2016 · Q6 · Marbury v. Madison and judicial review (20 marks)

Source: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 2016.pdf, PDF page 1 · Answer allocation: 20 marks

Original examination question

The Supreme Court in Pakistan asserts the right of Judicial Review. Explain how in the development of Administrative Law the right of judicial review was first enforced by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1803 in the case of Marbury V. Madison.

Bullet outline

• Define judicial review and distinguish appeal.
• Explain the commission dispute and the requested mandamus.
• Present Marshall’s right–remedy–jurisdiction reasoning.
• Explain constitutional supremacy and limits on legislative enlargement.
• Connect judicial review to administrative legality.
• Distinguish the historical US case from Pakistan’s own constitutional framework.

Full exam-ready answer

Introduction

Judicial review is the power of a court to assess whether legislation or administrative action complies with the constitution and applicable law. It differs from an ordinary appeal on the merits: review concerns lawful authority, procedure and constitutional limits. Marbury v. Madison in 1803 became a foundational United States precedent for judicial review of federal legislation.

Facts of the dispute

At the end of John Adams's presidency, William Marbury received an appointment as a justice of the peace, but his commission was not delivered. The incoming administration withheld it. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the commission.

The dispute placed the Court in a difficult institutional position. Ordering delivery risked executive resistance, while simply refusing relief could appear to abandon legal accountability.

Marshall's reasoning

Chief Justice John Marshall separated the problem into questions about Marbury's right, the availability of a remedy and the Court's jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the completed appointment created a legal right and that withholding the commission violated it.

However, the Court held that it could not grant the requested mandamus through its original jurisdiction. The relevant statutory provision, interpreted as enlarging that jurisdiction beyond the Constitution, was invalid. Marbury therefore did not obtain the order he sought.

The outcome is crucial: the case established constitutional review while denying the particular remedy. It should not be described as a successful court order compelling Madison to hand over the commission.

Constitutional significance

The reasoning rested on the supremacy of a written constitution over ordinary legislation. If a statute conflicts with the constitution, a court deciding a case must apply the superior rule. Otherwise, constitutional limits would be alterable through ordinary law.

The case did not invent every historical form of judicial control. Its particular importance was the authoritative assertion of the US Supreme Court's power to invalidate conflicting federal legislation. Judicial review subsequently became central to the American system of checks and balances.

Relevance to administrative law

Administrative agencies exercise powers conferred by law. Judicial review tests whether they remain within those powers and respect required procedures and rights. It can restrain unlawful discretion, prevent action beyond jurisdiction and require authorities to address matters they have unlawfully neglected.

This strengthens administration by making decisions reasoned and legally defensible. Yet review should not routinely replace specialised administrative judgement with judicial preferences. Courts need to distinguish legal error from disagreement over a policy choice lawfully entrusted to another institution.

Pakistan application

Pakistan's judicial-review arrangements derive from its own Constitution, rather than directly from Marbury. The case provides a comparative principle: public authority is limited by superior law. Pakistani constitutional provisions allocate jurisdiction and remedies among courts, and those provisions must be read in the relevant historical or amended text.

For the 2016 question, the Supreme Court's then-existing constitutional jurisdiction forms the historical setting. A present-day answer should not assume that later constitutional amendments leave every jurisdictional route unchanged.

Conclusion

Marbury established that constitutional limits are judicially enforceable, while simultaneously demonstrating the importance of jurisdictional restraint. Its enduring lesson for public administration is that lawful authority and institutional limits apply to administrators, legislators and judges alike.

Supporting references

• US National Archives: Marbury v. Madison
• Pakistan Constitution, amended text

Study note: This is an original model answer, not an official FPSC marking scheme. The outline is for revision; the prose below it provides the complete answer. Marks guide relative depth rather than a prescribed word count.