INTRODUCTION

Judicial review is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, embodying the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution and ensuring that all laws and executive actions comply with constitutional mandates. This doctrine empowers the judiciary to scrutinize and invalidate laws and actions of the legislature and executive that violate constitutional provisions, thereby safeguarding the supremacy of the Constitution and protecting individual rights. The Constitution of India implicitely ensures judicial review through through articles 13, 32, 131, 136, 141, 142, 143  and 226.

Meaning and Basis of Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of courts to assess the constitutionality of legislative acts and to refuse to enforce those found to be unconstitutional and hence void. Justice Khanna, in the Fundamental Rights case, aptly stated, “Judicial Review has thus become an integral part of our Constitutional System and a power has been vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court to decide about the constitutional validity of the provisions of statutes.” If the provisions of the statutes violate any article of the Constitution, the judiciary is empowered to strike them down.

The roots of judicial review lie in the doctrine of limited government and the theory of two laws – an ordinary and a supreme law, the Constitution. It is predicated on the understanding that any legislative act conflicting with the supreme law must be deemed void. This interposition of judicial restraint acts as a check on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive organs of the government.

Historical Development 

The doctrine of judicial review originated in the United States with the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). Chief Justice John Marshall, in this case, established that any legislative act repugnant to the Constitution is void and emphasized the judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution.

The concept of judicial review in India traces its roots to the seminal case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), where the Supreme Court held that it has the authority to strike down laws inconsistent with fundamental rights. Subsequently, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) and Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court further solidified the doctrine by establishing the principle of the basic structure of the Constitution. This doctrine prohibits the Parliament from amending the Constitution in a manner that alters its basic structure.

In India, the Constitution explicitly provides for judicial review, making it more solid than in the United States. In The State of Madras v. V.G. Row, Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri noted, “Our Constitution contains express provisions for judicial review of legislation as to its conformity with the Constitution.” This power is not about challenging legislative authority but fulfilling a constitutional duty, particularly concerning Fundamental Rights.

Power of Judicial Review

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution serves as the bedrock for judicial review. It declares that any law enacted by the legislature, whether past or future, shall be void if it violates the provisions of Part III of the Constitution, which enshrine fundamental rights. Additionally, Articles 32 and 226 confer upon the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and to declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional if found to be in violation of these rights.

Articles of Judicial Review/Constitutional Provisions

The concept of judicial review is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution of India but is implicitly provided in several articles of the Indian Constitution:-

1. Article 13: This article declares that any law which contravenes any of the provisions of Part III (Fundamental Rights) shall be void. It directly empowers the judiciary to review and strike down such laws.
2. Articles 32 and 226: These articles confer the right to constitutional remedies. Article 32 allows individuals to move the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights, while Article 226 grants similar powers to High Courts for enforcement of both fundamental and other legal rights.
3. Article 131: It provides the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in disputes between the Government of India and one or more States or between two or more States.
4. Article 143: The President can seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact of public importance.
5. Article 136: It allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed by any court or tribunal.
6. Articles 141 and 142: These articles deal with the enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court. Article 141 makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts within India, ensuring uniformity and coherence in judicial decisions. Article 142 provides that the Supreme Court can pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

Scope and Limitations of judicial review

The power of judicial review in India extends across the spectrum of legislative and executive actions. It empowers the judiciary to scrutinize laws and executive orders, ensuring their conformity with constitutional mandates. It ensures that:

• Legislative Acts: Both central and state legislations can be reviewed. Any law that doesn’t comply with the provision of  the Indian Constitution can be declared invalid.
• Executive Actions: Actions and orders of both central and state governments are subject to judicial review, ensuring they do not exceed the powers granted by the Constitution.

Limitations

However, this power is not absolute. Certain parliamentary privileges and presidential satisfactions remain beyond its purview. Therefore, judicial review has certain limitations:

• Parliamentary Privileges: Certain privileges of Parliament are immune from judicial scrutiny.
• Presidential Satisfaction: The President’s satisfaction in certain matters, like the imposition of President’s Rule, is not usually open to judicial review, although this has been partially mitigated by judicial decisions.

Nonetheless, judicial review in India stands as a formidable force, enabling the judiciary to uphold the Constitution’s supremacy and protect individual liberties.

Landmark Cases

Through these landmark cases, the Indian judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping the contours of judicial review and upholding the supremacy of the Constitution. Over the years, several landmark cases have shaped the contours of judicial review in India, reaffirming the supremacy of the Constitution and safeguarding individual rights. Let’s embark on a journey through some of these pivotal cases that have left an indelible mark on India’s legal landscape.

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): This case initially limited the scope of judicial review concerning the Fundamental Rights chapter but was later overruled.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Supreme Court established the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that while Parliament has vast powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. This ruling firmly established the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution.

3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Court held that the right to life encompasses a wide array of freedoms and liberties, including the right to travel abroad. This judgment underscored the judiciary’s role in interpreting and expanding the ambit of fundamental rights through judicial review, thereby ensuring their robust protection.

4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): This case reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine and struck down amendments that attempted to curb judicial review. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, which sought to curtail judicial review. The Court reaffirmed its authority to review constitutional amendments and declared that the basic structure doctrine acts as a check on the amending power of Parliament. This ruling reinforced the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution and upheld the principle of limited government.
5. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court asserted the federal principle and upheld the importance of judicial review in matters of constitutional governance. The Court ruled that the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution is subject to judicial review. This judgment reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in ensuring the constitutional balance between the Centre and the States, thereby preserving the federal structure of the Indian polity.
6. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): The Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 is part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be ousted even by a constitutional amendment.

Conclusion

Judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the Indian constitutional framework, ensuring the rule of law and protecting the rights of individuals against arbitrary actions of the state. It maintains the supremacy of the Constitution, thereby safeguarding democracy and the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. As an evolving doctrine, judicial review continues to adapt to the changing dynamics of society and governance, reinforcing its role as a sentinel of the Constitution.

Read more :- doctrine-of-severability-with-case-laws