Choose the correct statement from the following about Judicial Activism.
Statement (I): This has made the judicial system democratized and the executive as a result has become accountable.
Statement (II): Due to judicial activism, the difference between the functions of the legislature, executive and the judiciary has become clear.

Correct option is B

Correct Answer: (B) Statement (I) is true but Statement (II) is false.
Explanation:
→ Statement (I) is true. Judicial activism refers to the judiciary's proactive role in interpreting the law and constitution, especially when it comes to ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and upholding the rule of law. This has often led to greater accountability of the executive, as courts have stepped in to ensure that government actions are within legal bounds. Judicial interventions have at times pushed the executive to be more transparent and responsive, thus contributing to the democratization of the system.
→ Statement (II) is false. Judicial activism has often blurred the lines between the functions of the legislature, executive, and judiciary, rather than clarifying them. While the judiciary has taken an active role in areas typically handled by the other branches of government (such as issuing directives, making policy recommendations, or addressing issues of governance), this has sometimes led to controversy over the separation of powers. Judicial activism, in some cases, is criticized for overstepping the judiciary's role and encroaching upon the legislature and executive's domains.
Information Booster:
→ Judicial activism is characterized by the judiciary taking an assertive role in ensuring justice, often intervening in cases where it believes the other branches of government are failing to uphold constitutional values or the rights of citizens.
→ Landmark cases like Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and cases concerning environmental protection, human rights, and fundamental rights have showcased the judiciary's involvement in governance issues that traditionally belonged to the executive or legislature.
→ Judicial activism has led to important reforms, such as the decriminalization of homosexuality, the right to privacy, and the protection of the environment. However, critics argue that it sometimes leads to judicial overreach.
→ The role of the judiciary, especially under judicial activism, has led to debates about the balance of power between the three branches of government. The separation of powers is a cornerstone of democratic governance, and judicial activism can raise concerns about whether the judiciary is overstepping its boundaries.
→ Judicial activism has made the executive more accountable, particularly in cases of governance failures, but it has also led to discussions about whether the judiciary is undermining the legislature's and executive’s functions.