Compare the philosophies of judicial activism and judicial restraint and explain how each affects the separation of powers

The following is a comparison between judicial activism and judicial restraint: Judicial Activism: This concept refers to the use of the right dispensed to the Supreme Court by the United States Constitution of intervening in the procedures of the passage of laws if the court believes in its own conscience that the law is unconstitutional. The practice of judicial activism enables the Supreme Court to act as the highest authority in deciding the constitutionality of laws. This concentrates the entire power in the hands of the Supreme Court and hinders the idea of separation of power. Judicial restraint: This concept refers to the choice of the Supreme Court to refrain itself from taking suo moto stands in matters regarding the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of laws passed by Congress. This restraint followed by the Supreme Court helps the other two branches of the government practice unrestricted power which is not a good trait for democracy.

Aryans Invade, Conquer and Make War in the Indus Valley

Explanation: Aryans interaction with the Indus Valley people was dominant and violent since they directly invaded, conquered and made war to take their lands.

Aryan tribes spread out across the Indus Valley region. They declared war against local, non-Aryan people, and they settled there where they had pasture for their animals.