Author(s): Shivakumar MA

Abstract: Judicial review is one of the most significant instruments in constitutional democracies, designed to maintain checks and balances between organs of the State. While India has a written Constitution with entrenched fundamental rights, the United Kingdom operates under an unwritten constitution shaped by statutes, precedents, and conventions. This paper making efforts to study a similar analysis of judicial review in India and the United Kingdom by examining their historical roots, constitutional frameworks, scope, and limitations. It argues that while both nations recognize judicial review, its application reflects their distinct constitutional philosophies constitutional supremacy in India versus parliamentary sovereignty in the UK. In England (UK), there has always been claimed the sovereignty of the Parliament. The judiciary was not expected to review the matters or affairs or actions of the Parliament, as the Parliament is highest or greatest to all. Judicial review remained limited to the executive actions. The Judiciary was guardianship in keeping the activity or work of the executive in line with the Constitutional significance and its desirability though un-written in Britain.

DOI: 10.22271/2790-0673.2025.v5.i2d.242

Pages: 284-288 | Views: 256 | Downloads: 119

Download Full Article: Click Here