Judicial review is a process that allows which of the following?

Judicial review is a significant legal process that empowers individuals, particularly citizens, to contest the legitimacy of government actions and decisions. This process is vital for upholding the rule of law, ensuring that public authorities act within their powers, and protecting individual rights against potential overreach by the government.

Through judicial review, citizens can bring cases before courts to examine whether decisions made by government bodies or officials conform to legal standards, statutory provisions, or principles of administrative justice. This can include challenging the validity of regulations, decisions made by public officials, or actions taken without proper authority. The importance of this process lies in its role as a check on executive power, maintaining accountability and ensuring that the rights of individuals are upheld.

In contrast, the other options refer to processes or functions that do not accurately capture the essence of judicial review. Judges overriding statutory laws generally pertains to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, where judges interpret laws rather than invalidate them. Lawyers appealing criminal verdicts fall under a different legal process involving appellate courts and does not pertain to judicial review. Lastly, the notion of Parliament revising judicial precedents refers to legislative functions and does not align with the judicial review process, which is part of the judiciary’s role in interpreting and applying the law.