“Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint in Bangladesh Constitution”

Abstract

The judiciary in Bangladesh plays a pivotal role in upholding the Constitution, protecting fundamental rights, and maintaining the rule of law. Over the years, the courts have oscillated between judicial activism and judicial restraint, shaping the country’s constitutional and democratic development. Judicial activism refers to a proactive approach by the judiciary, where judges interpret constitutional provisions broadly to protect citizens’ rights, promote justice, and fill legislative or executive gaps. Judicial restraint, in contrast, emphasizes limited judicial intervention, respecting the roles of the legislature and executive, and adhering strictly to the Constitution’s text. This research paper examines the conceptual, legal, and practical dimensions of both doctrines in Bangladesh. It analyzes landmark cases, constitutional provisions, and scholarly perspectives to understand how the judiciary balances independence with accountability. The study finds that judicial activism has significantly contributed to safeguarding rights and promoting good governance, while judicial restraint ensures respect for the separation of powers and democratic principles. A balanced approach is essential for strengthening constitutionalism and maintaining public trust in the judiciary.