What Is The Opposite of Judicial Review?

Judicial review is the process by which the judiciary reviews the actions of the executive or legislative branches of government to ensure that they are in line with the constitution. This helps maintain the balance of power between the branches of government and upholds the rule of law.

Antonyms of judicial review are government systems where the judiciary does not have the power to review the actions of the executive or legislative branches for constitutionality. In these systems, the executive and legislative branches have more autonomy in deciding and implementing laws without being subject to judicial oversight.

These antonyms of judicial review often result in a concentration of power within the executive and legislative branches, potentially leading to abuses of power or violations of constitutional rights without a mechanism for judicial intervention or correction.

Example Sentences With Opposite of Judicial Review

Antonym	Sentence with Judicial Review	Sentence with Antonym
Arbitrary	The judicial review ensures that laws are upheld.	The decision was made in an arbitrary manner.
Unrestrained	Judicial review is a check on governmental power.	Without restraint, the government can act as it pleases.
Informal	The judicial review process involves legal scrutiny.	The judge made an informal decision.
Nonlegal	Judicial review is a formal legal procedure.	The decision was made in a nonlegal way.
Unsystematic	Judicial review provides structure to legal issues.	The process was unsystematic and chaotic.
Biased	Judicial review aims to provide impartial justice.	The judge’s decision was biased.
Unfair	Judicial review ensures fairness in legal matters.	The ruling was deemed unfair by many.
Unjust	Judicial review seeks to uphold justice.	The outcome was considered unjust.
Tyrannical	Judicial review is a safeguard against tyranny.	The ruler’s actions were deemed tyrannical.
Permissive	Judicial review sets limits on government actions.	The policy was permissive of abuse.
Excess	Judicial review prevents excessive use of power.	The action was taken to excess.
Neglectful	Judicial review is crucial in upholding the law.	Their approach to governance was neglectful.
Lawless	Judicial review ensures adherence to the law.	The decision was considered lawless.
Disorderly	Judicial review provides order in legal matters.	The proceedings were disorderly and chaotic.
Disorganized	Judicial review requires a structured process.	The approach was disorganized and haphazard.
Unplanned	Judicial review is a planned legal procedure.	Their response seemed unplanned and random.
Arbitrary	The judicial review checks the validity of laws.	The decision made was considered arbitrary.
Dictatorial	Judicial review acts as a check on dictatorial rule.	The ruler’s behavior was dictatorial.
Unchecked	Judicial review ensures the limitation of power.	Without oversight, power remains unchecked.
Corrupt	Judicial review aims to eliminate corruption.	The system was deemed corrupt.
Disorderly	Judicial review provides order in the legal system.	The situation was disorderly and chaotic.
Unjust	Judicial review is key to ensuring justice.	The outcome was seen as unjust by many.
Inequitable	Judicial review aims to provide equity.	The decision was deemed inequitable.
Arbitrary	Judicial review maintains legal consistency.	The ruling was considered arbitrary.
Authoritarian	Judicial review serves as a check on authoritarianism.	The leadership style was authoritarian.
Unregulated	Judicial review establishes legal boundaries.	Unregulated decisions can lead to chaos.
Illegitimate	Judicial review is a legitimate legal process.	Their actions were deemed illegitimate.
Chaotic	Judicial review brings order to legal matters.	The process was chaotic and confusing.
Unstructured	Judicial review follows a structured legal procedure.	The approach seemed unstructured.
Planned	Judicial review is a well-thought-out legal process.	The response seemed unplanned and haphazard.
Despotic	Judicial review acts as a check against despotism.	The ruler’s actions were deemed despotic.
Liberal	Judicial review establishes legal constraints.	A liberal approach can lead to chaos.
Biased	Judicial review upholds impartiality in decisions.	The result was seen as biased.
Unjust	Judicial review endeavors to uphold justice.	The outcome was considered unjust.
Autocratic	Judicial review is a check on autocratic tendencies.	The leader’s rule was seen as autocratic.
Unrestrained	Judicial review aims to put limits on governmental power.	Without restraint, government can act at will.
Tyrannical	Judicial review is a barrier against tyranny.	The ruler’s actions were considered tyrannical.
Permissive	Judicial review sets boundaries for government actions.	The policy was too permissive and enabling.
Excessive	Judicial review prevents excessive use of authority.	Their actions were considered excessive.

More Example Sentences With Antonyms Of Judicial Review

Antonym	Sentence with Judicial Review	Sentence with Antonym
Arbitrary	The judicial review allows the courts to review laws.	The decision was made based on arbitrary choices.
Legislative	Judicial review is the power of courts to interpret laws.	The legislative branch creates laws without judicial oversight.
Final	The Supreme Court has the authority of judicial review.	The decision is not final and can be appealed.
Indecisive	Judicial review provides a clear interpretation of the law.	Without indecisive review, the legal outcome is uncertain.
Unrestricted	The concept of judicial review ensures a check on power.	The unchecked power was due to unrestricted decision-making.
Impartial	Judicial review requires objectivity and fairness.	The biased ruling showed a lack of impartial consideration.
Certainty	Judicial review offers a level of predictability in rulings.	The lack of clarity brought about uncertainty in the legal outcome.
Arbitrary	Judicial review prevents decisions based on personal whim.	The choice seemed completely arbitrary and without justification.
Repeal	The power of judicial review allows laws to be struck down.	The decision to keep the laws in place contrasts repeal actions.
Partisan	Judicial review is expected to be impartial and neutral.	The partisan ruling favored one side over the other.
Ambiguous	Judicial review helps in clarifying vague legal definitions.	The lack of clarity in the ruling made the decision ambiguous.
Dictatorial	Judicial review protects against authoritarian actions.	The leader’s actions were dictatorial and showed no regard for the law.
Uphold	The power of judicial review is used to affirm laws.	The decision to negate the laws contrasted with upholding them.
Arbitrary	Judicial review is a check against laws based on whim.	The ruling seemed arbitrary and lacked proper legal analysis.
Nullify	Judicial review can declare legislation void.	The lack of nullification allowed the law to remain enforceable.
Firm	The judicial review process ensures steadfast legal rulings.	The lack of determination led to infirm and wavering decisions.
Validate	Judicial review confirms the constitutionality of laws.	The decision to reject the laws was in contrast to validating them.
Biased	Judicial review is ideally conducted without prejudice.	The ruling appeared biased, showing favoritism towards one side.
Settle	Judicial review resolves legal disputes definitively.	The ongoing dispute remained unsettled due to lack of review.
Unchecked	The system of judicial review ensures a balance of powers.	The current situation allows for unchecked exercise of authority.
Overrule	Judicial review can overturn decisions made by lower courts.	The decision not to overrule the court was unexpected.
Clarify	Judicial review aids in interpreting and explaining the law.	The lack of review led to further confusion and lack of clarity.
Arbitrary	Judicial review prevents a government of mere whims.	The ruling appeared to be completely arbitrary and unjust.
Confirm	The role of judicial review is to authenticate legal principles.	The decision conflicted with the goal of confirmation of the principles.
Capricious	The process of judicial review is expected to be fair.	The decision was seen as incredibly capricious and unpredictable.
Disclosure	Judicial review allows for transparency in legal decisions.	The lack of transparency led to the need for greater disclosure.
Decisive	The role of judicial review is to bring clarity to legal matters.	The lack of review resulted in an indecisive legal outcome.
Uphold	Judicial review is used to support the rule of law.	The decision fell short in upholding the principles of law.
Instantaneous	Judicial review helps in speedy resolutions of legal disputes.	The delay in review led to anything but an instantaneous resolution.
Confirm	Judicial review is meant to verify compliance with the law.	The outcome clearly contradicted the purpose of confirmation.
Discretion	The courts exercise judicial review with care and discretion.	The lack of care and improper discretion led to a flawed decision.
Move	Judicial review is a significant step in legal processes.	The decision to avoid the review was seen as a backward move.
Definitely	Judicial review provides definite legal interpretations.	The ruling was far from definite and left room for interpretation.
Approved	The role of judicial review includes evaluating the law’s validity.	The decision did not coincide with the act of approval.
Dominated	Judicial review is meant to act independently of other branches.	The process seemed to be dominated by external influences.
Just	Judicial review is based on fairness and justice.	The biased decision was far from being just or fair.
Indecisive	The process of judicial review provides clear legal direction.	The lack of review resulted in an indecisive legal outcome.
Secure	Judicial review safeguards against unconstitutional actions.	The lack of review left the system insecure and vulnerable.

Outro
Antonyms of judicial review, opposite of judicial review and judicial review ka opposite word are the same thing. In essence, the opposite of judicial review involves a system where the judiciary does not hold the power to interpret or review the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative branch. This alternative approach places the responsibility solely on the legislative body to ensure that laws adhere to the constitution without the oversight or intervention of the courts.

Such a system may lead to a different dynamic of checks and balances within a government, where the executive and legislative branches hold greater authority in shaping and implementing laws without the possibility of judicial intervention. This can result in a more direct and immediate impact of legislative decisions on the functioning of society, as they are not subject to potential judicial challenge or nullification based on constitutional grounds.

Ultimately, the absence of judicial review creates a distinct framework for governance that emphasizes the autonomy and supremacy of legislative actions within the legal and constitutional framework. By forgoing judicial oversight in the interpretation of laws, this model may foster a more expedited and direct approach to policymaking and legal decision-making, albeit with potential implications for the protection of individual rights and constitutional principles.