Question

It is not generally realised that when a court upholds or invalidates legislation or executive action, it neither approves nor condemns any legislative policy, nor is if concerned with the wisdom or expediency of the administrative action. It merely determines whether the legislation or executive action is in conformity with or contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. It discharges the function of guarding the Constitution, no more, no less. Judicial activism is to be properly understood in the context of the extent and the vigour and the readiness with which the courts exercise their power ofjudicial review. When courts actively perform an interventionist role, we witness the phenomenon of judicial activism. When the judiciary exercises self-restraint in exercising the power of judicial review and limits its role, there is absence of judicial activism. But the pendulum of judicial review is never static and judicial activism, or lack of it, is a variable phenomenon.
Which one of the following, if true, would defeat the case presented above ?

• A. The judiciary is plagued with the Public Interest Litigation against some or the other forms of administrative action.
• B. Often, the judiciary is seen to be making disparaging remarks about the executive, pulling up officials for lapses in conduct, many a time condemning them.
• C. The judicial review exercises that the judiciary often undertakes is what comprises judicial activism.
• D. Judicial activism is not mandatory under the Constitution. It is for the judiciary to decide whether it wants to intervene in a certain issue or not.

Answer 1

The correct option is B Often, the judiciary is seen to be making disparaging remarks about the executive, pulling up officials for lapses in conduct, many a time condemning them.

says that judiciary makes critical remarks about executives and condemns them. This clearly defeat the case presented. Hence, option (b) is the correct answer.