What is meant by "judicial activism"?

Judicial activism refers to the approach in which judges interpret laws in a way that reflects contemporary values and social needs, rather than adhering strictly to the literal wording or original intent of those laws. This approach often involves expanding the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions to address issues that may not have been anticipated by the framers. As such, it can lead to decisions that promote social change and protect individual rights in line with evolving societal standards.

In contrast, other choices outline different approaches to legal interpretation. A strict interpretation of laws suggests a conservative reading that prioritizes the original text and meanings as they were understood at the time of enactment, which is not in line with the concept of judicial activism. A passive approach to legal disputes indicates a reluctance to intervene or change existing laws, while limiting legal interpretation to the original intent emphasizes a historical perspective rather than adapting to current contexts. Therefore, the correct answer captures the essence of judicial activism by highlighting the responsive and flexible nature of legal interpretation in relation to modern values.