Is rights based review justified

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.