Skip to main content

Judicial Review

 Judicial Review

India has 3 organs known the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Judiciary as the organ is independent whereas the rest of the organ is somewhere dependent on each other. Judiciary's task is to adjudicate controversies over the application of laws in a specific situation. The judiciary is also responsible for keeping a check on the rest of the organs this is known as judicial review.

Judicial review can be defined as a procedure by which a court can review an administrative action by a public body and secure a declaration, order, or award. The actions which are against the constitution of the country are declared as void, this showcases that such a review depends upon the written constitution. 

Judicial review was first discussed in the United States, in the case of Marbury v. Madison. The court ruled out that the newly elected president of that time and his secretary of the state, john madison was wrong to prevent William Marbury from being justice of the district court as being appointed by the former president before leaving the office, so writ was filed under the mandamus against the secretary of the state. In this case, the judiciary act gave the supreme court jurisdiction, marshall court ruled the act of 1789 to be an unconstitutional extension of the judiciary.

Judicial review of India has been adopted from the US constitution, but Britain follows a different rule which is that no court can declare any law as invalid which is passed by Britain.

In the Indian constitution, various provisions talk about judicial review such as Article 13, 32, 131-136, 143,226, 145, etc. There might be provisions that give chance for judicial review but there is no specific article that gives power to the court to declare the law invalid. The court only decides whether a law is constitutional or not. If the provision is considered unconstitutional then it is seen that the provision can be separated from the unconstitutional part of the provision. If it can be then the unconstitutional part is removed but if not then the whole provision is considered void.

Various cases describe a judicial review, such as  Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, this case was related to the right to property was abridged by the act and against article 13 of the constitution. it was held that the Supreme court rejected the contention and talked about the terms of article 368 are perfectly general and empowered the parliament to amend the constitution without any exception. 

Case Minerva mill case is another example of judicial review,  42 nd amendment act which gave power to directive principle over articles 24, 19, 31 of our constitution. Part iii and part iv of the constitution are equally important and absolute primacy of one over the other is not permissible.

Case P.U.C.L v. O.I, the apex court of the country, gave a historical verdict stating that to disregard or disobey the decision given by the court. It was also seen that if the legislature does not influence the subject matter then the lawmaker of no power to ask for instrumentality.


s
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more