Judicial review is the process by which courts examine the lawfulness of decisions or actions made by public bodies, including legislative, executive, and administrative branches of government. It allows courts to determine whether such actions comply with the constitution or legal standards, and if found inconsistent or unlawful, the actions can be invalidated or declared void. Importantly, judicial review focuses on the legality and procedure of decision-making rather than the merits or correctness of the decisions themselves.
Key Aspects of Judicial Review
- It allows courts, often the highest court, to ensure that government branches abide by the constitution or legal principles.
- Judicial review can result in courts striking down laws or decisions that violate constitutional provisions or that are unreasonable or procedurally unfair.
- It is not about deciding whether a decision is right or wrong but whether the correct legal process was followed.
- Grounds for judicial review include lack of authority, irrationality, procedural unfairness, and breaches of human rights.
- Judicial review may require decisions to be remade legally rather than replaced by the court's own decision.
- It exists in different forms globally, with variations on timing, scope, and which courts are authorized to exercise it.
This concept emerged strongly in the U.S. with the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established the judiciary's authority to invalidate unconstitutional laws. In sum, judicial review is a fundamental legal mechanism for maintaining the rule of law and constitutional governance by scrutinizing government actions to ensure legality and fairness.
