Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint: Balancing the Role of the Courts in a Democratic Society

Abstract

the contrasting approaches of judicial activism and judicial restraint and their implicationsfor the role of courts in a democratic society. It explores the tensions between these approaches and thechallenges of striking a balance between judicial intervention and deference to other branches ofgovernment. Judicial activism refers to a proactive approach by courts in interpreting laws and theConstitution, often involving the expansion of individual rights and the correction of perceivedinjustices. This approach empowers courts to address social and political issues, but it also raisesconcerns about judicial overreach and the usurpation of legislative or executive authority. In contrast,judicial restraint emphasizes a more deferential approach by courts, limiting their intervention inpolitical and policy matters and deferring to the elected branches of government. While this approachrespects democratic processes and separation of powers, it can also lead to the perpetuation of systemicinjustices and the neglect of marginalized groups.