Login
OR
Don't worry. We'll fix this for you!
Judicial review is a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution that empowers courts, particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts, to examine whether laws or executive actions are in conformity with the Constitution. It acts as a guardian of the Constitution and protector of citizens' rights by invalidating any law or action that violates the constitutional provisions.
Globally, the concept of judicial review has evolved from landmark examples such as the United States, where the Supreme Court established this power in Marbury v. Madison (1803), and the United Kingdom, where judicial review traditionally focused on the legality of administrative decisions rather than laws passed by Parliament due to parliamentary sovereignty. India adopted judicial review not just to check executive actions but also to control parliamentary legislation, ensuring that no law infringes upon the core values enshrined in the Constitution.
This power maintains the delicate balance among the three organs of government - the legislature (which makes laws), the executive (which implements laws), and the judiciary (which interprets laws) - preventing any organ from exceeding its constitutional limits and thus safeguarding democracy.
Judicial review is the constitutional authority of courts to examine laws or executive actions to determine whether they are consistent with the Constitution. If a law is found contradictory to any constitutional provision, it can be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
The primary purpose of judicial review includes:
By holding laws and executive orders accountable, judicial review acts as a check against abuse of power, safeguarding democratic principles and rule of law.
graph LR A[Petition Filed] --> B[Initial Scrutiny by Court] B --> C{Is Petition Admissible?} C -->|No| D[Reject] C -->|Yes| E[Hearing & Arguments] E --> F{Is Law/Action Constitutional?} F -->|Yes| G[Uphold Law/Action] F -->|No| H[Strike Down Law/Action]The power of judicial review in India is not explicitly mentioned as such in one place but is derived from key provisions in the Constitution. These provide the legal foundation for the courts' authority to invalidate unconstitutional laws and protect fundamental rights.
| Constitutional Provision | Description | Purpose in Judicial Review |
|---|---|---|
| Article 13 | "Any law inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights shall be void." | Empowers courts to strike down laws conflicting with Fundamental Rights, thus a core basis of judicial review. |
| Article 32 | "Right to Constitutional Remedies," allowing individuals to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. | Provides the means through which citizens can initiate judicial review petitions directly challenging unconstitutional acts. |
| Article 136 | Allows the Supreme Court to grant Special Leave Petition (SLP) to appeal any judgment or order from lower courts. | Extends the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to review cases involving constitutional questions even after High Court decisions. |
The procedural flow of judicial review involves several steps, starting from filing a petition, judicial scrutiny, hearing, and then the verdict. Both the Supreme Court and High Courts play pivotal roles in this process.
graph TD P[Petition Filed by Individual/Group] P --> C{Type of Petition} C -->|Article 32 (Supreme Court)| SC[Supreme Court] C -->|Article 226 (High Courts)| HC[High Court] SC --> S1[Initial Scrutiny] HC --> S2[Initial Scrutiny] S1 --> H1[Hearing of Arguments] S2 --> H2[Hearing of Arguments] H1 --> D{Is Law/Action Unconstitutional?} H2 --> D D -->|No| U[Uphold Law/Action] D -->|Yes| I[Invalidate Law/Action] I --> OP[Orders to Legislature/Executive]Key Points:
Several Supreme Court judgments have been foundational in defining and refining judicial review in India:
Impact:
Limitations:
Understanding both the strengths and boundaries of judicial review is crucial for appreciating its role in India's constitutional democracy.
Step 1: An affected individual or group files a petition under Article 32 (Supreme Court) or Article 226 (High Court) alleging violation of Fundamental Rights.
Step 2: The court scrutinizes whether the law violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) or other related rights.
Step 3: The court holds a hearing where both sides present arguments.
Step 4: If the court finds the law discriminatory and without reasonable classification, it declares the law unconstitutional.
Answer: The law is struck down or read down, restoring equality and protecting Fundamental Rights.
Step 1: Parliament passed amendments that attempted to give itself unlimited power to amend any part of the Constitution.
Step 2: Petitioner Kesavananda Bharati challenged the validity of these amendments.
Step 3: The Supreme Court examined whether Parliament's power was absolute or subject to limits.
Step 4: The Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that the essential features of the Constitution (like democracy, secularism) cannot be altered even by amendments.
Step 5: Hence, judicial review was used to strike down unconstitutional amendments violating the Constitution's basic structure.
Answer: Parliament's amendment power is subject to judicial review and cannot destroy the Constitution's fundamental framework.
Step 1: File a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in a High Court (Article 226) or Supreme Court (Article 32) highlighting the violation affecting the public interest.
Step 2: The court allows PIL because it concerns broad public interest and not just an individual grievance.
Step 3: The court hears submissions from the petitioner, government, and other stakeholders.
Step 4: Using judicial review, the court examines whether laws related to environment are violated by the constructions.
Step 5: The court orders the government or authorities to stop illegal construction and take corrective measures.
Answer: Citizens can use PIL to invoke judicial review for protecting constitutional and statutory rights affecting society.
Step 1: Both India and the USA empower their Supreme Courts to invalidate unconstitutional laws and government actions.
Step 2: In the USA, judicial review was explicitly affirmed by Marbury v. Madison, and is a core principle in their federal system.
Step 3: India adopted judicial review from USA's model but with differences:
Answer: Both countries use judicial review to uphold constitutional supremacy, but India's model combines judicial power with a flexible amendment system constrained by the basic structure, whereas USA has a rigid amendment process and judicial review primarily enforces federalism and constitutional limits.
Step 1: Understand that some matters, such as foreign policy, defence, or internal party management, are considered political questions beyond judicial competence.
Step 2: For example, a petition challenging the government's decision to enter an international treaty may be dismissed on grounds that it is a political question.
Step 3: Courts defer to the executive or legislature on such issues to respect separation of powers and avoid interference in political decisions.
Answer: Judicial review is limited by the political questions doctrine, ensuring judiciary does not overstep into legislative or executive policy choices.
When to use: When answering questions about judicial powers and constitutional remedies.
When to use: During case study questions or essay-type answers on judicial review.
When to use: When explaining the procedural aspect in exams.
When to use: For analytical or comparative questions.
When to use: When discussing the scope and boundaries of judicial review.
Progress tracking is paywalled — subscribe to mark subtopics as understood and save your streak.
Go to practice →
Your Score
Your Rank
| Rank | Name | Score |
|---|