Comparative Analysis of Judicial Review: A Study of Constitutional Supremacy and Judicial Review in India, France and the United States

The Article below is a research on the contrast of the emergence, scope and use of the concept of judicial review in the United States of America, France and India. The judicial review is a critical factor in democratic government. The individuality of a judicial system to decide whether the activities of the legislative and the Judiciary state are reasonable or not is a crucial component of the Implementation of democracy. The division of power must be executed well in order to create a balance between the three organs. In Articles 13, 32 and 226, the concept of judicial review is established such that the Supreme Court and the High Court gets the authority to enforce the fundamental rights which is given by the Constitution to the citizens of the country. In France, on the contrary, it is a civil type of a legal system, with the Judiciary having a limited power. The Constitutional Council was established in 1958 to do judicial review, and an overhaul of the major reforms was expected to be provided by the reforms referred to as Question Prioritastie Constitutionnelle. Although, It had not been fixed on the Constitution, Marbury v. Judicial review was a concept that was developed in Madison case (1809). In the present case, the court could pronounce the invalidity of the laws on the basis of the assessment of the constitutionality, therefore affirming supremacy of the constitution. The article highlights the manner in which every legal authority upholds the rule-of-law and personal liberties respectively striking a compromise between the lawmaking authority and the judicial oversight.