“Judicial Review and the Role of the Courts in the United States and Bangladesh : A Comparative Analysis”

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