A+| A| A-
Legitimacy of Judicial Review
Judicial review of executive action is an essential aspect of the system of checks and balances in a constitutional democracy. The United States President Donald Trump’s reaction to the judiciary refusing to uphold his executive order imposing the so-called “Muslim ban” suggests that this vital principle might be under renewed threat. India’s experience in this respect should serve as a warning to the judiciary that its independence will be under attack in the next few years.
It is not often that a column needs to be written about certain tweets posted on the social media website, Twitter, even if they are the tweets of the President of the United States (US). President Donald Trump’s tweets, though, are a different matter; specifically the ones posted immediately after courts in the US stayed the nationwide operation of Executive Order (EO) No 13769 banning the entry of nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries into the US.
While five different courts stayed the operation of different parts of EO No 13769 to various extents, after the order was promulgated and valid visa holders from these seven nations were detained or deported, a temporary restraining order against the operation of the entire order was granted by Judge James L Robart of the District Court of the State of Washington, in a suit filed by the State of Washington (Washington v Trump 2017a).
Dear Reader,
Or
To gain instant access to this article (download).
(Readers in India)
(Readers outside India)
