Judicial Review Powers
What is Judicial Review?
Judicial Review is the power of courts to examine the actions of the legislature, executive, and administrative authorities to ensure they comply with the Constitution and laws. It is a key mechanism for upholding the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights.
Judicial review can involve:
Review of legislative acts to check constitutionality.
Review of executive actions for legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness.
Review of administrative decisions for compliance with statutory authority.
Scope of Judicial Review
Constitutional validity of laws (legislative review)
Ultra vires doctrine: Actions beyond powers granted by law are void.
Natural justice: Ensuring fair procedure.
Reasonableness and proportionality in administrative actions.
Fundamental rights protection: Ensuring state actions do not violate rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Landmark Cases on Judicial Review Powers
Case 1: Marbury v. Madison, 1803 (USA)
Facts: William Marbury petitioned the US Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel Secretary of State Madison to deliver his commission as a justice of peace.
Held: The Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review, declaring that the Court has the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.
Significance: This case is the foundation of judicial review globally, establishing that it is the judiciary’s role to interpret the Constitution and invalidate laws conflicting with it.
Case 2: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 (India)
Facts: Challenge to constitutional amendments which restricted fundamental rights.
Held: The Supreme Court held that Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution but cannot alter its "basic structure."
Significance: This case laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting judicial review by protecting the core features of the Constitution from amendment. Judicial review is essential to preserve the Constitution’s identity.
Case 3: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1948) 1 KB 223 (UK)
Facts: The court examined whether a local authority's decision to restrict cinema opening hours was lawful.
Held: The court ruled that judicial review can intervene if a decision is “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider it.”
Significance: Introduced the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard in administrative law, a test for reviewing executive decisions.
Case 4: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without proper procedure.
Held: The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), stating any procedure depriving liberty must be “just, fair, and reasonable.”
Significance: This case extended judicial review to ensure procedural fairness and reasonableness in administrative actions, integrating fundamental rights with administrative law.
Case 5: R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly, [2001] UKHL 26
Facts: Daly challenged the policy allowing prison officials to search his legally privileged correspondence.
Held: The House of Lords held that even executive policies must respect fundamental rights, and interference must be proportionate.
Significance: This case emphasized proportionality as a principle of judicial review, ensuring executive actions balance rights and public interest.
Summary
Judicial Review is the power of courts to scrutinize legislative, executive, and administrative actions.
It ensures compliance with constitutional provisions and protects fundamental rights.
Judicial review can invalidate laws and actions that are unconstitutional, ultra vires, unreasonable, or procedurally unfair.
Landmark cases like Marbury v. Madison established the principle; Kesavananda Bharati defined its limits via the basic structure doctrine.
Administrative decisions are reviewed for reasonableness (Wednesbury) and procedural fairness (Maneka Gandhi).
The principle of proportionality adds a nuanced approach balancing rights and state interests.
RELATED Blog
0 comments