Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers—the power of the judiciary to supervise (judicial supervision) the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority. The doctrine varies between jurisdictions, so the procedure and scope of judicial review may differ between and within ...
Lord Diplock's threefold classification of the grounds of judicial review in the GCHQ case – illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety – was adopted by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs (1988). [10]
Unlike Singapore, Australia has a statutory procedure for judicial review – the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ("ADJR Act"), [232] by which application procedures were simplified, grounds of review for judicial review codified, and specific new rights introduced.
Some have argued that judicial review exclusively by the federal courts is unconstitutional [72] based on two arguments. First, the power of judicial review is not delegated to the federal courts in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states (or to the people) those powers not delegated to the federal government.
In some jurisdictions, a petition for review is a formal request for an appellate tribunal to review the decision of a lower court or administrative body. [1] If a jurisdiction utilizes petitions for review, then parties seeking appellate review of their case may submit a formal petition for review to an appropriate court. [ 2 ]
Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, usually by a public body.A person who contends that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court (a part of the King's Bench Division of the High Court) for a decision.
In the free speech context, intermediate scrutiny is the test or standard of review that courts apply when analyzing content-neutral speech versus content-based speech. Content-based speech is reviewed under strict scrutiny in which courts evaluate the value of the subject matter or the content of the communication.
Judicial review of administrative decisions is different from an administrative appeal. When sitting in review of a decision, the Court will only look at the method in which the decision was arrived at, whereas in an administrative appeal, the correctness of the decision itself will be examined, usually by a higher body in the agency.