What should be a balanced view on judicial activism?

Correct answer: It can help protect rights, but institutional limits must also be respected

Correct answer: A. Judicial activism refers to a situation in which courts interpret the Constitution and laws actively to protect rights, correct unlawful government action, or provide relief when ordinary remedies are inadequate. It can be valuable because courts may give a voice to people whose rights are ignored. However, courts are not elected law-making bodies, and the Constitution distributes powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Therefore, judicial action should remain connected to constitutional text, legal reasoning, evidence, and institutional competence. A is correct because it recognises both the usefulness and the limits of activism. B is wrong because activism is not automatically dictatorship. C is wrong because judicial decisions are not election campaigns. D is wrong because activism does not abolish courts; it concerns how courts exercise their constitutional role. Memory cue: activism may protect rights, but it must not become unchecked judicial government.