Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint in Bangladesh Constitution

Abstract

The abstracted research monograph also defines judicial activism, the notion of an active higher judiciary that takes interpretations of the Constitution out into the public sphere to protect rights, expand review authority and prevent executive overreaching and judicial restraint a passive lower court deference toward both legislative intent and administrative determinations. This article traces their evolution through key cases during a period of political turbulence. Critical Role of the Constitution Since the 1990s, the Bangladesh Supreme Court has been cautious in its policymaking, avoiding going too far. But in public interest litigation, such as Dr. Mohiuddin Farooque v. Bangladesh1, it has applied activism to soften standing rules to address environmental injuries. Moderation stirs peace, dismisses rights; narrow doctrinal exploration demonstrates that moderation serves the rule of law and may undermine democracy. Promoting a Balanced Approach The monograph argues for constitutional democracy with legitimacy by advocating context sensitive balance rather than inflexible doctrines, as in RidwanulHoque’s Judicial Activism in Bangladesh: A Golden Mean Approach. That activism of the ―golden mean‖ remains within bounds even as it addresses governance problems.2