Judicial Review: A Comparative Analysis of India, USA & UK

In India, the essence of judicial review is the supremacy of law. It is the power of the court to review the actions of legislative, executive and judiciary. It is the great weapon in the hands of the court to hold unconstitutional and unenforceable any law and order which is in conflict with the basic law of the land. This paper will deal with the various doctrines formulated by the Apex Court on the basis of judicial review, for e.g., Doctrine of Severability, Doctrine of Eclipse, Doctrine of Prospective Over-ruling etc. The paper will also focus on Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments, Judicial Review of Legislative Actions and Judicial Review of Administrative Actions. The paper will further look into the stand of judicial review in USA and UK. Judicial review had mainly originated in USA from the notable landmark case of Marbury vs. Madison. But originally Lord Coke’s decision in, Dr. Bonham vs. Cambridge University had rooted the scope of judicial review first time in 1610 in England. This paper will discuss as to how the U.S. Constitution does not provide power of judicial review expressly but Articles III and VI of the U.S. Constitution touch down this concept. There being no written Constitution in UK, the paper will also deal with the principle of “Parliamentary Sovereignty” which dominated the Constitutional democracy. Parliament Supremacy in UK incorporates the will of the people and the Courts cannot scrutinize the actions of Parliament. Parliament prevents the scope of judicial review to primary legislation except in few cases related to human rights and individual freedom. But secondary legislations are subject to judicial review. Court can review the administrative and executive actions in UK. Through this paper the author has made an attempt to present a comparative analysis of judicial review in India, U.S.A and UK