The doctrine of judicial review which dictates the conditions under which executive and legislative actions would be reviewed by the judiciary; which also has the power to invalidate them. State acts can be annulled by the power of judicial review, exercised by some courts when they are found to be inconsistent with the higher power, such as constitutional laws. Therefore, the concept of judicial review essentially represents the accountability mechanisms that are part of the modern government system (where the various government branches are controlled by the judiciary). Interpretations of this principle vary across jurisdictions, as do different views on hierarchy and governance norms. Accordingly, the scope and procedure of judicial review are subject to change across states and countries. Judicial review refers to the procedure in the administrative law of England which allows the courts of Wales and England to supervise the use of public power when an individual makes an application. Where an individual believes that the use of such power by a statutory court, a local council and a minister (representing government authority) is unlawful, due to the violation of that individual's rights, he or she would be permitted submit a petition/appeal to an administrative court. The administrative court will then provide a judicial review of the decision and award damages to the appellant. Injunctions and mandatory orders may also be issued by the courts, to refrain from or compel the performance of a particular act. Unlike the United States and various other jurisdictions, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in England essentially means that courts are not permitted to provide judicial review… half of the paper… n questioned. It has been suggested time and again that the sovereignty of parliament derives from the common law and can be overridden by the fundamental norms of the common law itself in some scenarios, in particular by the central elements of the rule of law principle, such as access to justice. The Jackson and Factortame judgments illustrate the great diversity of opinion that currently exists regarding the normative values ​​that form the basis of the UK constitutional system. The way in which these rules can be combined together has also been demonstrated. These cases further argue that the primary authority vested in representative governance as exemplified in the Westminster Parliament would no longer be considered vested. The way in which judicial restraint is preferred to judicial activism is therefore increasingly observed.