International Journal of Law, Humanities and Social Sciences Research

Judicial activism and judicial restraint represent two influential approaches that shape the role of courts within a democratic legal system. This paper examines the conceptual foundations, democratic implications, and institutional limits of both approaches, emphasizing their impact on constitutional governance. Judicial activism is understood as a proactive judicial role in reviewing legislation and executive action to protect constitutional values, fundamental rights, and democratic principles, particularly in situations where political institutions fail to act. In contrast, judicial restraint highlights self-limitation by courts, deference to elected branches, and respect for democratic decision-making processes. The study argues that neither approach is inherently democratic or antidemocratic; rather, their legitimacy depends on context, constitutional design, and the quality of democratic institutions. Through a comparative and theoretical analysis, the paper explores how excessive activism may undermine democratic accountability, while excessive restraint can permit rights violations and unchecked political power. It further highlights the importance of judicial independence, separation of powers, and public legitimacy in balancing these approaches. The paper concludes that a nuanced and context-sensitive balance between activism and restraint is essential for maintaining constitutional supremacy, protecting rights, and reinforcing democratic governance in modern legal systems.