About: Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutional validity of laws, executive actions and constitutional amendments. If any law or action violates the Constitution, the courts can declare it unconstitutional and void, thereby ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law.
Concept of Law in Judicial Review: The term ‘law’ under this has a broad constitutional meaning. It includes Acts passed by Parliament and State Legislatures, delegated legislation, executive orders, rules, regulations, notifications and, in appropriate cases, constitutional amendments. Every such law must conform to the provisions of the Constitution, particularly the Fundamental Rights and the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Key Points of Judicial Review
It is regarded as one of the basic features of the Constitution and therefore cannot be abolished even through a constitutional amendment. It acts as a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary exercise of legislative and executive powers.
Judicial Review is exercised by both the Supreme Court and the High Courts. While the Supreme Court exercises this power under Article 32, the High Courts exercise it under Article 226, thereby ensuring constitutional governance throughout the country.
The scope of this extends to legislative actions, executive decisions and constitutional amendments. However, courts generally do not interfere in matters involving purely political questions or policy decisions unless they violate constitutional provisions.
The doctrine ensures that all organs of the State function within their constitutional limits. It preserves the federal balance, protects Fundamental Rights and maintains the supremacy of the Constitution.
Types of Judicial Review
Review of Legislative Actions: The judiciary examines whether laws enacted by Parliament or State Legislatures are consistent with the Constitution. If a law exceeds legislative competence or violates constitutional provisions, the court may declare it unconstitutional.
Review of Executive Actions: Courts review executive decisions, administrative orders and governmental actions to ensure that they are lawful, reasonable and consistent with constitutional principles. Arbitrary or mala fide executive actions can be struck down through Judicial Review.
Review of Constitutional Amendments: The Supreme Court examines whether a constitutional amendment violates the Basic Structure Doctrine evolved in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). Amendments that damage or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution can be declared invalid.
Constitutional Provisions for Judicial Review
The Constitution does not expressly use the term ‘Judicial Review’, but several Articles collectively confer this power upon the judiciary.
Article 13 declares that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency. It forms the constitutional foundation of Judicial Review.
Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights by issuing constitutional writs. This provision enables citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court against unconstitutional actions.
Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for any other legal right, making their writ jurisdiction wider than that of the Supreme Court.
Article 131 enables the Supreme Court to decide disputes between the Union and the States involving constitutional issues, thereby indirectly strengthening Judicial Review.
Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant Special Leave to Appeal against judgments of any court or tribunal, allowing it to correct substantial legal or constitutional errors.
Article 137 authorises the Supreme Court to review its own judgments where justice requires reconsideration.
Article 141 provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts in India, ensuring uniform constitutional interpretation.
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice, thereby strengthening constitutional remedies.
Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction upon the High Courts over all subordinate courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction.
Article 245 and 246 define the legislative competence of Parliament and State Legislatures. Courts use these provisions to determine whether a legislature has acted within its constitutional authority.
Article 251 and Article 254 deal with inconsistency between Union and State laws, enabling courts to determine the validity of legislation in cases of repugnancy.
Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution. However, amendments made under this Article remain subject to Judicial Review under the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Read this also-Subordinate Courts
Importance of Judicial Review
Judicial Review ensures the supremacy of the Constitution by preventing laws and executive actions that are inconsistent with constitutional provisions.
It protects the Fundamental Rights of citizens by providing an effective remedy against arbitrary or unconstitutional actions of the State.
Maintains the constitutional balance among the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary by ensuring that each organ functions within its prescribed limits.
Preserves the federal structure by resolving disputes relating to the distribution of powers between the Union and the States.
Strengthens the Rule of Law by ensuring that every public authority acts according to the Constitution and established legal principles.
Acts as an effective check on arbitrary exercise of power and promotes transparency, accountability and constitutional governance.
It safeguards the Basic Structure of the Constitution by preventing constitutional amendments that damage its essential features.
It enhances public confidence in the judiciary by ensuring fairness, justice and constitutional accountability in governance.
Issues with Judicial Review
One of the major criticisms of Judicial Review is the allegation of judicial overreach, where courts are perceived to interfere excessively in matters that primarily belong to the Legislature or the Executive.
The increasing use of Public Interest Litigation and expansion of judicial intervention sometimes leads to concerns regarding judicial activism, raising debates over institutional boundaries and democratic accountability.
Frequent constitutional litigation and prolonged judicial proceedings often delay important policy decisions and governance reforms, affecting administrative efficiency.
Since judges are unelected constitutional authorities, critics argue that extensive Judicial Review may occasionally override the will of the elected representatives, giving rise to debates on democratic legitimacy.
The absence of clearly defined constitutional limits regarding the scope of Judicial Review has sometimes resulted in differing judicial interpretations, creating legal uncertainty in certain areas.
Way Forward
Judicial Review should continue to protect constitutional values while respecting the constitutional roles of the Legislature and the Executive. A balanced approach strengthens both judicial independence and democratic governance.
Courts should exercise Judicial Review with constitutional restraint and intervene primarily where there is a clear violation of constitutional provisions, Fundamental Rights or the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Reducing judicial delays through institutional reforms, greater use of technology and timely filling of judicial vacancies would improve the effectiveness of Judicial Review and enhance access to justice.
Greater constitutional awareness among citizens, legislators and public authorities can reduce unconstitutional actions and promote a stronger culture of constitutional governance.
FAQs
Q1. What is Judicial Review?
Answer: Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutional validity of laws, executive actions and constitutional amendments.
Q2. Which Article is the foundation of Judicial Review in India?
Answer: Article 13 provides the constitutional foundation of Judicial Review by declaring laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights as void.
Q3. Which landmark judgment established the Basic Structure Doctrine?
Answer: The Supreme Court established the Basic Structure Doctrine in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment.
Q4. Is Judicial Review a Basic Feature of the Constitution?
Answer: Yes, the Supreme Court has held that Judicial Review is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution and cannot be abolished.
