Judicial Review And The Indian Courts

The Judicial Review it helps to make sure that all new laws passed do not voglite the constitution. Or are rights as citizens. This power however is weekend by a slow to act congress. It is also strengthened by the changing opinions of the court judges. The job of the federal government is to lead but also protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens. Judicial review accomplishes this by insuring that laws are checked with the constitution.

With the young nation of America entered into the 19th century, there were still major issues when it came to the balance of powers of the different government branches. The status of judicial review in the Supreme Court was never pressed upon or given any real structure to. The power of judicial review had appeared many times in history before the set up of the Supreme Court as, in England, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Edward Coke made the originated the idea . During the ruling of the case of Dr. Bonham’s Case, Coke found that the London College of Physicians had no right to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules. He would later go on to state that, “no person should be a judge in his own case” (Fletcher 12). The act was revolutionary at the time as it set the notion of that an official body of government was needed to give fair governess to the people. The idea would pop up once in a while in events such as the Constitutional Convention where records that were kept by the textbook University of Chicago Law Review saw that “13 out of the 15 delegates made statements that were in support of the idea of judicial review” (Prakash 123). The interesting part about the quote is that it states that the idea of judicial review was in place in America many years before the actually case of Marbury v. Madison. Even in the Federalist Papers No. 78 which was published in May 28, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, went into lengthy discussion about judicial review. In

The American concept of democracy provides that no branch of government shall be more powerful and uncontrolled than the other branches (Lutzenberger, 2012). Judicial review is the power of the courts to oversee and prevent the legislative and executive branches from becoming abusive. Through this power, the courts interpret the meaning of laws and their application. They can invalidate a law, which they deem inconsistent with the US Constitution. They can also change the application of the law when interpreting it. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention this power, the courts infer it from the provisions on the judicial branch in the Constitution. This inference was first made in 1803 in the Marbury v Madison case. The court declared the existence of the power and that it was for the exclusive use of the courts. They use it to interpret the intents of the Constitution on legal issues submitted to them for decision (Lutzenberger).

Judicial Review – the power of the Supreme Court to say whether the federal, state, or local law or government action goes against the Constitution.

Primarily, judicial review consists of four main components.5 The first dynamic of judicial review is that the Supreme Court can reject any federal, presidential or congressional, act or law which is deemed to be unconstitutional centred upon the judiciary’s interpretation of the United States Constitution.6 For instance, the Supreme Court can void a presidential-line item veto, i.e. the President’s ability to erase part of a bill passed by the legislature involving taxation or spending.7 In addition, the second factor of judicial review is the authority of the Supreme Court to strike down any state act (gubernatorial) or law (state legislature), which is judged as unconstitutional based, again, upon the Court’s interpretation of the United States Constitution.8 One such example of this power being exercised is when the Supreme Court annulled California’s attempt to enforce congressional term limits.9

A. Define Judicial Review- The power of the courts authority to review the actions of the executive and legislative branch and to invalidate if their actions are contrary to the constitutional principles.

Nevertheless, some critics argue that the judidicary, some critics argue that the judiciary are the final arbiters of what is meant by the principle of separation of powers, which therefore provides the judiciary with subordinate levels of power. Moreover Chief Justice Hughes concluding that the ‘Constitution is what the judges say it is’ due to ability to interpret the constitution. In America, although Congress may new laws affecting courts, ultimately judges decide.

The concept of Judicial Review is to review cases using the power of the courts over the actions of the executive and legislative branches to deem them invalid or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has a unique position because of its broad commitment to the American People and its Constitution. The Court's principles on judicial review are that The Constitution is the supreme law of the country, they have ultimate authority on constitutional matters, and they must vote against any law that clashes with the constitution. One of the most significant cases that brought forth such convictions was the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Which was a case that brought many complications because when Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State James

-The power of the judicial review is “A court’s power to review statutes to decide if they conform to the U.S. or state constitutions”. It is important to our legal system to have the power of the judicial review as a tool to the disposal of the courts when conflicts arise within the law or constitution.

a. Define judicial review. Judicial review is a power held in the Supreme Court to declare legislation, laws, bills, acts, and executive orders unconstitutional.

Judicial Independence is fundamental to democracy, it serves as a guarantor of the rule of law and separation of power . However, nothing is perfect. There is some defect regarding to the judicial independence and solution must be made to curb the weakness.

The Judicial branch is in charge of reviewing decisions and understanding federal laws. It is in charge of explaining the laws and having the power to decide if the laws are constitutional (Brand). The Judicial Branch is different from the other branches because, the members are appointed by the president and then approved by the Senate. This branch provides a comfort for the citizens to understand that the branches are dedicated to maintain equality and make sure they are fair laws. Even though, the judicial branch doesn’t have much power, it is just as important as the other two branches.

For instance, if the parliament, acting on public opinion, was to make a law severely curbing the rights of some minority, the supreme court has the right to struck it down as unconstitutional, irrespective of the public support behind that law. This principle takes into account the notion that popular sentiments should not always be reflected in state policies, especially when they contradict the law. The process of judicial elections, however, is entirely based on public support as the basic legitimizing criteria for the justice system and fails to consider the fallibility of popular opinions. And, when judges are elected to their offices, the cannot work irrespective of public opinion which helped them gain their seat in the bench. Therefore, election of judges contradicts the basic principles of democracy as well as independence of the judiciary.

The Indian Judicial System has always been vigilant about the rights of children for they are the most valuable assets of the nation. It goes as a fact that development of children in a society and the development of nation as a whole go hand-in-hand and the most potent role in achieving such development is played by Education. Keeping this in mind, the India Judiciary emerges as a sign of commitment towards eradication of poverty and illiteracy from the country. The emergence of Right to Education as a Fundamental Right still has been an elusive goal had Judiciary not stepped in.

The Supreme Court of India has adopted a forward-looking approach since last few years, particularly having regard to the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country. In fact there are two kinds of approaches which characterise the functioning of the highest Court in every