Confused between Judicial Review and Judicial Enforcement
admin cuet_pg beginner doubtYaar, samajh nahi aaya! I'm stuck on these two concepts in Admin Law. Judicial Review and Judicial Enforcement seem to be doing the same thing - reviewing administrative actions - but there's a subtle difference that I just can't seem to grasp. According to the notes, Judicial Review is when a court reviews an administrative action to ensure it's in line with the law, while Judicial Enforcement involves the court taking action to enforce a decision.
But then, don't they both involve reviewing and taking action? What's the difference between the two? Are they not just different phases of the same process? I've seen examples like, say, the SC staying a government order through a writ - isn't that Judicial Review? But then, what about when the court orders the government to implement a policy - isn't that Judicial Enforcement? Please help, yaar! Can someone explain the distinction?
2 Comments
Arre, don't get confused! Judicial Review and Judicial Enforcement are two different powers of the judiciary. Judicial Review is the power to declare laws or government actions unconstitutional, while Judicial Enforcement is the power to enforce court orders and decisions. Think of it like a teacher reviewing a student's work and a teacher enforcing classroom rules, respectively.
"Yeh dono concept kafi complex hain, but don't worry, I feel hai. Judicial Review aise hai jaha high court or supreme court kisi government decision ya action ko review karte hain, kya vaha constitution ya laws ka ullanghan hai ya nahi. Judicial Enforcement, on the other hand, yaha kaha jata hai jab koi individual ya organization court mein case fillta hai kisi government action ka challenge karna chahta hai.