Judicial Review
Introduction
The controversy of judicial review which at extreme points, is called judicial activism, is a concept new to India. Judicial review can be defined as the judiciary, in the exercise of its own independence, checking and cross checking the working of the other organs of the government, while trying to uphold the ideal of ‘the rule of law’. Judicial activism more reformist in character is often confused with judicial review. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, judicial activism is “a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usually with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent.”However, due to the frequent misreading of the two terms, this article will only refer to judicial review as a proportionate mixture of the two.
Judicial review can broadly be divided into three parts[1]:
i) When courts exercise their power to review subordinate courts and the executive. ii) When courts review the working of the legislature and check the constitutionality of their actions. iii) When the courts assume legislative powers and go on to actually frame their own laws.
Judicial review is a concept disputed for its very purpose. It is often debated whether judicial review is good or bad for democracy, whether it has a constitutional backing or not, whether the legislature has a right to oppose it or not. It is a controversy seen world over mainly in democratic countries. Communist countries like China do not believe in judicial review but in a strong and centralized executive, with a weak judiciary limited to solving personal issues. Judicial review in general, is a term which relies on many concepts: on the independence of the judiciary, the separation and division of powers and above all, the idea of rule of law.
The Origin and Worldwide Nature of
The controversy of judicial review which at extreme points, is called judicial activism, is a concept new to India. Judicial review can be defined as the judiciary, in the exercise of its own independence, checking and cross checking the working of the other organs of the government, while trying to uphold the ideal of ‘the rule of law’. Judicial activism more reformist in character is often confused with judicial review. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, judicial activism is “a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usually with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent.”However, due to the frequent misreading of the two terms, this article will only refer to judicial review as a proportionate mixture of the two.
Judicial review can broadly be divided into three parts[1]:
i) When courts exercise their power to review subordinate courts and the executive. ii) When courts review the working of the legislature and check the constitutionality of their actions. iii) When the courts assume legislative powers and go on to actually frame their own laws.
Judicial review is a concept disputed for its very purpose. It is often debated whether judicial review is good or bad for democracy, whether it has a constitutional backing or not, whether the legislature has a right to oppose it or not. It is a controversy seen world over mainly in democratic countries. Communist countries like China do not believe in judicial review but in a strong and centralized executive, with a weak judiciary limited to solving personal issues. Judicial review in general, is a term which relies on many concepts: on the independence of the judiciary, the separation and division of powers and above all, the idea of rule of law.
The Origin and Worldwide Nature of