Judicial Review of Administrative Action: A Comparative Study of India and Australia

The fundamental principle underlying judicial review in India is the primacy of the rule of law. The court has the authority to scrutinize the activities undertaken by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The court has a significant tool to declare any statute or order that contradicts the fundamental law of the nation as unconstitutional and unenforceable. The present study will focus on the examination of the Apex Court has created several theories via the exercise of judicial review. One such theory is the theory of Severability. The Doctrine of Eclipse and the Doctrine of Prospective Over-ruling are two legal principles that are often discussed in academic circles. Furthermore, this article focuses on the topic of Judicial Review and the discussion pertains to three key aspects of constitutional governance: constitutional amendments, judicial review of legislative actions, and judicial review of administrative actions. This article will examine the position of judicial review in India & Australia. An examination of the significant jurisprudential advancements in India and Australia is essential for gaining a comprehensive understanding of the practice of judicial review in these respective nations. The analysis next examines the observed parallels and variances, enhancing our comprehension of the concept of Judicial review in a broader context. The comparison demonstrates the adaptable characteristics that are responsive to elements of the constitutional structure and diverse local circumstances, all while safeguarding essential institutional functions from external disruptions. Constitutional democracy was characterized by the notion of "Parliamentary Sovereignty" as its dominant feature. The term "Parliament" refers to a legislative body that is responsible for making laws and the concept of parliamentary supremacy in the United Kingdom encompasses the expression of popular sovereignty, with the judiciary being precluded from subjecting parliamentary acts to scrutiny. The Parliament restricts the extent of judicial review to major legislation, with only a limited number of exceptions pertaining to human rights and associated matters.