Question:

Each question below is followed by arguments. Choose the most appropriate choice from the options given.

Question: Should Judicial Activism be discouraged?
Argument I: No, it would lead to executive dictatorship
Argument II: Yes, Judiciary should stay in the constitutional limits

Show Hint

Ask of each argument whether it is on the point and whether the harm it names is serious. Executive dictatorship and breach of constitutional limits are both serious.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • Argument I is strong
  • Argument II is strong
  • Both the arguments are strong
  • Both the arguments are weak
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
In a statement and argument question we judge each argument on its own. An argument is strong when it is directly connected to the issue and rests on a real, weighty consideration. It is weak when it is trivial, off the point, or based on a personal opinion.

Step 2: Understanding the concept:
Judicial activism means courts stepping beyond plain interpretation of the law to shape policy, usually to fill a gap left by the executive or the legislature. Public interest litigation in India is the best known example. There is a genuine debate about how far this should go, so both sides can carry real weight.

Step 3: Testing Argument I:
Argument I says no, discouraging judicial activism would lead to executive dictatorship.
This is directly on the issue. Courts are the main check on the executive. If the judiciary is told to stand back whenever the executive fails to act or oversteps, the executive faces no serious restraint. An unchecked executive drifting towards dictatorship is a real constitutional danger, not a small inconvenience. So Argument I is strong.

Step 4: Testing Argument II:
Argument II says yes, the judiciary should stay within constitutional limits.
This is also directly on the issue, and it rests on the separation of powers. The Constitution assigns lawmaking to the legislature and administration to the executive. When courts take over those functions, they act without any electoral mandate and without accountability to the people. That is a serious objection, not a technicality. So Argument II is strong too.

Step 5: Final Answer:
Both arguments raise substantial constitutional concerns and both address the question head on. So both are strong, and the answer is option (C).

Why the other options fail:
(A) drops Argument II, but the separation of powers objection is far too serious to call weak.
(B) drops Argument I, but the risk of an unchecked executive is equally serious.
(D) calls both weak, which cannot be right because each argument names a real constitutional harm.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Logical Reasoning Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Statements and Arguments Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions