Judicial Review

Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive actions. It ensures that laws and actions of the government comply with the Constitution, safeguarding the principles of rule of law and separation of powers. This doctrine is a vital aspect of democratic governance, preventing arbitrary actions by the legislature and executive.

In India, Judicial Review is enshrined in the Constitution under Articles 13, 32, 226, and 136, granting the Supreme Court and High Courts the authority to review and nullify unconstitutional laws or acts.

Meaning and Scope

Judicial Review entails the judiciary’s authority to assess:

1. Legislative Actions: Courts can strike down laws that violate Fundamental Rights or exceed the legislature’s authority.
2. Executive Actions: Executive orders or administrative actions can be invalidated if found arbitrary, ultra vires (beyond power), or unconstitutional.
3. Constitutional Amendments: Even amendments passed by Parliament can be reviewed to ensure compliance with the Constitution’s basic structure.

The doctrine ensures that all governmental actions adhere to constitutional principles, reinforcing democracy and justice.

Judicial Review in India

India adopts Judicial Review as a mechanism to protect the supremacy of the Constitution and the fundamental rights of its citizens. Key provisions include:

• Article 13: Declares laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void. It explicitly mandates that the judiciary act as a protector of individual rights.
• Article 32: Empowers individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
• Article 226: Extends similar powers to High Courts, allowing them to address violations of rights and other legal grievances.
• Article 136: Enables the Supreme Court to hear special leave petitions on constitutional or legal matters.

Judicial Review vs. Judicial Activism

While Judicial Review ensures adherence to constitutional boundaries, judicial activism involves proactive interpretation of laws to address social injustices. Judicial Review is bounded by law, whereas activism may venture into policymaking, occasionally inviting criticism for overreach.

Basic Structure Doctrine

The Basic Structure Doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), is a cornerstone of Judicial Review in India. It asserts that constitutional amendments cannot alter the Constitution’s basic structure, such as democracy, federalism, or judicial independence. This doctrine strengthens Judicial Review by limiting Parliament’s amending powers.

Significance of Judicial Review

1. Protection of Fundamental Rights: It ensures that no law or executive action violates the rights guaranteed to citizens.
2. Checks and Balances: Judicial Review maintains the balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
3. Safeguarding the Constitution: It upholds constitutional supremacy by ensuring all actions align with its principles.
4. Rule of Law: Judicial Review reinforces the principle that the law applies equally to all, including the government.

Limitations of Judicial Review

1. Scope: Judicial Review is reactive, addressing cases only when brought before the courts.
2. Judicial Overreach: Excessive use of review powers may blur the separation of powers, leading to allegations of judicial overreach.
3. Delay and Backlog: Judicial processes are often slow, limiting timely intervention.
4. Subjectivity: The interpretation of constitutional provisions can vary, leading to inconsistent decisions.