 | This is the sandbox of Sgconlaw. A sandbox is a subpage of a template or article used to test a change to the main article or template before deploying said changes. Once you have finished with the test, please erase the contents of this page leaving this box ({{Sandbox notice}}) in place. (diff) See also: Main sandbox
|
 | This is a sandbox for an article that is being edited as part of an educational assignment called the SMU Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia project. If you are not a member of the project, please do not edit this article. To contact the project co-ordinator please leave a message at "User talk:Smuconlaw". |
Judicial deference describes the courts' practice of accepting the decisions of the legislature and executive as authoritative. Such practice may be justified on the grounds of legitimacy-based deference or expertise-based deference. In the former, judicial deference is justified on the ground that the decision-maker has superior democratic credentials compared to the courts. Under the Westminster system of constitutional government, the judiciary is hesitant to intrude into the powers of the legislature and the executive. In the latter, judicial deference is justified on the ground that the judiciary may not have the requisite information and expertise to decide on a matter competently.
Judicial deference has also been described as a range of judicial techniques which the courts use to increase the discretion allowed to the legislature and executive. In administrative law, courts generally decide on the legality and not the merits of a decision taken by a public body. In constitutional law, courts have exercised judicial deference in certain ways, such as applying a presumption of constituitionality and taking a purposive approach in interpreting the Constitution.