Article Talks About the Varios Ways in Which Judicial Rewiew Can Be Done in India and Us

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 487
  • Published : October 16, 2011
Open Document
Text Preview
AN ASSIGNMENT ON:

JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA AND THE U.S.A.

SUBMITTED BY:

SUDESHNA AKANKSHA PANDA
1ST YEAR 2ND SEMESTER
KIIT LAW SCHOOL

CONTENTS PAGES
1. The meaning of Judicial Review ……………………………..3 2. The origin of Judicial Review …………………………………4 3. Judicial Review in India………………………………………..9 4. Judicial Review in the U.S.A.………………………………….18 5. Conclusion…………………………………………….………..23 6. Bibliography……………………………………………………25

MEANING OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:
Judicial review is power of the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution. Actions judged inconsistent are declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. The institution of judicial review in this sense depends upon the existence of a written constitution. Justice Balakrishnan opined that, “judicial review safeguards civil and political rights of individuals and sometimes controls the power of every organ of the state.” The conventional usage of the term judicial review could be more accurately described as “constitutional review,” because there also exists a long practice neither of judicial review of the actions of administrative agencies that require neither that courts have the power to declare those actions unconstitutional nor that the country have a written constitution. Such “administrative review” assesses the allegedly questionable actions of administrators against standards of reasonableness and abuse of discretion. When courts judge challenged administrative actions to be unreasonable or to involve abuses of discretion, those actions are declared null and void, as are actions that are judged inconsistent with constitutional requirements when courts exercise judicial review in the conventional or the constitutional sense. Whether or not a court has the power to declare the acts of government agencies unconstitutional, it can achieve the same effect by exercising “indirect” judicial review. In such cases the court pronounces that a challenged rule or action could not have been intended by the legislature because it is inconsistent with some other laws or established legal principles. Constitutional judicial review is usually considered to have begun with the assertion by John Marshall, chief justice of the United States (1801–35), in Marbury v. Madison (1803), that the Supreme Court of the United States had the power to invalidate legislation enacted by Congress. There was, however, no express warrant for Marshall’s assertion of the power of judicial review in the actual text of the Constitution of the United States; its success rested ultimately on the Supreme Court’s own ruling, plus the absence of effective political challenge to it. Thus, judicial review means a court's authority to examine an executive or legislative act and to invalidate that act if it is contrary to constitutional principles. In other words review by a court of law of actions of a government official or entity or of some other legally appointed person or body or the review by an appellate court of the decision of a trial court is called judicial review. Judicial review has two prime functions namely: 1. Legitimization of government action. 2. Protecting the constitution against any undue encroachment by the government. ORIGIN OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:

Scholars trace the origins of judicial review to Dr. Bonham's Case (1610). Sir Edward Coke, of England's Court of Common Pleas, stated that “when an act of parliament is against common right and reason or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such act to be void” Coke believed that the common lawyer possessed “artificial reason of the law” and that this capacity elevated him to nearly equal footing with king and...
tracking img