Judicial activism versus judicial restraint: Bangladesh's experience with women's rights with reference to the Indian Supreme Court
The tension between judicial activism and judicial restraint has generated important controversies. Proponents of judicial activism claim that adherence to activism is inevitable to cope with society's changing values and aspirations. Opponents argue that such adherence unduly reflects the personal opinions of judges, and undermines one of the core aspects of good governance, the balance of separation of powers. Despite these controversies, existing legal literature supports the view that judicial activism has a commendable significance to advancing women's rights. In the absence of the expansive and dynamic approaches developed by the judiciary, enforcement of ever-growing women's human rights would have been far fewer or, on some occasions, even impossible, and women are now more conscious of, and better equipped with, legal sanctions than in the 1940s, partly because of this judicial trend. Based on this observation, this article suggests that judicial activism is not only desirable but essential to accommodate women's contemporary needs and experiences in Bangladesh.