What does Judicial Review refer to?

What does Judicial Review refer to?

• A. A formal process of creating new laws by Parliament.
• B. A type of court proceeding to uphold international treaties.
• C. A process by which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action by a public body.
• D. A mechanism to appeal a criminal conviction to a higher court.

Answer: (C)

Judicial Review is the process by which a court checks whether a decision or action taken by a public authority is lawful. It focuses on whether the authority acted within its powers, followed proper procedures, and avoided unfair or irrational conduct. The court doesn’t second-guess policy choices or merits, but it can overturn or require reconsideration if the decision was illegal, procedurally improper, or unreasonable. This mechanism helps ensure the rule of law and accountability in government. The other ideas don’t fit because creating new laws is Parliament’s job, not the courts; upholding international treaties concerns treaty law and international obligations rather than internal legality of public-body decisions; and appealing a criminal conviction is about challenging the verdict on its merits, rather than reviewing the legality of a public authority’s decision.

Judicial Review is the process by which a court checks whether a decision or action taken by a public authority is lawful. It focuses on whether the authority acted within its powers, followed proper procedures, and avoided unfair or irrational conduct. The court doesn’t second-guess policy choices or merits, but it can overturn or require reconsideration if the decision was illegal, procedurally improper, or unreasonable. This mechanism helps ensure the rule of law and accountability in government.

The other ideas don’t fit because creating new laws is Parliament’s job, not the courts; upholding international treaties concerns treaty law and international obligations rather than internal legality of public-body decisions; and appealing a criminal conviction is about challenging the verdict on its merits, rather than reviewing the legality of a public authority’s decision.