of advocates, separate from freelance activist individuals.
Statement II: Both lawyers groups and freelance activist individuals fall under the broader classification of 'Individual Advocates' alongside Bar and Media groups.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II is not the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I is correct as the text lists 'lawyers groups' and 'freelance activist individuals' as separate categories (14 and 15). Statement II is also correct as the overarching heading for these categories is 'Bar, Media, and Individual Advocates'. However, Statement II does not explain why they are distinct categories; it only states their common classification. Therefore, both statements are correct, but one is not an explanation for the other.

Question 15

With reference to advocacy groups for gender equality, consider the following statements:
1. These groups focus on issues of gender-based violence and harassment.
2. These groups also agitate for the autonomy and accountability of the Indian judiciary.
3. The issue of dowry murders is a key area of agitation for these groups.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statements 1 and 3 are correct as the text explicitly mentions that gender equality groups agitate for issues of 'gender-based violence and harassment' and 'dowry murders'. Statement 2 is incorrect; the agitation for the 'autonomy and accountability of the Indian judiciary' is carried out by Bar associations, not gender equality groups.

Question 16

According to jurist Upendra Baxi's typology,
how many of the apprehensions listed below are associated with judicial activism?
1. The concern that judges may lack specialized knowledge in economic and scientific matters.
2. The apprehension about the depletion of the judiciary's symbolic authority if its orders are ignored.
3. The worry about the potential for Public Interest Litigation to deplete future democratic potential.
4. The fear of personal security threats to judges and their families post-retirement.

Accepted Answer

Only three. The text outlines several fears described by Upendra Baxi. These include the lack of specialized knowledge by judges, the potential loss of institutional authority if orders are ignored, and the risk of depleting democracy's potential. The fear of personal security threats post-retirement is not mentioned; the text refers to concerns about a judge's 'place in national affairs after superannuation'. Therefore, the first three statements are correct.

Question 17

Consider the following two statements:
Statement I: A primary apprehension regarding judicial activism is the fear that the judiciary might be usurping the powers constitutionally assigned to the legislature and the executive.
Statement II: This concern is rooted in the constitutional principle of separation of powers, where judicial activism is perceived as a potential encroachment upon the domains of other branches of government.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I correctly identifies the fear of usurpation of powers as a key apprehension related to judicial activism, as mentioned in the source. Statement II provides the correct constitutional context for this fear, which is the principle of separation of powers. Judicial activism can be seen as a breach of this principle when courts venture into policy-making, a domain typically reserved for the legislature and executive. Thus, Statement II correctly explains Statement I.

Question 18

With reference to the apprehensions regarding judicial activism as described by Upendra Baxi, consider the following statements:
1. The rise of Public Interest Litigation is viewed as unambiguously positive for nurturing democracy's future potential.
2. A significant fear is the potential erosion of public faith in the judiciary if its directives in PIL cases are bypassed by the executive.
3. The typology of fears includes concerns about judges' personal financial gains from handling PIL cases during their tenure.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 and 3 only. Statement 1 is incorrect because the text explicitly mentions the fear of 'depleting' democracy's potential, indicating the impact is not seen as unambiguously positive. Statement 2 is correct, as the text highlights the fear of eroding people's faith if judicial orders are ignored, leading to a loss of symbolic authority. Statement 3 is incorrect; the text mentions a judge's concern for their 'place in national affairs after superannuation', not personal financial gains during their tenure. Therefore, statements 1 and 3 are not correct.

Question 19

Consider the following pairs regarding the fears of judicial activism:
Fear Type :: Description
1. Fear of Usurpation :: Encroaching on legislative and executive functions.
2. Fear of Procedural Legitimacy :: Lack of specialized knowledge in economic matters.
3. Fear of Loss of Authority :: Executive bypassing or ignoring judicial orders.
4. Fear of Democratic Depletion :: Judges' concerns about their post-superannuation roles.
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

Only two pairs. Pair 1 is correctly matched. Pair 3 is also correctly matched. However, Pair 2 is incorrectly matched; the fear of procedural legitimacy relates to adding workload to a system with staggering arrears, not a lack of knowledge. The lack of knowledge is a separate fear. Pair 4 is also incorrectly matched; the fear of democratic depletion is about whether PIL nurtures or harms democracy, not about judges' post-retirement prospects. Therefore, only two pairs are correctly matched.

Question 20

With reference to the challenges posed by judicial activism, consider the following statements:
1. It raises questions about the judiciary's competence in non-legal domains such as science and economics.
2. The existing backlog of cases in the judicial system is a factor that challenges the legitimacy of taking on an additional PIL workload.
3. Judicial activism is perceived as a potential risk to the judiciary's own instrumental and symbolic authority.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three statements are correct based on the provided text. Statement 1 refers to the fear of lack of expertise ('Do they have enough knowledge...'). Statement 2 refers to the fear of procedural legitimacy ('adding this kind of litigation work load to a situation of staggering growth of arrears'). Statement 3 refers to the fear of loss of institutional authority ('causing depletion of their symbolic and instrumental authority').

Question 21

With reference to the assumptions underlying the doctrine of judicial restraint in the USA, consider the following:
1. The Court is fundamentally undemocratic because it is non-elective.
2. The power of judicial review lacks a specific grant in the Constitution.
3. The doctrine of separation of powers necessitates judicial deference.
4. The concept of federalism requires deference to state government actions.
How many of the assumptions above are stated in the text to hold good in the Indian context as well?

Accepted Answer

Only three. The provided text lists six assumptions for judicial restraint in the USA. It explicitly states that all these assumptions, except the second one (dealing with the questionable origins of judicial review), hold good in the Indian context. Therefore, assumptions 1, 3, and 4 are applicable to India, making a total of three.

Question 22

Consider the following statements based on the Supreme Court of India's observations in its December 2007 judgement on judicial restraint:
1. The Court acknowledged that judicial encroachment might be necessary if other organs of the state are not performing their duties properly.
2. The Court opined that the appropriate remedy for a non-functioning legislature or executive lies with the electorate during elections.
3. The Court warned that judicial activism must not be allowed to become judicial adventurism.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

1 only. The first statement is incorrect. The judgment explicitly refutes this justification, stating that even if other organs are not functioning properly, the remedy is not for the judiciary to take over their functions. The second and third statements are correct as they accurately reflect the observations made by the Bench, which highlighted the role of the people in correcting defects and warned against judicial overreach.

Question 23

Statement I: The philosophy of judicial restraint argues that the role of judges should be strictly limited to interpreting the law as it is, not making new law.
Statement II: A key justification for judicial restraint is the principle that the judiciary, being a non-elective and presumably non-responsive body, should defer to the more democratic legislative and executive branches.

Accepted Answer

Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II is the correct explanation for Statement I.. Statement I correctly defines the core tenet of judicial restraint. Statement II provides one of the primary reasons for this philosophy, as mentioned in the text: the undemocratic nature of the judiciary compared to the elected branches. Therefore, both statements are correct, and Statement II provides a direct and accurate explanation for the principle described in Statement I.

Question 24

According to the Supreme Court's 2007 judgment,
how many of the following are cited as reasons for the judiciary to exercise restraint and avoid encroaching on legislative or executive domains?
1. It violates the constitutional balance of power.
2. The judiciary lacks the specialized expertise found in administrative bodies.
3. The judiciary does not have the resources to perform executive or legislative functions.
4. Judicial restraint helps protect the independence of the judiciary from potential interference by other branches.

Accepted Answer

All four. The Supreme Court's judgment mentioned all four points. It explicitly stated that judicial overreach violates the balance of power (1), that the judiciary lacks the expertise and resources (2 and 3), and that judicial restraint protects judicial independence by minimizing inter-branch interference and avoiding scrutiny that arises from encroachment (4).

Question 25

With reference to the philosophy of judicial restraint, consider the following statements:
1. It holds that the original intent of the authors of the constitution should be a guiding principle for courts.
2. It contends that judges should, under no circumstances, allow their personal political values to influence their judicial opinions.
3. It pragmatically assumes that courts should consider the risk of losing public acceptance before overstepping their boundaries.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Accepted Answer

1, 2 and 3. All three statements accurately describe aspects of judicial restraint as detailed in the text. The philosophy emphasizes adherence to the original intent of the constitution's authors (1), insists that judges must not let personal values color their opinions (2), and includes a pragmatic assumption that courts must be mindful of their dependence on public acceptance and support from other branches (3).

Question 26

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's approach to judicial power, in light of its recent ruling on "performance audits" and the Anun Dhawan (community kitchens) case:

1. The ruling on performance audits exemplifies judicial activism by compelling the executive and legislature to ensure the effectiveness of their laws, aligning with the concept of the judiciary's proactive role in promoting justice.
2. The Anun Dhawan judgment, where the court declined to mandate a specific policy for community kitchens, represents judicial restraint by acknowledging the limits of judicial review in matters of government policy.
3. The performance audit directive can be seen as an extension of judicial review where the court is not just invalidating a law but actively participating in assessing its policy implementation, a characteristic of judicial activism described as judges participating in law-making policies.

How many of the above statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

All three. All three statements are correct. Statement 1 is correct as the performance audit is a proactive measure to ensure a law's objectives are met, fitting the definition of judicial activism. Statement 2 is correct because the court's refusal to dictate a specific policy in the Anun Dhawan case shows self-control, which is the essence of judicial restraint. Statement 3 is also correct; judicial activism is described as a form of judicial review where judges go beyond merely upholding or invalidating laws to exercising policy preferences, which is what assessing a law's performance entails.

Question 27

Consider the following pairs, matching Upendra Baxi's typology of fears regarding judicial activism with recent events and challenges in the Indian judiciary:

1. Fear of Usurpation : The Supreme Court's ruling in the Electoral Bond Scheme case, issuing detailed directives for disclosure.
2. Fear of Populist Imprudence : The systemic issue of over 5 crore pending cases across Indian courts, epitomized by the phrase 'tareekh pe tareekh'.
3. Fear of Institutional Impotence : The continued high pollution levels in the Yamuna River despite numerous court orders directing the government to clean it up.
4. Fear of Post-Retirement Prospects : The debate surrounding the nomination of a former Chief Justice of India to the Rajya Sabha, raising concerns of a potential 'quid pro quo'.

How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

Accepted Answer

All four pairs. All four pairs are correctly matched. 1. The 'Fear of Usurpation' relates to the judiciary encroaching on legislative/executive domains, which critics argued happened in the Electoral Bond case. 2. The 'Fear of Populist Imprudence' concerns adding to the workload and arrears, which is directly reflected in the massive case pendency. 3. The 'Fear of Institutional Impotence' is about the executive ignoring judicial orders, eroding the court's authority, as seen in the non-enforcement of the Yamuna cleanup orders. 4. The 'Fear of Post-Retirement Prospects' concerns how a judge's future ambitions might affect their current rulings, a debate sparked by the ex-CJI's Rajya Sabha nomination.

Question 28

Considering the 2025 report on India's judicial pendency crisis and Upendra Baxi's typology of fears, match the contemporary judicial challenges with the corresponding fear articulated by Baxi.

**List-I (Contemporary Challenge)**
1. The judiciary's push for the government to increase judicial strength and expedite the appointment process to tackle the 4.80 crore pending cases.
2. The staggering backlog of 1.13 crore cases in Uttar Pradesh's lower courts, which severely delays justice and questions the court's capacity.
3. A hypothetical scenario where a court, through a PIL, passes a sweeping order on a complex economic matter that the executive subsequently ignores, citing impracticality.

**List-II (Baxi's Fear)**
A. Fear of Arrears
B. Fear of Usurpation
C. Fear of Depletion of Authority

Select the correct match:

Accepted Answer

1-B, 2-A, 3-C. 1. The judiciary directing the executive on matters of appointments and resource allocation aligns with the 'Fear of Usurpation' (B), as it can be seen as encroaching on executive powers. 2. The massive backlog of cases directly embodies the 'Fear of Arrears' (A), which questions the judiciary's ability to manage its workload. 3. An ignored judicial order leads to a loss of public faith and judicial power, which corresponds to the 'Fear of Depletion of Authority' (C).

Judicial Activism

Unlock All Questions