Development of judicial review case law
Judicial Review: Overview
Definition:
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine laws, administrative actions, or government decisions and determine whether they comply with the constitution or statutory law. If found unconstitutional or unlawful, the courts can invalidate or set aside such actions.
Purpose:
To uphold the rule of law and constitutional supremacy.
To check the exercise of power by the legislative and executive branches.
To protect individual rights and liberties.
To ensure legality, fairness, and reasonableness in government actions.
Historical Development of Judicial Review
The concept of judicial review has evolved through landmark cases, establishing principles like constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, and protection of rights.
Key Cases in the Development of Judicial Review
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803) (United States)
Facts: William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace.
Holding: The Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, held that the law granting the Court the power to issue such a writ (the Judiciary Act of 1789) was unconstitutional because it expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution permitted.
Significance:
Established the principle of judicial review in U.S. constitutional law.
Affirmed that it is the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is and to invalidate laws conflicting with the Constitution.
Set the foundation for courts worldwide to review and nullify unconstitutional laws.
2. R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) (UK)
Facts: The UK government sought to trigger Article 50 to leave the EU without parliamentary approval. Miller challenged this, arguing that the government could not use prerogative powers to change rights without Parliament’s consent.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that the government must seek parliamentary approval before triggering Article 50.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law.
Confirmed judicial review over executive actions, especially concerning fundamental constitutional changes.
Highlighted the court's role in checking executive powers.
3. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (United States)
Facts: African American students challenged racial segregation in public schools as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Holding: The Supreme Court declared that racial segregation in public education was unconstitutional.
Significance:
Showed judicial review as a tool for protecting civil rights and promoting social justice.
Overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Demonstrated the court’s power to shape societal norms through constitutional interpretation.
4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) (India)
Facts: The case challenged constitutional amendments that limited fundamental rights. The question was whether Parliament had unlimited power to amend the Constitution.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its “basic structure.”
Significance:
Introduced the “basic structure doctrine” limiting parliamentary power.
Judicial review protected the core constitutional identity.
A landmark in balancing legislative authority and constitutional supremacy.
5. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) (United States)
Facts: The case involved the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of a statute concerning air pollution controls. The court had to decide whether to defer to the agency’s interpretation.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that courts must defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes (Chevron deference).
Significance:
Established judicial review principles in administrative law.
Recognized the expertise of administrative agencies while retaining judicial oversight.
Balanced separation of powers between judiciary and executive agencies.
Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison (1803) | US | Judicial review over laws | Established judicial review principle |
| R (Miller) v. Secretary of State (2017) | UK | Executive power vs Parliament | Courts check executive action |
| Brown v. Board of Education (1954) | US | Racial segregation | Judicial review protects civil rights |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. Kerala (1973) | India | Constitutional amendments | Basic structure doctrine limits amendments |
| Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC (1984) | US | Agency interpretation | Deference to agencies within judicial review |
Evolutionary Themes
Constitutional Supremacy: Courts assert authority to invalidate laws violating constitutions.
Separation of Powers: Judicial review serves as a check on legislative and executive branches.
Protection of Rights: Courts use judicial review to safeguard fundamental rights.
Administrative Deference: Courts recognize agency expertise but maintain oversight.
Balancing Autonomy and Control: Doctrine evolves to balance powers among government branches.
Conclusion
Judicial review has evolved as a fundamental mechanism to enforce constitutional limits and protect rights. From Marbury v. Madison establishing the concept to later cases addressing modern governance challenges, courts worldwide use judicial review to maintain the rule of law, uphold justice, and ensure accountable government.
RELATED Blog
0 comments