Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing approaches. It is related with judicial system of a country and it is a means to check against misuse of power of government or any constitutional body. 

The difference between the two is as follows;

Judicial activism refers to the interpretation of the Constitution to support current values and conditions. Conversely, judicial restraint delimits the powers of the judges to strike down a law.

In judicial restraint, the court should support every action of the Congress and the state legislatures unless it is found to be violating the Constitution of the country. In judicial restraint, the courts usually submit to interpretations of the Constitution by the Congress or any other constitutional body. In case of judicial activism, the judges have power to amend any injustice specifically when the other constitutional bodies do not act. Hence, judicial activism has a major role in formulating social policies pertaining to issues, such as protection of rights of an individual, public morality, civil rights and political unfairness.

Judicial restraint and judicial activism have different objectives. Judicial restraint helps to maintain a balance among the three organs of government, viz., judiciary, executive and legislative. The judges and the court are encouraged to review a current law instead of modifying it. Judicial activism gives them the power to overrule some previous acts or judgments. 

For example, the Supreme Court or an appellate court has power to reverse previously taken decisions if they were found to be faulty.