Why is judicial activism debated?

Correct answer: Because it raises a question about balancing rights protection with intervention in policy matters

Direct answer: A is correct. Judicial activism generally describes a situation in which courts take an active approach to protecting rights, interpreting constitutional principles, or directing public authorities to address serious legal and public concerns. Supporters say this may help people when other institutions fail to protect rights or when disadvantaged groups cannot obtain effective relief. Critics worry that courts may go beyond interpreting law and enter areas better handled through detailed policy choices by elected governments and legislatures. The debate is therefore about institutional limits, accountability, expertise, and the proper balance among constitutional organs. Option A captures this genuine balance question without declaring that activism is always right or always wrong. B, C, and D are incorrect because sports, elections, and tax evasion do not explain the constitutional debate about judicial activism. Memory cue: activism may strengthen rights protection, but power must still respect institutional boundaries.