This study is an attempt critically to examine the role of writ jurisdiction in ensuring fundamental rights in Bangladesh and India by a comparative study. Although both nations inherited a colonial legacy from which British common law traditions could have been derived, writs have developed differently given the constitutional frameworks of the two nations. The study examines constitutional provisions such as Article 102 in Bangladesh and Articles 32 and 226 in India in order to see how each jurisdiction has gone about the enforcement of rights. The paper employs doctrinal and comparative method to investigate landmark judicial decisions which demonstrate expanding or restrained interpretation of judicial power. This argument is based on findings that while India’s judiciary has increasingly become more activist and more willing to take on a proactive role than ever before, by expanding the scope of writ remedies and public interest litigation, Bangladesh’s judiciary has been more cautious and restrained. However, both countries have the common problem of enforcing writs, judicial delays, high litigation costs, and interference from politics. The study describes these systemic barriers and highlights the importance of organizational reforms to the extent of achieving real access to justice. The research does not only trace the historical evolution and contemporary practices of writ jurisdiction but is also critical of debates over judicial activism and separation of powers. It maintains that intrusive activism continues to be essential to maintain the supremacy of the constitution while untrammeled activism is condemned to subvert institutional equilibrium. The paper ends with the suggestion of some reforms that can strengthen the effectiveness of writ mechanisms by the need to hold courts accountable, enforcement by administration, and public awareness. Finally, this comparative inquiry helps in a better understanding of how writ jurisdiction is indeed a cornerstone of constitutional governance and why fundamental rights are better protected in Bangladesh and in India.