JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA Meaning Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to review the actions taken by the legislature and the executive organ of the government and decide whether or not the actions taken by the legislature and the executive are in conformity with the Constitution. If the enactments done by the legislature and the executive are found unconstitutional then the judiciary has the power to declare those acts illegal, unconstitutional and invalid ( null and void) after which they cannot be enforced by the government. Origin of Judicial Review The judicial review is one of the very important contributions of the USA to the political theory. The origin of the judicial review has been result of a judicial decision and the continuance
c. Identify the participants in the courtroom at a trial The criminal justice system consist of three main components; police, court and corrections. In this system the court plays a very important role. A court is defined as a body of people presided over by a judge, judges, or a magistrate, and acting as a tribunal in civil and criminal cases. The role of a court is to provide a forum to resolve disputes, test and enforce laws in a fair and rational manner. Courts decisions are based on what the law says and what the evidence proves and not by suspicion, biases or favouritism.
The Judge is considered to be the Judge, a public officer selected to administer, uphold the laws in a courtroom and to make the final decision of cases based upon the appropriate laws. Some functions maintained and handed down by the judge are: issuing warrants, making courtroom determinations, setting and denying bails, presiding over cases and ruling over motions. The Judge is appointed to the bench by the State. The Judge presides over all of the Courts in the United States: • The United States Supreme Court • Twelve Circuit Courts of
The fault in this lies in the motivation behind the justices’ decisions; with judicial activism, it is nearly impossible to view law as objective and free of bias. Many fear that in acting as policy makers, justices bring their own partialities and beliefs into account instead of allowing the literal interpretation of the Constitution guide their decisions. On the other hand, judicial restraint can also be used when deciding cases. Judicial restraint refers to justices interpreting the United States Constitution word for word, keeping from bringing their own beliefs or biases into account and most importantly refraining from assuming the role of policy maker. Under judicial restraint, justices work to uphold the laws that are already in place and to maintain the laws as they stand except in the event that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
Robert Isenhour Federal Government 110 10/10/17 Judicial Review Judicial Review had been obsolete until 1803 when the need for it arose in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, where it was then found to become a new component to the Judicial Branch. I am here to discuss why judicial review is and shall remain a doctrine commonly used in constitutional law. Judicial Review is the power for courts to review other government branches to determine the validity of its actions whether it be constitutional or unconstitutional. These ‘acts’ can be described as legislation passed by congress, presidential orders and actions, or all state and local governmental actions. It was first generated into a doctrine after the case of Marbury vs Madison.
Ideology and the role of the judiciary are frequently in tension. In Six Great Inventions in the Art of the Government, Samuel Finer praises Judicial Review as one of the practices that established and shaped the modern state. He sees the Supreme Court’s ability to interpret a case to protect American citizens as foundation of an effective government. Nonetheless, Judicial Review is more applicable as a doctrine than as an unchanging invention. Theodore Lowi’s piece Bend Sinister: How the Constitution Saved the Republic and Lost Itself would inherently disagree with Finer.
Therefore in judicial decision making everything depends on the character of the judge and his state of mind. In commercial questions for example judges enforce the norms of the current socio-economic culture, whether it is socialism or capitalism or any other socio-political theory. It is hard to imagine how the judge would defend the interests of the casual citizen against the communist state, while we can assume that the same judge would defend interests of everyone in a Marxist society. Basically, they do what is best under socioeconomic circumstances of society at that
It differs from person to person. Anyone can look at a case and see it differently, although it is the same case. It lies in the eyes of the beholder. Thus I feel that law is not always fair, and I also believe that it was not meant to be fair. The law is meant to be applied impartially and without bias.
The role of judiciary is to administer justice to all citizens and it comprises of courts that take decisions on a very large number of cases. Judicial independence is the keystone of Canadian judicial system. That is the reason, the judiciary is an independent from other branches of government, the executive and legislative. The main role of judge is to interpret laws. Judicial independence assures that judges will have the capacity to make laws and settle on choices free of impact and in light of the law.