Consequently, judicial review is the authority of the judiciary to declare statutes or the execution of law and policy by the executive to be unconstitutional. While it encourages checks and balances among the three branches of government it varies in implementation.

In the United States, the power judicial review, recognized in * the case of Marbury v. Judicial review (Marbury v. Madison* 1803) has placed the judiciary in a very strong position check on the legislative and executive branches. India’s courts are in the same analogous legal position with ability, the “basic structure doctrine,” to warrant this change as well as guard constitutional legitimacy while simultaneously restraining the legislative branch’s amendment-making capacities. Here, the judicial review of the UK focuses on the procedural regularity of administrative decisions because parliamentary supremacy eliminates the possibility of the declaring primary legislation unconstitutional.

Germany and other civil law nations employ constitutional courts to handle such pure constitutional claims, while the ECJ ensures compliance of its member’s laws with the treaty establishing the union. These systems show various levels and approaches of judicial control.

The control of judicial review regrettably hampering the balance of power. Its effect has been to strengthen the call for accountability and rights but has been blamed for judicial encroachment into the domain of policy formulation – undue judicial interference. In this respect, acting as a guardian of the constitution, judicial review improves governance, while the issues arising out of concerns related to the judiciary in the democratic systems are agitating. It will remain basic in support of the rule of law which facilitates a balance power that can function properly.