Judicial Review Essay

The doctrine of judicial review which dictates the conditions as per which executive and legislative actions would be reviewed by the judiciary; which also has the power to render them invalid. The acts of the state may be annulled by the power of judicial review, exercised by certain courts when they are found to be non-compliant to higher power, such as constitutional laws. Therefore, the concept of judicial review essentially represents the accountability mechanisms which form part of the modern governmental system (where various governmental branches are checked by the judiciary). Interpretations of this principle vary by jurisdictions, as do the various opinions on hierarchy and norms of government. Resultantly, the scope and procedure of judicial review is subject to change depending on states and countries.

Judicial review refers to the procedure in Administrative law of England which allows courts of Wales and England to oversee the usage of public power when an individual submits an application. When an individual holds an opinion that the usage of such power by a statutory tribunal, local council, and minister (representing governmental authority) is illegal, owing to the abduction of rights of that individual, he would be allowed to submit a petition/appeal to an Administrative Court. The Administrative Court would then provide a judicial review of the decision and award damages’ payment to the claimant. Injunctions and mandatory orders may also be issued by courts, for refraining or compelling the performance of a certain act.

In contrast to the United States and various other jurisdictions, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in England basically means that it is not allowed for courts to provide judicial review...

... middle of paper ...

...n questioned. It has been suggested time and again that the sovereignty of parliament arises from common law and may be overridden by basic norms of the same common law in some scenarios, particularly the central elements of the principle of rule of law, such as access to justice.

The Jackson and Factortame judgments illustrate the wide variety of diversity in the currently existing opinions regarding the normative values which form the base of the constitutional system of the United Kingdom. The manner in which these norms may be combined together has also been demonstrated. These cases also maintain that the primary authority provided to representative governance as exemplified in the Westminster Parliament would no more be regarded as bestowed. The manner in which judicial restraint is preferred over judicial activism is therefore increasingly being observed.