Limitations of JUDICIAL REVIEW
In India, judicial review is founded on the notion of supra vires, which has been around since British rule began. The legality of judicial review was never a dispute under the Indian constitution because article 13(2) expressly states that any statute that is incompatible with the basic rights provided by Part III is null and invalid. This established the validity of judicial review, and the Indian Supreme Court clarified in one of the first judgments that the power of judicial review is inherent in a written constitution and existed irrespective of article 13(2).
Judicial review can be defined as an inferior court's reconsideration of a degree or sentence; however, the idea has undergone significant modifications in recent years, and any literal interpretation of the term is erroneous. When a person who is offended by a judgement puts it before the court, judicial review is possible against the exercise of authority by public authorities, whether they be constitutional, quasi-judicial, or governmental. The ability to judicially examine any decision is a unique authority that the superior court possesses.
Judicial Review is critical because it creates a network of checks and balances on the legislation approved by the legislature. Under the Constitution, the distinct functionary legislature, executive, and judiciary are to execute powers with checks and balances.
In India, Arts. 32 and 136, provided by constitution gives the Supreme Court to exercise the power of judicial review. Similarly, under Art. 226 and 227 High Courts have a power of judicial review.
The ability of the judiciary to exercise its judicial review power is limited. If the court oversteps its bounds by interfering with the executive's authority, it is referred to as judicial activism, which can lead to judicial overreach. Judicial Review restricts the government's ability to function. Chief Justice Marshall held in the Marbury versus Madison case that the Court should not assume jurisdiction if it does not have jurisdiction, but that it must take jurisdiction if it does.
It is necessary that the scope be limited to determining whether the method for obtaining the decision was followed appropriately, but not the conclusion itself. The judges' opinions in any court case form the basis for deciding other cases.
Judicial review is an aspect of the Supreme Court and the High Courts and these rights are not conferred to the lower courts. The faith of the people in the integrity, quality, and efficiency of the government can be diminished by the court by repeated interventions.
In the administrative process, judicial review is limited to the procedures specified by law. That is, judicial examination of administrative processes that violate Jurisdictional Error, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety, Proportionality, and Legitimate Expectation results in judicial overreach. In case, it was determined that, while these judicial review grounds are not exhaustive, they constitute an adequate foundation for the courts to exercise their authority.
The doctrine of "Stringent Necessity" makes it plain that the Court can only determine constitutional problems if it is forced to do so by strict necessity. As a result, constitutional problems will not be determined in broader terms than are necessary by the particular facts to which the judgement is to be applied, nor if the finding is to be applied to a different set of facts.
if the record presents some other ground upon which to decide the case, nor at the instance of one who has availed himself of the benefit of a statute or who fails to show case that the injury is due to its operation, nor if a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be fairly avoided.
Post a Comment