In which of the following is judicial activism most likely to be applied?

Judicial activism refers to the philosophy where judges interpret laws in a way that reflects current social values and conditions, often emphasizing the need for justice and equality. In contexts involving significant social issues, judges may take a more proactive role by creating or expanding rights rather than limiting their reach.

When addressing significant social issues, courts may issue rulings that challenge existing laws or precedents in light of contemporary understandings of justice, equality, and civil rights. This approach allows the judiciary to adapt the law to reflect changes in society and to address injustices that may be present in the legal system.

In contrast, interpreting criminal cases, resolving family disputes, or determining property rights typically rely more heavily on established legal precedents and statutory law. These areas often require judges to apply existing laws more strictly rather than reinterpret them in light of social changes. As a result, judicial activism is less likely to be a defining feature in those contexts compared to significant social issues where judicial intervention can lead to substantial progress or reform.