Judicial review in India empowers the judiciary to assess the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, ensuring adherence to the Constitution. This mechanism upholds the rule of law and safeguards citizens’ rights.

MEANING AND DEFINITION

Judicial review refers to the judiciary’s authority to examine and invalidate governmental actions that contravene the Constitution. It ensures that all branches of government operate within their constitutional limits, maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION

The concept of judicial review in India has evolved through several landmark judgments:

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the First Amendment, stating that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 includes the authority to amend fundamental rights.

• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Court reversed its earlier stance, ruling that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, emphasizing their sacrosanct nature.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark judgment introduced the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine,’ asserting that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.

• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): The Court reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine, striking down amendments that sought to curtail judicial review, thereby preserving the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Several articles in the Indian Constitution provide a foundation for judicial review:

• Article 13: Declares that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void.
• Article 32: Grants individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of rights.
• Article 131: Provides the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction in disputes between states or between the center and states.
• Article 136: Allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment or order.
• Article 143: Enables the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or fact.

TYPES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review in India can be categorized into three types:

1. Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments: Ensures that amendments do not alter the Constitution’s basic structure.
2. Judicial Review of Legislation: Examines the validity of legislative enactments concerning fundamental rights and the distribution of powers.
3. Judicial Review of Administrative Actions: Assesses the legality and reasonableness of executive decisions and actions.

PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES

Several legal principles underpin judicial review in India:

• Doctrine of Basic Structure: Asserts that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be altered by amendments.
• Doctrine of Eclipse: States that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are not void ab initio but become unenforceable; they can revive if the constitutional prohibition is removed.
• Doctrine of Severability: Allows invalid portions of a statute to be severed, preserving the remainder if it can stand independently.
• Doctrine of Prospective Overruling: Enables the Court to limit the retroactive effect of its decisions, applying them prospectively to avoid disruption.

LANDMARK CASE LAWS

Several judgments have shaped the contours of judicial review in India:

• Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court invalidated a constitutional amendment that sought to immunize the election of the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny, reinforcing the principle of free and fair elections as part of the basic structure.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Court held that the proclamation of President’s Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review, preventing its misuse for political purposes.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): The Supreme Court ruled that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment are open to judicial review if they violate fundamental rights or the basic structure.

MAXIMS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Certain legal maxims are pertinent to judicial review:

• “Ubi jus ibi remedium”: Where there is a right, there is a remedy; underscores the judiciary’s role in enforcing rights.
• “Lex iniusta non est lex”: An unjust law is no law at all; justifies the invalidation of unconstitutional laws.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

While judicial review exists in various countries, its scope and application differ:

• United States: Judicial review was established through Marbury v. Madison (1803), allowing courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.
• United Kingdom: Parliamentary sovereignty limits judicial review; courts cannot invalidate primary legislation but can review administrative actions.
• India: Combines aspects of both systems, with courts empowered to review legislation, executive actions, and constitutional amendments, ensuring they adhere to the Constitution’s basic structure.

CRITICISM AND CHALLENGES

Despite its significance, judicial review in India faces criticism:

• Judicial Activism: Concerns arise when courts are perceived to overstep their mandate, encroaching upon legislative or executive functions.
• Delay in Justice: Judicial backlog can impede timely review, affecting the efficacy of justice delivery.
• Subjectivity: Interpretation of the ‘basic structure’ can be subjective.