The correct option is Judicial Activism.
Explanation
Judicial Activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens and promoting justice. It involves the judiciary stepping beyond the traditional role of interpreting laws to intervene in executive or legislative domains, often to fill a legal vacuum or correct administrative inaction.Analysis of the Ruling
The Supreme Court's ruling declaring "bandhs" as illegal (upholding the Kerala High Court judgment in Communist Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar, 1998) is a prominent example of Judicial Activism.
- Protection of Rights: The Court held that a "bandh" involves an element of coercion that forces citizens to stop their activities, thereby violating their fundamental rights, such as the freedom of movement and the right to carry on any occupation (Article 19).
- Proactive Intervention: By banning a specific form of political protest to maintain public order and protect individual liberty, the Court exercised authority in a domain typically managed by the executive (law and order) or the legislature.
- Comparison with Other Options:
- Judicial Restraint: This approach advocates that judges should limit the exercise of their own power and defer to the legislature and executive on policy matters. Declaring a political tool like a bandh illegal is contrary to restraint.
- Legislative Action: This refers to laws enacted by Parliament or State Legislatures. The ban was a result of a court judgment, not a statute.
- Executive Order: This refers to a directive issued by the government. The ruling came from the Judiciary.
Key Takeaway
Judicial Activism allows the judiciary to issue directions and declare actions unconstitutional to protect the Fundamental Rights of citizens when the other branches of government fail to do so, as seen in the prohibition of coercive bandhs.