Information AboutJudicial Review |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT JUDICIAL REVIEW | |
| court systems | |
|
Judicial review is the power of a Court to review the actions of public sector bodies in terms of their constitutionality. In some jurisdictions it is also possible to review the constitutionality of the law itself. SPECIFIC JURISDICTIONS England and Wales See Also: Judicial review in English Law Judicial review is a procedure in English Administrative Law by which English courts supervise public authorities in the exercise of their powers. A person who feels that a decision of a public authority, such as a government minister, the local council or a statutory tribunal has violated his or her rights, may apply to the Administrative Court (a division of the High Court ) for judicial review of the decision. If the application for judicial review is successful, the Court may set aside (quash) the unlawful act. In certain limited circumstances, the Claimant may be able to obtain damages. A court may also make a mandatory or prohibitory order or an injunctions to compel the authority to do its duty or to stop it from acting unlawfully. Unlike the United States and some other jurisdictions, English law does not know judicial review of Primary Legislation (laws passed by Parliament), save in limited circumstances where primary legislation is contrary to EU law (see Factortame ). Although the Courts can review primary legislation to determine its compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 , they have no power to quash or suspend the operation of an enactment which is found to be incompatible with the European Convention Of Human Rights - they can merely declare that they have found the enactment to be incompatible. Scotland The power of judicial review of all actions of administrative bodies in for further detail on the grounds of review. Generally, it is confined to purely procedural grounds (the official action was illegal or improper), although the court will also sanction decisions which are, in substance, so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker could have reached it (so-called Wednesbury Unreasonableness ). A more rigorous standard of substantive review is applied where the matter complained of touches upon the pursuer's rights in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 . About six hundred judicial review cases are raised every year; most are settled by agreement with only a small minority having to be decided by the court. Republic of Ireland Judicial review in Ireland is way for the High Court to supervise the Oireachtas to make sure that legislation does not conflict with the Constitution. Malaysia Although ''. Switzerland Article 190 of the Swiss Federal Constitution states that federal statutes and international law are binding on the Federal Supreme Court. In consequence, the courts are not empowered to review the constitutionality of federal statutes, but will, where possible, construe statutes so as not to create a conflict with the Constitution. The courts can suspend the application of federal statutes that conflict with international law, but tend to exercise this power cautiously and deferentially: In ''Schubert'' (BGE 99 Ib 39), the Federal Supreme Court refused to do so because Parliament had consciously violated international law in drafting the statute at issue. The reason traditionally given for the lack of judicial review is the Swiss system of popular . In this sense, it is the people themselves that exercise judicial review. The situation described above for Swiss federal law applies '' Mutatis Mutandis '' to the constitutional and legal systems of the individual Cantons . However, owing to the derogatory power of federal law, federal courts as a matter of course exercise judicial review on cantonal law, as well as on federal executive law (ordinances, executive orders etc.). United States See Also: Judicial review in the United States The Constitution states in Article III that: Congress can change the number of Justice s, their responsibilities, and the rules whereby cases come into the Jurisdiction of the various Court s. Philippines As early as . Nonetheless, the Supreme Court would, in the next several decades, often decline to exercise judicial review by invoking the Political Question doctrine. In 1987, the constitutional convention tasked to draft a new charter decided to provide for a definition of “judicial power” as a means of inhibiting the Court from frequent resort to the political question doctrine. Hence, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution states in part that:''Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.'' |
|
|