who said "judicial activism" should not become" judical adventurism"
Answers
Answer:
The Constitution of India embraces the idea of separation of powers of the legislature, executive and judiciary, in an implied manner. Instead of clear-cut demarcation of powers, many aspects are guided by conventions, like those in the countries that do not have a written constitution like ours.Even as the conflicts between the three organs are far from eliminated, there is another issue that begs the attention of the nation much more urgently, one of judicial overreach and judicial activism due to continued under-performance, and at times, non-performance of the executive and legislative organs.Since the early 1990s, the Indian courts have stepped in with greater frequency on matters ranging from malfeasance in governance to legislative matters to political and policy matters, leading to constant friction between the three organs. The courts of today are not passive, with the attitude of merely striking down a law or preventing something from being done. Rather, the new attitude comprises issuing orders, positive affirmation cases and decrees directing remedial actions. Judicial activism refers to the interference of the judiciary in the legislative and executive fields. In the past few years, judicial activism has only flourished in India and acquired legitimacy with the Indian public.
Explanation:
hope it helps u. plz mark me as brainliest.o(╥﹏╥)o