Abstract:
Judicial review is an immensely fascinating instrument employed by the judiciary to defend
constitutionalism in a republic that values the supremacy of the law above human authority.
This is especially true in countries where the constitution has been declared supreme. Judicial
review is the notion under which legislative and executive actions are reviewed and potentially
invalidated by the courts. Specific courts with judicial review competence must nullify
governmental acts if they are in opposition to a higher authority, like the written constitution's
requirements. The division of powers in a modern government, where the court is one of three
branches, is best illustrated via judicial review. Marbury v. Madison (1803) created judicial
review in the United States, enabling the court to uphold the principles of constitutional
supremacy and federalism. On the contrary, Bangladesh's judicial review is based on
parliamentary democracy and functions under a codified constitution, with the judiciary
performing an important role in maintaining legislative and executive accountability. This
study investigates the historical history, importance, and limitations of judicial review in both
countries, focusing on how their courts balance judicial activity and restraint while addressing
critical problems such as separation of powers, fundamental rights, and democratic
accountability. By comparing these jurisdictions, the article hopes to offer light on the larger
implications of judicial review for changing governance and defending constitutionalism
