The Conundrum of Judicial Activism and Self-Restraint in Bangladesh
Judicial activism is a doctrine positing that judges must actively interpret the law and safeguard the rights of individuals and groups. This may encompass nullifying laws deemed unconstitutional or delivering rulings that extend the rights of individuals or groups. Conversely, judicial self-restraint adheres to the doctrine that judges should yield to the decisions of other government branches, notably the legislature. This implies that judges should only invalidate unconstitutional laws while refraining from questioning the choices of elected officials. In Bangladesh, the discourse on judicial activism and judicial self-restraint has been an enduring debate. Here, this debate is frequently framed in the context of reconciling the competing tenets of judicial independence and judicial deference. Judicial independence emphasizes that judges should be shielded from political interference in their decision-making, whereas judicial deference posits that judges should exhibit re...