Marbury v. Madison summary

MARBURY Vs. MADISON

SUPREME COURT OF USA 

FEBRUARY 24, 1803

CASE ON JUDICIAL REVIEW 

Facts of the case : 

John Adams who was the president of USA lost the election of 1800 to Thomas Jafferson. Before leaving the office, just one day before the oath ceremony, he passed Judiciary Act 1801, under which many new courts were established and thus requires new appointment of judges. John Adams also before leaving, made the list of the new judges, get them approved from the senate and ordered the then secretary of state to deliver the commissions. All the commissions were not been able to delivered before the Thomas Jefferson took over the office and ordered the new secretary of state not to deliver any commission therefrom. Marbury, who was one of the appointee, didn't received his commission and thus filed the petition before the Supreme Court of USA for issuing the writ of mandamus.

Question before the court :

  1. Whether the petitioner posses the right to recieve commission.
  2. Whether the secretary of the state be sued for non delivery of commission
  3. Whether the Supreme Court has the right to order the delivery of commission. 

JUDGEMENT

Chief Justice John Marshall opined that it is illegal to not deliver the commissions to the newly appointed judges as the appointees have the right to recieve the commissions of the appointments. However adding to this he stated that the writ petition of mandamus could not be issued because the Judiciary Act 1789, which grants the court right to issue writ of mandamus is unconstitutional. According to him the Judiciary Act, 1789 is unconstitutional because the act sought to expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond that granted by the Constitution. 

Importance of the Judgement :

This judgement establishes the concept of Judicial review for the first time which is a well known concept today. 



YOU MAY ALSO LIKE 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kailash Wati V. Ajodhia Parkash case summary

Image
KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  19 NOV 1976 CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Question before the court Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife. Facts of the case The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months. Contention of the parties Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. 
Read more

Savitri Pandey V. Prem Chandra Pandey summary

Image
SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  2002 CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION Facts of the case :  The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. Respondent  : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong.  JUDGEMENT :  The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.    High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there was also nothing to prove the desertion by th
Read more

Swaraj Garg V. K. M. Garg summary

Image
SWARAJ GARG  Vs. K.M. GARG DELHI HIGH COURT MARCH 7, 1978 . CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Question before the court : Where will be the matrimonial home located after the marriage when both the parties are gainfully employed and there does not exist any agreement either implied or written before the marriage.  Facts of the case : The wife Swaraj - petitioner lived in her village, Sunam, from 1956 and techer at the the school. She was the head mistress at government high school in 1969. She got married to the respondent in 1964. The husband was not having a satisfactory job and earn only 500 p/m in Delhi where he resides. She came to live with her husband for some time and then grt back to her village and continue living there. The Husband therefore filed the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : The petitioner argued that respondent's condition is not satisfactory that he can maint
Read more