In which situation can judicial activism be democratically justified?

Correct answer: When the court intervenes within constitutional limits to protect rights and public interest

Correct answer: A, when the court acts within constitutional limits to protect rights and public interest. Judicial activism refers to a court taking an active role in interpreting and enforcing constitutional rights, especially when lawful protection is absent or inadequate. In a democracy, such action can be justified when it remedies a rights violation, requires public authorities to follow the Constitution, or protects people who cannot effectively protect themselves. The court must still respect separation of powers, legal procedure and the limits of judicial authority. Option B is incorrect because routine administration belongs to the executive, not the judiciary. Option C is incorrect because choosing election candidates is not a judicial function. Option D is incorrect because punishment without legal authority violates the rule of law. Memory cue: activism may protect rights, but it is not government by judges.