Judicial review

Governments have many parts. One part makes laws. Another part carries them out.

Courts have a special job. They can check these parts. This is called judicial review.

Courts look at new laws. They check if laws follow the main rules. These rules are in a document called a constitution.

If a law breaks a rule, the court can stop it. This keeps things fair and balanced. It makes sure no one has too much power.

Different lands do this in different ways. It is a way to keep peace.

Governments have different parts. One part makes laws. Another part carries them out. The third part is the court. This is called the separation of powers.

Courts use judicial review to check these parts. This helps keep a balance. It is a system of checks and balances. This means each part can watch the others. It stops one part from having too much power.

In the United States, the Supreme Court is very strong. In 1803, a case called Marbury v. Madison happened. This case showed the court could check laws. This helped protect the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is the highest authority.

Some countries do things differently. In the United Kingdom, judges cannot strike down main laws. In the Netherlands, the law says courts cannot rule on certain laws. Some places use special courts just for this job. A man named Hans Kelsen helped start this way. He helped create the system used in Austria. This way, only one special court checks the laws.

Judicial review is a very important tool for fairness. It is a way for courts to check on the government. Governments have different branches that do different jobs. One branch makes the laws for the land. Another branch carries those laws out every day. The third branch is the court system. Judicial review lets judges look at the actions of the first two branches.

This process ensures that no one branch becomes too strong. It is part of a system called checks and balances.

How does this process actually work? A court looks at a law or a government decision. The judges ask if it follows a higher authority. This higher authority is often a constitution. A constitution is a set of main rules for a country. If a law goes against the constitution, the court can stop it. This is called invalidating the law. Courts also check if public bodies follow the right steps. This is called procedural fairness. They want to make sure rules are followed correctly.

People have thought about these ideas for a long time. A thinker named Montesquieu helped introduce the idea of separation of powers. This idea says government branches should stay separate. In the United States, a famous case changed everything. It was called Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The Supreme Court ruled that it had the power of judicial review. Even though Thomas Jefferson disagreed, the ruling stayed. This case helped make the U.S. Constitution the highest authority.

Different countries use different rules for review. In the United Kingdom, judges cannot strike down main laws from Parliament. The Netherlands also has a rule that stops courts from ruling on certain laws. Some places use special courts just for this job. A legal expert named Hans Kelsen helped create this system. He worked on a model used in Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1920. This is often called the Austrian System. In India, the Supreme Court uses its power to protect fundamental rights.

Understanding judicial review helps us see how modern nations stay balanced. It links to how we organize our society today. Some systems use regular courts, like in Australia and Canada. Other systems use specialized courts, like in the Czech Republic. These different paths all aim for the same goal. They want to make sure the government follows its own rules. This keeps the balance of power steady for everyone. It protects the rights of all people living in the country.

Judicial review is a vital legal process used to oversee government actions. It allows the judiciary, which is the court system, to examine the work of other branches. These branches include the legislature, which makes laws, and the executive, which carries them out. Through this process, a court can invalidate or cancel laws and actions. This happens if they are incompatible with a higher authority, such as a constitution. Judicial review acts as a key part of the separation of powers. It ensures that no single branch of government exceeds its legal authority.

The mechanism of judicial review works by checking for legal consistency. A court examines an executive decision, a statute, or an administrative act. One major principle used is ultra vires. This term means that a public body must not exceed the powers given to it by law. Courts also look for procedural fairness. This means they ensure that the correct steps and rules were followed during a decision. If a law violates the terms of a constitution, the court can declare it invalid. This keeps the government bound by the supreme rules of the land.

There are different ways that societies organize this power. One way is through the separation of powers. This idea suggests that government branches should remain distinct to maintain balance. Another way is through legislative supremacy. In this system, the legislature is the highest authority. Some countries use common law systems, where judges can create or reject legal principles. Other countries use civil law systems, where judges mainly apply existing laws. These different legal traditions change how judicial review is practiced.

History shows how these powers were established and tested. The thinker Montesquieu introduced the idea of the separation of powers. In the United States, the Supreme Court solidified this in 1803. This happened during the landmark case Marbury v. Madison. The court ruled it had the power of judicial review to enforce the Constitution. Even though President Thomas Jefferson expressed opposition, the principle remained. This decision became a foundation for how the U.S. government functions today.

Different nations have developed very specific rules for review. In the United Kingdom, judges cannot strike down primary legislation due to parliamentary sovereignty. However, tension arose when the UK joined the European Union. The Court of Justice of the European Union holds its own power of judicial review. In the Netherlands, Article 120 of the Constitution forbids courts from ruling on the constitutionality of primary legislation. These examples show that the scope of judicial review varies greatly between different countries.

Some countries use specialized systems to handle these complex legal questions. In 1920, the jurist Hans Kelsen helped create a model for specialized constitutional courts. This was used in Czechoslovakia and Austria, and is known as the Austrian System. In this model, regular courts cannot question the constitutionality of primary laws. Instead, only the specialized Constitutional Court has that specific power. This creates a clear and dedicated path for resolving disputes about the highest laws.

Other nations use their general court systems for these tasks. Australia, Canada, and the United States all use courts of general jurisdiction. In Australia, judicial review often focuses on the lawfulness of executive actions. In India, the Supreme Court uses its power to protect fundamental rights. A major decision in 1973, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, established the basic structure doctrine. This allows the court to strike down even constitutional amendments if they violate the core of the constitution.