Rule of Law and judicial review
Rule of Law and Judicial Review
What is the Rule of Law?
The Rule of Law is a fundamental principle of governance stating that:
Everyone, including government officials, is subject to the law.
Laws must be clear, publicized, stable, and just.
Laws must be applied equally and fairly.
Legal processes must ensure accountability, fairness, and justice.
The Rule of Law protects against arbitrary governance, dictatorship, and abuse of power by ensuring that governmental power is exercised according to established legal rules.
What is Judicial Review?
Judicial Review is the process by which courts examine the actions of the legislative and executive branches of government to determine whether those actions comply with the constitution or higher laws.
Key features:
Ensures government acts within its legal powers.
Protects fundamental rights and liberties.
Provides a check and balance on government power.
Upholds the supremacy of the constitution.
Importance of Rule of Law and Judicial Review in Governance
Prevents abuse of power by government authorities.
Ensures fair and just administration.
Protects individual freedoms and rights.
Maintains stability and predictability in the legal system.
Promotes public confidence in the legal system.
Landmark Cases Illustrating Rule of Law and Judicial Review
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803) — United States
Facts:
William Marbury was appointed as a justice of the peace, but his commission was not delivered by the new administration under President Jefferson. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel delivery.
Issue:
Could the Supreme Court review acts of Congress and declare them unconstitutional?
Ruling:
Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, ruling that the Court has the authority to declare laws unconstitutional.
Significance:
Established judicial review as a core constitutional principle.
Reinforced the Rule of Law by empowering courts to ensure laws comply with the Constitution.
Prevented arbitrary legislative or executive actions.
2. Entick v. Carrington (1765) — United Kingdom
Facts:
Government officials entered Entick’s home without a warrant, searching for evidence of sedition.
Issue:
Was the government action lawful?
Ruling:
Lord Camden ruled the search unlawful, stating that the government cannot exercise power unless explicitly authorized by law.
Significance:
Early articulation of the Rule of Law.
Established that government must act within legal authority.
Protected individual rights against arbitrary state power.
3. R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) — United Kingdom
Facts:
The UK government sought to trigger Article 50 (to leave the EU) without parliamentary approval.
Issue:
Could the government use prerogative powers without parliamentary consent?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament must authorize such significant constitutional changes.
Significance:
Affirmed parliamentary sovereignty under the Rule of Law.
Reinforced limits on executive power.
Showed judicial review protects constitutional principles and democratic processes.
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) — India
Facts:
Raj Narain challenged Indira Gandhi’s election on grounds of corrupt practices.
Issue:
Whether constitutional amendments that remove certain judicial review powers violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court struck down the amendment that limited judicial review, holding that judicial review is part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
Significance:
Judicial review is a sacred constitutional safeguard.
Upholds the Rule of Law by ensuring no branch can exclude court scrutiny.
5. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) — United States
Facts:
African American students challenged school segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine.
Issue:
Did racial segregation violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that segregation was unconstitutional.
Significance:
Judicial review used to protect fundamental rights.
Affirmed the Rule of Law principle that laws cannot violate constitutional rights.
Showed courts as protectors of minority rights against discriminatory laws.
6. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — India
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was revoked without a fair hearing.
Issue:
Was the government’s action arbitrary and unconstitutional?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of the right to personal liberty, requiring fair and reasonable procedures.
Significance:
Strengthened Rule of Law by emphasizing procedural fairness.
Affirmed that administrative actions are subject to judicial review for fairness.
7. Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union (1995) — UK
Facts:
Government promised compensation scheme for firefighters but later reversed course without Parliament’s approval.
Issue:
Was the government’s action lawful?
Ruling:
The Court held that the government must honor lawful promises or act within legal authority.
Significance:
Enforces government accountability.
Ensures government actions comply with legal commitments under the Rule of Law.
Summary Table: Cases and Key Principles
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison | USA | Judicial Review Established | Courts can invalidate unconstitutional laws |
| Entick v. Carrington | UK | Government must act by law | Limits arbitrary executive power |
| R (Miller) v. Sec of State | UK | Parliamentary sovereignty | Limits executive powers |
| Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain | India | Basic structure doctrine | Judicial review as constitutional safeguard |
| Brown v. Board of Education | USA | Protection of fundamental rights | Courts uphold constitutional equality |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | India | Fair procedure in administrative action | Expanded Rule of Law protections |
| Ex Parte Fire Brigades Union | UK | Government accountability | Enforces lawful government conduct |
Conclusion
The Rule of Law is the foundation of democratic governance and justice. It ensures that no one is above the law, and government power is exercised within legal limits.
Judicial review is the primary tool through which courts uphold the Rule of Law by scrutinizing administrative and legislative actions to ensure they are legal, fair, and constitutional.
The cases above demonstrate:
How courts protect citizens from arbitrary government.
How judicial review maintains constitutional supremacy.
The evolving role of courts in safeguarding rights and democratic values.
RELATED Blog
0 comments