Irrationality and proportionality (Judicial Review) essay
Introduction
In constitutional democracies, judicial review is an essential part of ensuring that
government actions are legal and fair. It gives the courts the power to examine at
decisions made by the executive or legislative branches and maybe overturn them. In
judicial review cases, two primary concepts are often utilized in an attempt to get
justice: irrationality and proportionality. This essay focuses at how these principles are
used and the significance in the framework of judicial review. (76 words)
Irrationality
Irrationality is an essential notion when figuring out if administrative decisions are
legal under judicial review. It pertains to instances where decisions lack reasonable
justification or exhibit illogical reasoning. Courts play an important part in making
sure that public authorities use their power in a way that is fair and sensible. They do
this by examining the reasoning behind administrative decisions. The important case
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation was the initial
instance in which the idea of irrationality was recognised. In this case, Lord Greene
MR made the renowned "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test, which stated that a
decision could be challenged if it was so unreasonable that no sensible authority
would have made it.
To figure out if a decision was made in an irrational way, judges usually look at
whether the person who made the decision took into account all relevant factors,
ignored irrelevant ones, used their discretion in a reasonable way, and came to a
decision that is within the range of reasonable outcomes. This standard of review tries
to find a balance between judicial scrutiny and respect for the expertise and discretion
of public authorities. Irrationality keeps authorities from making decisions that aren't
based on arbitrary or capricious reasoning. It keeps them from acting in ways that fail
to be logical. It makes administrative decisions more tranparent and accountable by
letting individuals who are affected by them, to challenge them in court. By
considering decisions to rationality review, the courts make sure that government
actions are in line with the rule of law and protect people's rights and freedoms. Also,
the concept of irrationality has evolved over time. It now includes both the lack of
reason and the presence of irrationality in the way decisions are made. Courts evaluate
whether the person who made the decision considered all the facts, thought about
alternate possibilities, and explained their choices in a clear way. This new way of
examining irrationality makes it easier for judges to evaluate administrative decisions
and keeps the judicial review process transparent. (340 words)
Proportionality
Another crucial factor that courts use in judicial review proceedings is proportionality.
It requires determining whether the strategies used by a public authority to pursue a
lawful goal are appropriate given the goals being pursued. In other words, it considers
whether the public interest justifies the infringement of individual rights or interests.
Introduction
In constitutional democracies, judicial review is an essential part of ensuring that
government actions are legal and fair. It gives the courts the power to examine at
decisions made by the executive or legislative branches and maybe overturn them. In
judicial review cases, two primary concepts are often utilized in an attempt to get
justice: irrationality and proportionality. This essay focuses at how these principles are
used and the significance in the framework of judicial review. (76 words)
Irrationality
Irrationality is an essential notion when figuring out if administrative decisions are
legal under judicial review. It pertains to instances where decisions lack reasonable
justification or exhibit illogical reasoning. Courts play an important part in making
sure that public authorities use their power in a way that is fair and sensible. They do
this by examining the reasoning behind administrative decisions. The important case
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation was the initial
instance in which the idea of irrationality was recognised. In this case, Lord Greene
MR made the renowned "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test, which stated that a
decision could be challenged if it was so unreasonable that no sensible authority
would have made it.
To figure out if a decision was made in an irrational way, judges usually look at
whether the person who made the decision took into account all relevant factors,
ignored irrelevant ones, used their discretion in a reasonable way, and came to a
decision that is within the range of reasonable outcomes. This standard of review tries
to find a balance between judicial scrutiny and respect for the expertise and discretion
of public authorities. Irrationality keeps authorities from making decisions that aren't
based on arbitrary or capricious reasoning. It keeps them from acting in ways that fail
to be logical. It makes administrative decisions more tranparent and accountable by
letting individuals who are affected by them, to challenge them in court. By
considering decisions to rationality review, the courts make sure that government
actions are in line with the rule of law and protect people's rights and freedoms. Also,
the concept of irrationality has evolved over time. It now includes both the lack of
reason and the presence of irrationality in the way decisions are made. Courts evaluate
whether the person who made the decision considered all the facts, thought about
alternate possibilities, and explained their choices in a clear way. This new way of
examining irrationality makes it easier for judges to evaluate administrative decisions
and keeps the judicial review process transparent. (340 words)
Proportionality
Another crucial factor that courts use in judicial review proceedings is proportionality.
It requires determining whether the strategies used by a public authority to pursue a
lawful goal are appropriate given the goals being pursued. In other words, it considers
whether the public interest justifies the infringement of individual rights or interests.
