| dc.description.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 | en_US |
