Abstract
This article critically evaluates the competing theories of judicial review to arrive at the conclusion, advanced by the writer, that the ultra vires doctrine does not provide a sufficient rubric as a justification for judicial review. It is the writer's view that rights based review has the attraction of objectivity and would be more appropriate as the basis for judicial review. It is contended that the justification for the ultra vires doctrine, as the basis for judicial review, is, at best, tenuous in England and can have no legitimacy, whatsoever, in other countries, with written constitutions, where the constitutional arrangements are quite different.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
