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 …show more content…
It is also very important because it allows the supreme court of the country to check the decisions of the lower courts of the country and it also helps to check on the legislative and the executive branch of the government. The most important thing that judicial review do is the protection of the rights of the individuals and it create a balance between the powers of the government and maintain equality to every person. If there is no judicial review then the system of civil liberties would be very different. Types of Decisions in Judicial Review The court can give three types of decisions after the judicial review is conducted and the decisions are as follows: 1. The law is unconstitutional. In this case, if the laws made by the legislature is found unconstitutional then the law will ceases to operate from the date on which the supreme court declares the law as invalid or unconstitutional. 2. The law is constitutional and …show more content…
Article 368 (4)-(5) were inserted in the in the Article 368 because of preventing the supreme court to contradict any Constitutional Amendment Act on the theory of ‘basic features' of the Constitution. Features of Judicial Review in India 1. Judicial Review is the power which can be used by both the Supreme Court and the High Courts. But the power to determine the constitutionality of any law is in the hands of the Indian Supreme Court. 2. Judicial Review can be used in respect of all central and state laws, orders and the ordinances of the executive. It can also be used in the constitutional amendments 3. The limitation of the judicial review is that it cannot be used in the respect of the laws which are included in the 9th Schedule of our Indian Constitution. 4. Judicial Review can only be applied to the question of laws and it cannot be used in respect of any political issues. 5. Judicial Review is not automatic because the Supreme Court cannot use the power of Judicial review by its own. Judicial Review can only be used when any law or rule is specifically challenged before it or during the hearing of a case the validity of any law is
Can the Supreme Court of the United States rule in this case? 4. Can the Supreme Court of the United States identify unconstitutional acts of Congress? DECISION: 1.
There was discussion of judicial review in Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, which explained that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review. Hamilton stated that under the Constitution, the federal judiciary would have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. He also stated that this was appropriate because it would protect the people against abuse of power by Congress.
Response #4 Many say that the Marbury vs. Madison case of 1803 one of the most important cases in the history of the Supreme Court. What started out as a minor dispute about jobs, turned into a legal decision that has resonated throughout history. In the 1803 Marbury vs. Madison case, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its power to review acts of Congress and invalidate those that conflict with the Constitution.
Madison case implications was the establishment of a precedent, which is a legal decision to serve as an example in other court cases. The court is interpreted as having the power to review the acts of the congress as well as that of the president and thus can overrule the laws it finds to be unconstitutional. The bold ruling decision also established the Judiciary as an equal partner with the legislature and the Executive in completing the government system. In this regard, the constitution is the supreme law of the land and it is the Supreme Court that interprets the meaning of the constitution. It is, therefore, the duty of the judiciary to say what the law
Article 3 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to review cases and declare a verdict. However, the Supreme Court is only allowed to make a decision regarding a case if and only it is brought to them. In other words, only cases that has been passed through the lower courts and has made its way up into the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court allowed to make a decision. From the founding of the constitution, many cases have made its way up the courts and into the Supreme Court where the Justices deliver the final verdict. Cases similar to that of Nixon vs. United States challenged the federal power of the President.
It doesn’t have as many parts to it as the Executive and Legislative Branches. They also don’t do as much as the other branches, because while the Legislative Branch creates Laws and the Executive Branch controls most of the federal organizations the Judicial Branch just hears different cases that appeal through the lower courts. One Example of this is in document B where is says,” The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the
Marbury vs. Madison John Marshall was the Supreme Court Judge that presided over the Marbury vs. Madison case. This case is important because it established the doctrine of judicial review. The Marbury vs. Marshall Supreme Court case began with John Adams who at the time was the President of the United States. James Madison was the Secretary of State and he was responsible for delivering commissions.
The judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court, which has the right to solve any dispute between national and regional
The Court’s effectiveness relies on the institutional capacities as well as the ruling’s popularity. When lower-court judges comply with Supreme Court decisions, rulings can have a substantial effect on social policies, as in the case
The Supreme Court chooses which cases have important constitutional issues for review. There are four guidelines
The question, is the Judicial branch truly equal to the other two branches? My answer to this question is, can any two things truly be a hundred percent equal? I say no these branches are not completely equal. They were created as close to equal as they could be. But, they are meant to be different but similar in a way.
The court 's jurisdiction is its authority to hear cases of a particular type. The original jurisdiction is the authority to be the first court to hear a case. The supreme court 's most important work is the Appellate jurisdiction, which is the authority to review cases that have already been heard in lower courts and are appealed to a higher court by a losing party. Nearly all cases that reach the Supreme Court do so after the losing party in lower court asks the court to hear its case. The court issues a Writ of certiorari.
Throughout the course of our nation’s history, there has been a debate about the best way to select judges. While most agree that judges should be impartial, objective, and nonpartisan, there is still much deliberation about the best way to achieve that. Judicial selection by descriptive representation, which is the idea that the court should mirror demographically its constituents in terms of things like race and gender, is the best way to ensure a competent, independent, and well-qualified judiciary. By reflecting the diverse population of the United States, judicial selection by descriptive representation would ensure a well-rounded group of justices that bring many different minds to each case, increase the public’s confidence in the court
[5] Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent [4]), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system. The strengths of common law
Malaysian judiciary refers to the Malaysian court system. It is an independent body separate from the legislative and executive arms of government. The role of courts is to ensure the law and order are followed, that justice is done, and criminals are punished. The head of the judiciary is the Chief Justice.