| dc.description.abstract | This thesis presents a comprehensive analysis of the dynamic interplay between
judicial activism and judicial restraint within the constitutional framework of
Bangladesh. The research investigates the central problem of the judiciary's
oscillating approach, which alternates between a proactive, policy-shaping role and
a deferential, restrained posture, creating uncertainty in constitutional jurisprudence.
The study is grounded in a qualitative, doctrinal methodology, involving an in-depth
examination of the Constitution of Bangladesh, landmark Supreme Court judgments,
and relevant scholarly literature. The thesis traces the historical evolution of this
judicial dialectic, from the foundational assertion of the Basic Structure Doctrine in
the Eighth Amendment Case to the innovative use of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
and suo motu powers. Through a systematic case analysis, it demonstrates that the
Supreme Court of Bangladesh engages in strategic balancing, tending towards
activism in areas of fundamental rights and governance while exercising restraint in
matters of high politics and economic policy. The study further reveals that
procedural innovations have been the primary drivers of substantive activism, yet
their effectiveness is consistently undermined by a significant enforcement gap due
to executive non-cooperation.
The core argument of this thesis is that the tension between activism and restraint is
a
necessary and defining feature of Bangladesh's constitutional democracy,
reflecting the judiciary's ongoing negotiation of its role as the guardian of the
Constitution. The study concludes by proposing a set of recommendations, including
the
development of a principled framework for judicial review, the
institutionalization of compliance mechanisms, and the promotion of dialogic
remedies. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of judicial behavior
in Bangladesh and offers insights for strengthening constitutional governance
through a more predictable and effective balance of judicial power. | en_US |
