Judicial Review vs. Ordinary Review

Attribute	Judicial Review	Ordinary Review
Decision Maker	Court	Administrative agency or lower court
Scope	Review of constitutionality of laws or actions	Review of factual findings or legal errors
Authority	Constitutional authority	Statutory authority
Standard of Review	Deferential or strict scrutiny	Deferential or clear error

Introduction

When it comes to reviewing decisions made by government bodies or administrative agencies, there are two main types of review processes that can be utilized: Judicial Review and Ordinary Review. While both serve the purpose of ensuring that decisions are fair and lawful, they differ in their scope, process, and outcomes. In this article, we will compare the attributes of Judicial Review and Ordinary Review to provide a better understanding of how they function.

Scope of Review

One of the key differences between Judicial Review and Ordinary Review lies in the scope of the review process. Judicial Review is a process where a court examines the legality of a decision made by a government body or administrative agency. The court assesses whether the decision was made within the legal framework and if it was reasonable. On the other hand, Ordinary Review is typically conducted by the same government body or agency that made the initial decision. It involves a review of the decision-making process to ensure that all relevant factors were considered.

Decision-Making Authority

In Judicial Review, the ultimate decision-making authority lies with the court. The court has the power to overturn or uphold the decision made by the government body or administrative agency based on its assessment of legality and reasonableness. On the contrary, in Ordinary Review, the decision-making authority remains with the government body or agency that made the initial decision. The review process is more of a self-assessment to ensure that the decision-making process was fair and thorough.

Legal Standards

Another important aspect to consider when comparing Judicial Review and Ordinary Review is the legal standards that are applied during the review process. In Judicial Review, the court applies a standard of review that is based on legal principles and precedents. The court examines whether the decision was made in accordance with the law and if it was reasonable. In Ordinary Review, the legal standards may vary depending on the internal policies and guidelines of the government body or agency conducting the review.

Outcomes

The outcomes of Judicial Review and Ordinary Review can also differ significantly. In Judicial Review, the court has the authority to overturn a decision if it is found to be unlawful or unreasonable. This can result in the decision being quashed or remitted back to the government body or agency for reconsideration. In Ordinary Review, the outcomes are typically limited to recommendations for improvements in the decision-making process or procedural changes to prevent similar issues in the future.

Transparency and Accountability

Transparency and accountability are important considerations in both Judicial Review and Ordinary Review processes. Judicial Review is often seen as a more transparent and accountable process, as the court's decisions are subject to public scrutiny and can be appealed to higher courts. This helps to ensure that decisions are made in accordance with the law and are not influenced by external factors. On the other hand, Ordinary Review may lack the same level of transparency and accountability, as the review process is conducted internally by the government body or agency.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Judicial Review and Ordinary Review serve important functions in ensuring that decisions made by government bodies and administrative agencies are fair and lawful. While Judicial Review involves a more formal and legalistic process with the court as the ultimate decision-maker, Ordinary Review is typically conducted internally by the government body or agency. Understanding the differences between these two review processes can help individuals and organizations navigate the complex landscape of administrative decision-making.