Static Quiz 29 March 2025 (Governance)

Correct Answer: (a) 1 only

Explanation:
• Statement 1: Judicial Review is explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution under Article 13, which states that any law inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights is void. Additionally, Articles 32 and 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to review laws, making this statement correct.

• Statement 2: Judicial Activism did not originate in India through PIL in the 1990s. The concept of Judicial Activism predates the 1990s and has roots in earlier judicial interpretations (e.g., the 1970s with cases like Kesavananda Bharati). While PIL, which gained prominence in the 1980s (not 1990s), significantly expanded Judicial Activism, it was not the origin. Thus, this statement is incorrect.

Correct Answer: (b) 2 only

Explanation:
• Statement 1: Judicial Activism does not typically allow the judiciary to override the legislature and executive in policy formulation. While it involves proactive judicial interpretation (e.g., PIL cases), policy-making remains the domain of the legislature and executive. Overreach may occur, but it’s not a defining feature of Judicial Activism. This statement is incorrect or overstated.

• Statement 2: The “Basic Structure Doctrine” emerged from the Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), a landmark example of Judicial Activism where the judiciary asserted its role in protecting the Constitution’s core principles. This statement is correct.

Correct Answer: (c) Both 1 and 2

Explanation:
• Statement 1: Judicial Review ensures constitutional supremacy by striking down laws inconsistent with the Constitution. Judicial Activism involves proactive judicial intervention, often in governance-related matters (e.g., environmental protection or human rights via PIL). This distinction is accurate.

• Statement 2: Judicial Review is explicitly provided in the Constitution (Articles 13, 32, 226), while Judicial Activism is a judicial practice that has evolved over time and is not explicitly defined in the Constitution. This is also correct.

Correct Answer: (d) 2, 3, and 4 only

Explanation:
• Golaknath Case (1967): This case ruled that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. While significant, it is more an example of Judicial Review (interpreting constitutional limits) than Judicial Activism (proactive intervention). Not typically classified as activism.
• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The creation of the Basic Structure Doctrine exemplifies Judicial Activism, as the judiciary took a proactive stance to limit Parliament’s amendment powers. This is an example.
• Maneka Gandhi Case (1978): The expansive interpretation of Article 21 (right to life and liberty) to include due process and fairness marks this as Judicial Activism. This is an example.
• Vishaka Case (1997): The judiciary laid down guidelines for preventing sexual harassment at workplaces, effectively legislating in the absence of law—a clear case of Judicial Activism. This is an example.

Correct Answer: (c) Both 1 and 2

Explanation:
• Statement 1: In India, Judicial Review extends to striking down constitutional amendments that violate the Basic Structure (post-Kesavananda Bharati), unlike in the USA, where amendments are not subject to judicial review. This makes India’s scope broader, so the statement is correct.

• Statement 2: Judicial Activism has significantly expanded Fundamental Rights under Article 21 (e.g., right to privacy, education, clean environment) through cases like Maneka Gandhi and others. This statement is correct.