JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: A COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW

Abstract

Judicial review of the legislative process is a longstanding and often debated feature of constitutional democracies. Traditionally, courts have used judicial review to determine whether legislation complies with constitutional requirements. Over time, however, judicial review has come to involve closer scrutiny of how legislation is made, the purposes it seeks to achieve, and its practical effects. This paper examines the role of judicial review in the legislative process, focusing on how courts uphold constitutional principles, democratic accountability, and the protection of rights. It considers whether, in reviewing legislation, courts engage in post-legislative scrutiny by examining the implementation and impact of laws. The paper also explores how courts assess legislative outcomes while remaining mindful of the limits of their constitutional role. Further, the paper examines the circumstances under which judicial intervention to encourage legislative reconsideration, amendment, or repeal may be justified. It argues that judicial review of the legislative process serves as an essential constitutional safeguard, helping to maintain constitutional standards while respecting the institutional relationship between courts and legislatures. The paper concludes that although judicial review should be exercised with restraint, its involvement in legislative matters is both necessary and unavoidable to uphold constitutional supremacy and the rule of law.

KEYWORDS: Legislative Process, Judicial Review, Rule of Law, Accountability, Rights, etc.