Answer:
Explanation:
1. Judicial activism is the interpretation of the Constitution to advocate contemporary values and conditions. Judicial restraint is limiting the powers of the judges to strike down a law.
2.In judicial restraint, the court should uphold all acts of the Congress and the state legislatures unless they are violating the Constitution of the country.
3.In the matter of judicial activism, the judges are required to use their power to correct any injustice especially when the other constitutional bodies are not acting.
4.Judicial activism has a great role in formulating social policies on issues like protection of rights of an individual, civil rights, public morality, and political unfairness.
Answer:
Judicial activism is essentially the opposite of judicial restraint.
If a court is exercising judicial activism, it means the court is actively making rulings that will change the laws that have been established by other branches of government, and even sometimes by other courts. The use of the word activism refers to the belief that the judges who behave in this manner are serving as activists who are pushing forward personal or political agendas.
Judicial restraint, on the other hand, means that the members of the judicial branch are restraining themselves from making decisions that could end up changing policies or laws.
Explanation:
