Explanation:

Judicial activism refers to the judiciary's proactive involvement in defending citizens' rights. Judicial activism was first practised and developed in the USA. The Supreme Court and the High Courts of India have the authority to review the constitutionality of any statute, and if they find it to be in conflict with the constitution's provisions, they have the authority to declare it unconstitutional. It must be highlighted that the inferior courts lack the authority to examine the legality of laws. There is, however, a negative side to the large number of PILs and the idea of a pro-active judiciary. First, judicial activism has blurred the line of distinction between the executive and legislature on the one hand and the judiciary on the other. Hence, statement 1 is correct. Secondly, it has overburdened the courts. Hence, statement 2 is correct. The court has been involved in resolving questions that belong to the executive, such as reducing air or sound pollution, investigating cases of corruption, or bringing about electoral reform, which is not exactly the duty of the Judiciary. These are matters to be handled by the administration under the supervision of the legislatures.