Comparative Analysis Of Judicial Review Mechanism In Administrative Law: Exploring Approaches, Outcomes, And Implications Across Jurisdictions
- IJLLR Journal
- 14 minutes ago
- 2 min read
Shivani, Assistant Professor at St. Soldier Law College, Jalandhar
1. INTRODUCTION
Judicial Review, granted to the Supreme Court or a High Court, involves the authority to examine and nullify executive or legislative actions that violate constitutional principles. This authority is intrinsic to the Constitution and remains irremovable, constituting a cornerstone of the document. In recent years, numerous administrative decisions by governments have faced overturning, either due to their intrinsic unlawfulness or procedural errors, or for reasons that could have been justifiably avoided.
Judicial review mechanisms in administrative law play a crucial role in ensuring the accountability, legality, then fairness of governmental actions across diverse legal systems worldwide. This comparative analysis delves into the varied approaches adopted by different jurisdictions, scrutinizes the resulting outcomes, and explores the implications for governance, accountability, and the rule of law.
Grounded in the concept of legality, judicial review acts as an essential safeguard against the potential misuse of power by administrative bodies. By subjecting administrative decisions to judicial scrutiny, these mechanisms safeguard individual rights and promote transparency within governance structures. However, the specific methods and standards employed in judicial review vary significantly across jurisdictions, reflecting diverse legal traditions, political systems, and cultural contexts.
Through a comparative lens, this study seeks to shed light on the factors influencing judicial review outcomes and their broader implications for administrative law and governance. By examining landmark cases and legal frameworks governing judicial review in select jurisdictions, including the USA, the UK, and India, we aim towards provide insights into the effectiveness of different approaches in promoting accountability and ensuring the integrity of administrative decision-making processes. For instance, in the United States, the seminal case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. recognized the Chevron reverence framework, shaping the doctrine of judicial review in this law. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the case of R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind exemplifies the High Court's role in reviewing administrative decisions and upholding the principles of procedural fairness.
