Judicial Review in India: An Essential Overview

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review
3. Types of Judicial Review
4. Scope and Importance of Judicial Review
5. Limitations and Criticisms of Judicial Review
6. Landmark Cases Shaping Judicial Review
7. Conclusion

Introduction

“Judicial review is the process by which courts check if laws and government actions follow the rules set by the Constitution.” In India, judicial review isn’t just a legal concept—it’s a living part of our constitutional system. Judicial review means that our courts have the authority to check whether laws and government actions align with the Constitution. By doing so, the judiciary acts as a guardian of our fundamental rights and a bulwark against arbitrary power. This power, exercised chiefly by the Supreme Court and High Courts, helps ensure that every law and decision respects the spirit of the Constitution.

In this article, we’ll explore what judicial review means in the Indian context, its constitutional basis, the different types it takes, its scope and limitations, and some of the landmark cases that have defined its use over the years.

Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review

Although the term “judicial review” isn’t spelled out in the Indian Constitution explicitly, the power is embedded within its provisions. The Constitution gives our courts several tools to ensure that all laws and actions of the government stay within constitutional bounds. Some of the key articles include:

• Article 13: This article states that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights is automatically void. In essence, if a law doesn’t respect the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, it cannot stand.

• Articles 32 and 226: Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs (legal orders) to enforce fundamental rights, while Article 226 gives High Courts a similar power. These writs are the mechanisms through which citizens can challenge any violation of their rights.

• Articles 131–136: These provisions outline the Supreme Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction in constitutional matters. They allow the court to hear disputes that involve the interpretation or application of the Constitution.

• Article 143: This unique provision lets the President seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on any constitutional issue. Although the opinion is not binding, it carries significant weight.

• Article 227: Along with Article 226, this article ensures that High Courts have supervisory control over subordinate courts, adding another layer to the system of checks and balances.

Together, these provisions create a robust framework that allows the judiciary to review and invalidate any law or government action that strays from constitutional principles.

Types of Judicial Review

Judicial review in India can be broadly grouped into three categories, each addressing a different aspect of government action:

1. Judicial Review of Legislative Actions

   Here, the courts examine laws passed by Parliament or state legislatures to ensure they do not conflict with the Constitution. If a law is found to infringe on fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions, the court can declare it “ultra vires” (beyond its powers) and void it. A prime example is the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), which led to the development of the Basic Structure Doctrine. This doctrine prevents Parliament from amending the Constitution in a way that destroys its essential features.

2. Judicial Review of Executive Actions

   The judiciary also reviews executive branch decisions and actions. Whether it’s an administrative order or a decision affecting personal liberties, the courts can step in if the action violates constitutional norms. The landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) dramatically expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (the right to life and personal liberty), ensuring that even procedural fairness is a must in executive actions.

3. Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments

   Although Parliament holds the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power is not unchecked. Courts have maintained that even constitutional amendments must respect the basic structure of the Constitution. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine by striking down amendments that attempted to curtail judicial review.

Scope and Importance of Judicial Review

Judicial review plays several critical roles in maintaining the health of India’s democracy:

1. Protection of Fundamental Rights

   The courts act as protectors of individual rights. For example, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which was seen as a threat to free speech. This demonstrates how judicial review can safeguard freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

2. Maintaining Constitutional Supremacy

   By ensuring that all laws and actions conform to the Constitution, judicial review reinforces the idea that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No government body or lawmaker is above it.

3. Checks and Balances on Government Powers

   Judicial review acts as an essential check on both the executive and the legislature. For instance, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the court prevented Parliament from amending certain fundamental rights, ensuring that the government does not overstep its boundaries.

4. Ensuring Fair Governance

   When the executive makes decisions that might be arbitrary or unfair, the courts can step in to ensure that due process is followed. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998), the judiciary strengthened the independence of investigative agencies like the CBI, underscoring the importance of fair administrative practices.

5. Preventing Unconstitutional Amendments

   By reviewing constitutional amendments, the judiciary ensures that the basic structure of the Constitution remains intact. This ongoing vigilance is what keeps our constitutional framework resilient and adaptable.

Limitations and Criticisms of Judicial Review

While judicial review is vital, it is not without its challenges and limitations:

1. Separation of Powers

   Critics argue that if the judiciary intervenes too frequently, it might upset the balance between the three branches of government. It’s a delicate act—ensuring that courts do not become too intrusive in the functions of the legislature or the executive.

2. Judicial Overreach

   There are instances where courts have been accused of “judicial activism,” stepping into areas typically reserved for elected officials. For example, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases sometimes see the judiciary issuing directives that resemble executive orders, sparking debates about whether such interventions are appropriate.

3. Limited to Legal Validity

   Courts can only rule on the legality or constitutionality of a law, not whether a law is the best policy choice. They can say a law is invalid if it conflicts with the Constitution, but they do not generally decide if a policy is wise or effective.

4. Delays in Justice

   The judicial process can be slow. Complex constitutional matters may take years to resolve, meaning that the benefits of judicial review might be delayed for those who urgently need relief.

5. Subjectivity in Interpretation

   Since judicial review involves interpreting constitutional provisions, different judges might reach different conclusions. This can lead to inconsistencies in rulings and uncertainty about the future application of constitutional principles.

Landmark Cases Shaping Judicial Review

Several cases stand out for their profound impact on the evolution of judicial review in India:

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

   In one of the earliest cases, the Supreme Court took a conservative view of Article 21. The court held that as long as a law was enacted following proper procedures, restrictions on personal liberty were acceptable—even if they seemed harsh by later standards. This marked the beginning of judicial debate over the balance between state power and individual rights.

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

   This landmark case changed everything. The Supreme Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, declaring that Parliament could not amend the Constitution in a way that destroyed its fundamental framework. This decision has since become a cornerstone of constitutional law in India.

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

   By broadening the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty, this case set a new standard. The court ruled that “procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable—thus linking Articles 14, 19, and 21 in a comprehensive manner. This decision profoundly impacted how executive actions are reviewed.

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

   In this case, the Supreme Court struck down constitutional amendments that attempted to restrict judicial review. It reaffirmed the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that the power of judicial review could not be undermined by subsequent amendments.

5. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

   This case is crucial for understanding federalism in India. The court limited the misuse of Article 356, which allows the central government to impose the President’s Rule on a state. By setting clear standards for when this power can be used, the court reinforced the principle of state autonomy and the importance of majority rule in state legislatures.

6. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

   In a continued effort to protect constitutional integrity, the Supreme Court ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule must still pass the test of the Basic Structure Doctrine. This decision ensures that even laws shielded from regular judicial review cannot override fundamental constitutional principles.

Conclusion

Judicial review is not just a legal mechanism—it is a vital safeguard for our democracy. It ensures that every law and government action is subject to the ultimate test of constitutional validity. While the process is not without its challenges and criticisms, the power of judicial review remains essential in protecting individual rights, maintaining the balance of power, and preserving the core principles upon which India is built.

Over the decades, landmark judgments have refined and redefined judicial review, ensuring that our Constitution remains a living document capable of adapting to changing times while staying true to its fundamental values. As our democracy continues to evolve, the role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice for all will remain as important as ever.