Judicial review is a legal process where a judge examines the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body or authority. It focuses on whether the decision was made following the correct legal procedures and within the powers of that body, rather than judging whether the decision itself was right or wrong. If the decision is found unlawful, the judge can quash or nullify it, requiring it to be made again lawfully. Judicial review applies mainly to public bodies like local councils, government departments, and regulatory authorities.

Key aspects of judicial review:

• It is a challenge to the lawfulness of the decision-making process, not the decision's merits.
• Public authorities must have the legal power to make the decision and must follow fair and lawful procedures.
• Grounds for judicial review include lack of legal power, irrationality, failure to follow fair procedures, and breaches of human rights.
• It is distinct from an appeal, which challenges the correctness of a decision rather than the process.
• Judicial reviews are generally brought in specialized courts, such as the Administrative Court or the Upper Tribunal in the UK.
• Time limits apply for bringing cases, commonly within 3 months of the decision.

Judicial review in a constitutional context:

In some countries, judicial review also refers to courts' power to examine whether legislation or government actions comply with the constitution. Courts can declare unconstitutional laws or actions null and void. This form of judicial review varies by country in terms of how and when it is applied and which courts have authority. Thus, judicial review ensures that public bodies act within their legal limits and follow proper procedures, protecting legality and fairness in administrative decisions.