Judicial activism is often considered warranted in specific circumstances that reflect a commitment to upholding constitutional principles and rights. Here's a breakdown of the provided options regarding when judicial activism might be appropriate by the Supreme Court:
-
If a case is highly publicized in the media: This does not justify judicial activism, as media attention does not necessarily correlate with the legal merits of a case or its significance in terms of constitutional rights.
-
When there is a need to decide on constitutional issues: This is a valid scenario for judicial activism. The Supreme Court may take an activist approach when essential constitutional issues are at stake that require interpretation or intervention to protect rights or justice, particularly when legislative or executive actions may fall short.
-
If there is a case where the court disagrees with a previous decision of the lower court: While disagreement with lower court decisions may prompt the Supreme Court to hear a case, it does not inherently warrant judicial activism. The court's approach in such cases depends on the context and significance of the legal questions involved.
-
In any case that is appealed to it: This statement is overly broad. The Supreme Court has discretion over the cases it hears and does not engage in judicial activism in every case simply because it is appealed.
In summary, judicial activism is most warranted when there is a need to decide on constitutional issues.