Question:medium

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

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Grade each argument on two counts: is it about this question, and does it name a harm big enough to matter. Only if it clears both does it count as strong. Judicial activism sits at the meeting point of the courts, the executive and the legislature, so arguments drawn from the constitutional balance of power are exactly the kind that carry weight here.

  1. Argument I is strong: Argument I does hold up. If the courts are pushed back, the executive loses the one institution that regularly calls it to account, and the road to an unchecked and eventually authoritarian executive opens up. That is a real harm and it is squarely on the question. But this option requires Argument II to be weak, and it is not.
  2. Argument II is strong: Argument II also holds up. The Constitution divides the work of government among three branches, and judges are not elected and cannot be voted out. When a court starts writing policy, it exercises power without a mandate and without accountability. That is a serious structural objection. Yet this option requires Argument I to be weak, which it plainly is not.
  3. Both the arguments are strong: This is the honest reading. Argument I protects against an unchecked executive, which is the very risk judicial activism grew up to answer. Argument II protects the separation of powers, which is the very principle judicial activism strains. Each names a genuine constitutional cost, each is relevant, and neither is a personal opinion or a small point. Both sides of a real debate can be strong at the same time, and here they are.
  4. Both the arguments are weak: Neither argument is vague, off topic or trivial. Executive dictatorship and breach of constitutional limits are both first order concerns, so dismissing both is not defensible.

The answer is option (C). Both arguments are strong.

Let's summarize:

  • An argument is strong if it is relevant and names a substantial harm or benefit.
  • Argument I rests on the courts being the check on the executive.
  • Argument II rests on the separation of powers and judicial accountability.
  • Both clear the bar, so both are strong.

So the correct choice is (C).

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Statements and Arguments

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. A new order cannot be established without radically changing the mind and attitude of men towards property and, at some stage or the other, the 'haves' have to yield place to the 'have-nots'. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. It may even be that, like a gas kept confined within containers under great pressure, or water held back by a big dam, once the barrier breaks, the reaction will one day sweep back with a violence equal in extent and intensity to what was used to establish and maintain the outward egalitarian form. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. If egalitarianism is to endure, it has to be based not on the possession of the maximum material goods by a few or by all but on voluntary, enlightened renunciation of those goods which cannot be shared by others or can be enjoyed only at the expense of others.

According to the passage, egalitarianism will not survive if
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. This unfinished part of his experiment was perhaps even more difficult to achieve than the achievement of political freedom. In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. In establishing a social order on this pattern, there was a strong possibility of a conflict arising between diverse groups and classes of our own people.

According to the passage, which was the unfinished part of Gandhi's experiment?
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. Experience shows that man values his possessions even more than his life because in the former he sees the means for perpetuation and survival of his descendants even after his body is reduced to ashes. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. The root cause of class conflict is possessiveness or the acquisitive instinct.

Which of the following statements is 'not true' in the context of the passage?
View Solution