Judicial Review in India: Meaning, Scope, and Significance

Judicial Review is a cornerstone of the Indian democratic framework, ensuring that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. This post explores the concept, scope, significance, and limitations of judicial review in India.

Meaning of Judicial Review

Judicial Review refers to the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. If any law or action is found inconsistent with the Constitution, the judiciary has the authority to declare it null and void.

Constitutional Provisions

1. Article 13:

   • Declares laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights as void.
   • Empowers the judiciary to review pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws.

2. Articles 32 and 226:

   • Provide remedies for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights through the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively.

3. Articles 131, 132, 133, and 134:

   • Define the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, enabling judicial review.

4. Article 136:

   • Allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment.

5. Article 143:

   • Grants advisory jurisdiction to the Supreme Court on constitutional matters.

Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial Review in India covers the following:

1. Legislative Actions:

   • The judiciary examines whether laws passed by legislatures comply with the Constitution.

2. Executive Actions:

   • Includes reviewing administrative decisions and government orders.

3. Constitutional Amendments:

   • Judicial Review extends to constitutional amendments under the "Basic Structure Doctrine," established in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).

Significance of Judicial Review

1. Upholds Constitutional Supremacy:

   • Ensures that all laws and actions align with constitutional principles.

2. Protects Fundamental Rights:

   • Guards against arbitrary actions by the legislature and executive.

3. Maintains Federal Balance:

   • Resolves disputes between the Centre and States.

4. Promotes Accountability:

   • Acts as a check on the misuse of power by public authorities.

Limitations of Judicial Review

1. Doctrine of Separation of Powers:

   • The judiciary must respect the autonomy of the legislature and executive.

2. Parliamentary Sovereignty:

   • Parliament can amend laws to nullify judicial interpretations.

3. Judicial Overreach:

   • Critics argue that excessive judicial intervention may disrupt governance.

4. Limited to Constitutional Compliance:

   • Judicial Review does not assess the merits of policy decisions.

Landmark Cases

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):

   • First major case on Fundamental Rights and judicial review.

2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):

   • Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):

   • Expanded the scope of Fundamental Rights, emphasizing due process.

4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980):

   • Reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Conclusion

Judicial Review is a vital mechanism to uphold democracy, rule of law, and individual liberties. While it has its limitations, it serves as a guardian of the Constitution, ensuring that power is exercised within constitutional boundaries.