Question

Please explain the difference between judicial review and parliamentary sovereignty and the trend towards judicial review after the end of the Second World War.

Answer 1

Judicial review includes the authority of the judiciary to review legislative and judicial acts, thereby enshrining the rule of law principle and upholding, at grassroots level, the separation of authority principle. Thus, the key structure through which the judicial limits are circumscribed is the judicial review of administrative and legislative acts and the examination of many constitutional changes in the light of constitutional requirements, thereby preserving the constitution's sanctity and preserving the citizens' fundamental rights.

Judicial review is a powerful mechanism for keeping public bodies under check and making them accountable if their actions or policies go outside the powers set down in the Constitution. This ensures effective checks and balances by regulating unriddled, unconstitutional or unfair actions enacted on behalf of the Executive and the Legislature.

For sovereignty the authority stated in terms of Parliament is called. This supremacy can be approached in two ways – one may offer absolute dominance, keeping the parliamentary view or decision to the final say in matters of removing dark shadows arising from difficulties in constitutional interpretation, and another view of preserving or retaining parliamentary sovereignty in one area, while the role of parliament in other areas may be limited or limited. Sovereignty encompasses a capacity enjoyed in certain area. It includes political autonomy though the sovereign state actions are under public scrutiny.

It is not otherwise supposed that the Constitution would have the purpose of allowing people's representatives to replace their will with that of their constituents. It is much more reasonable to believe that the courts were established to be an intermediary body between the citizens and the legislature, in order, inter alia, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority

In Federalist Paper # 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, the principle of judicial review emerged. Hamilton first disposed of the notion that governments should be able to enact the Constitution on their own: if it is assumed that the legislative body itself is the constitutional judge of its own powers and that the structure it imposes on it is definitive for the other departments, it can be replied that this can not be the usual inference, if it is not to be collected.

The scope of judicial review is limited in both its availability and its function: the court's task is not to appeal the challenged decision, or to examine the validity of that decision, but to perform a review of the procedure through which the decision was made in order to determine whether the decision was faulty and should be revoked. The process of bringing a lawsuit is simplified, and because they have an interest in the result, 'interested parties' who are neither claimants nor defendants are also included in the proceedings.