Author(s): Raunak Praveen
Paper Details: Volume 3, Issue 6
Citation: IJLSSS 3(6) 17
Page No: 157 – 164
ABSTRACT
Judicial review is a cornerstone of our constitutional framework, ensuring the functionality of the legislature and executive within the limits set by the Constitution. It empowers the higher judiciary-mostly the Supreme Court and High Courts-to examine the validity of laws, administrative decisions, and constitutional amendments to ensure that the fundamental rights are protected and the supremacy of the Constitution is maintained. The concept, although inspired from the American precedent in Marbury v. Madison, has evolved uniquely within the Indian context. Judicial review in India operates mainly through Articles 13, 32, 131–136, 226, and 227, which cumulatively empower the courts to void unconstitutional actions. Over time, this doctrine has been strengthened by the judiciary itself through landmark judgments. In Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment of fundamental rights by Parliament was not possible, but this was later balanced by Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, wherein the Basic Structure Doctrine was introduced. This ensures that though the amending powers of Parliament are extensive, enacting any change in the very identity of the Constitution is beyond the reach of Parliament. Judicial review also extends to administrative actions aimed at ensuring fairness, non-arbitrariness, and adherence to natural justice. Then again, PILs have expanded the scope of judicial review to encompass wider issues of governance, environmental protection, and social justice. Judicial review, despite all criticisms about judicial overreach, has remained an indispensable device for maintaining checks and balances in a democratic polity. It acts as a protection against the misuse of power, protects the rights of citizens, and ensures that the constitutional values remain dynamic and enforceable.
INTRODUCTION
Judiciary has power over the executive and the legislature through the system of checks and balances .This allows the branches to help the democratic process to run smoothly. Courts are empowered by judicial review to monitor the activities of other branches to make sure they comply with the constitution and that they do not commit any rights violations. Judicial review is a very important feature of the Indian legal system as it gives judiciary the power to check actions of government.As per the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the term ‘judicial review’ is described as “a constitutional principle that grants a court the authority to revoke legislative or executive acts that the judges consider to be unconstitutional.” In simple words it is a court hearing where a judge is authorized to examine if a decision is lawful. The Judiciary, being independent, ensures that the legislation passed by the parliament does not contravene any provision of the Constitution. If the same violates any of the provisions then the judiciary has the authority to decide if it is unconstitutional and hence, if it is the case, then they will abolish it. The Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the country, is the one that has been given the power of judicial review in India.It protects the citizens to suffer from any arbitrary law made by parliament.
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA
Judicial review is an essential feature of the Indian Constitution m.It is not expressly mentioned in the constitution of india but can come into existance through judicial interpretation . There are some constitutional provisions which indicate towards judicial review which are as follows
Article 13 establishes that any legislation contradicting or undermining fundamental rights shall be rendered null and void.
Article 32 guarantees access to constitutional remedies to uphold intrinsic rights. It is through this article that public interest litigation has empowered countless ordinary citizens.
The High Courts are empowered by Article 226 to issue writs enforcing rights and addressing any matter, enabling them to act as bastions of justice at the local level.
Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order which necessary for doing complete justice.
These articles empower the judiciary to examine the constitutionality and legality of legislative and executive actions.
ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA
The doctrine of judicial review in India traces its origin to the U.S. Supreme Court judgment in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Marbury v. Madison (1803) is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in U.S. history because it established the principle of judicial review, which gives the courts the power to review laws and executive actions to determine whether they are constitutional or not. The Supreme Court of India established the power of judicial review for the first time in the landmark case of Shankari Prasad followed by the Sajjan Singh case, Golaknath case, Kesavananda Bharti case,and many more.
SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA
The term judicial review under Indian Constitution is not confined to legislative powers only rather, it extends to powers of executive too. The judicial courts can declare any act or a law in contravention with the constitution as null and void and further, they can also issue writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto to protect the fundamental rights of citizens
The Constitution provides five types of writs which areas follows:
1.Habeas Corpus a writ that is issued to produce a person who has been detained unlawfully.
2. Mandamus a writ that is issued to compel a public official to perform a duty that they are required to perform by law.
3. Prohibition a writ that is issued to prevent a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction.
4. Certiorari a writ that is issued to quash the order of a lower court or tribunal.
5. Quo Warranto a writ that is issued to inquire into the legality of a person holding a public office.
CATEGORIES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIAN JUDICIARY
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Judiciary has the authority to judge the constitutionality of acts of the legislature and determine their compatibility with the Constitution so as to serve as surveillance instruments as well. The court has the power to hold a law as unconstitutional.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
It is a means of imposing constitutional control over administrative agencies or administrative officers in the exercise of their powers. The acts and the power to make regulations of the administrative agencies are scrutinized by the courts for conformity with natural justice.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS
The most important point is that the judiciary enjoys the right to cure itself or change its mind with respect to its own judgments when that judgment is no longer found to be fair, consistent, or correct,It gives the higher courts a way of determining whether a decision of the lower court is correct or not consistent with the existing legal norms.
LIMITATIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Although judicial review is extensive in India,but there are limitations to this power. The constitution provides for some exclusive privileges for the President, the Governors and the judges of Supreme and High courts. Courts cannot scrutinize the actions of such persons except they have acted in their private capacity.And the courts may not interfere with policy decisions of the executive unless they violate the constitution. The courts also can not question the correctness of policy decisions taken by the executive as long as it is within the framework of constitution.
SIGNIFICANCE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial review is an important feature of the Indian Constitution because the judiciary acts as a check on the actions of the members of the executive and the legislature. That government operates within the constraints of the constitution, and the rights of citizens are upheld.
Another function of judicial review is that it supports the rule of law, and ensures the balance of powers among the three branches of government. It’s a crucial thing to protect the Constitution and its principles.
LANDMARK CASES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA
1ST CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1951
It also introduced the Ninth Schedule to protect certain laws from judicial review, especially those laws which are related to land reform.
SHANKARI PRASAD V. UNION OF INDIN
This was the first major case to address the scope of Parliament’s amending power. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the First Amendment and ruled that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
The 17th Constitutional Amendment1964 focused on land reforms. It amended Article 31A to include lands held under ryotwari settlement and other lands in the definition of “estate” bringing more land under the purview of land reform laws. Additionally, it added 44 more acts to the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, for protecting land reform legislation from judicial review.
SAJJAN SINGH V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (1965)
The Supreme Court upholding the validity of the 17th Amendment held that the Parliament has the authority to amend any part of the Constitution including any Fundamental Rights.
GOLAKNATH V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1967)
In this case,the Supreme Court held that the Parliament did not have the power to amend the Fundamental Rights provided in the Constitution. This decision was later overruled by the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, which allowed the Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution including the Fundamental Rights.
KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA (1973)
This case is one of the most significant cases in the history of judicial review in India. In this case, the Supreme Court held that there were limitations on the amending power of the Parliament and that the basic structure of the Constitution can not be altered.
INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI V. RAJ NARAIN (1975)
In the case ,the Supreme Court affirmed that judicial review is a fundamental element of the basic structure.
Safeguards Citizens’ Rights – Judicial review ensures the government does not violate individual rights and freedoms set forth in the Constitution.
Preserves Political Equilibrium (Centre- States) – It solves problem of disputes between Centre and The States on sharing of powers. This makes sure that the balance of federalism is preserved.
Independence of Judiciary – It also protects the judiciary from the intrusion of the executive and legislature in its sphere and
BENEFITS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Uphold Constitutional Supremacy – Judicial review strengthens the doctrine that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and mandates that all laws and acts of the government are to be in conformance to the values and principles contained in the Constitution.
Check and Balance Courts also play a role in checking politicians and the administrative state by exercising their power of judicial review .
Ensures abuse of power does not occur – It prevents abuse of power by the legislature and executive. That prevents the possibility of tyranny of government .
Safeguards Citizens’ Rights – Judicial review ensures government does not violate individual rights and freedoms set forth in the Constitution.
Preserves Political Equilibrium (Centre- States) – It solves problem of disputes between Centre and The States on sharing of powers. This makes sure that the balance of federalism is preserved.
Independence of Judiciary – It also protects the judiciary from the intrusion of the executive and legislature in its sphere and
CRITICISM OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Unappointed Judges: Another common objection to judicial review is that it allows unappointed judges to overturn decisions of elected officials. This subverts democracy, claim critics, because it paves the way for an oligarchy in which a tiny number of judges can veto laws passed by elected officials.
Judicial Overreach: Yet another contention against the power of judicial review that it may lead to judicial overreach, that is, the judiciary begins to trespass the powers of the legislative and executive organs of the government. To such critics, the consequence is an imbalance of the separation of powers, where the judiciary becomes too strong.
Time and Expense: Critics also claim that the judicial review process can be slow and costly, meaning that citizens will face a delay in having justice. That can be especially troublesome when the government is looking to carry out emergency policy.
Unaccountability: critics contend that the judiciary is not accountable in the way that the people’s democratically elected representatives are. They maintain that since the judges are appointed through a collegium system, they have no answerability to the citizens and fellow judges.
CONCLUSION
Judicial review is an inalienable characteristic of the Indian Constitution that attempts to ensure that the Acts that the legislature enacts and the measures that the executive takes are in conformity with the Constitution. Courts have authority to invalidate any law which is unconstitutional and protect the basic rights of the people by issuing writs. Though the ambit of judicial review is very wide, yet there are certain restrictions upon this power with a view to ensure equilibrium between the three organs of the state– the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Judicial Review is an important feature of the Indian Constitution which enables the judiciary to function as the check on other two wings of the government namely legislature and executive
REFERENCE
Basu, Durga Das. Introduction to the Constitution of India. 22nd ed., LexisNexis, 2015.
Seervai, H. M. Constitutional Law of India. 4th ed., Universal Law Publishing, 2013.
Austin, Granville. Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience. Oxford UP, 1999.
The Constitution of India. Government of India, 1950.
“Marbury v. Madison.” 5 U.S. 137. 1803.
“Shankari Prasad v. Union of India.” AIR 1951 SC 458.
“Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan.” AIR 1965 SC 845.
“Golaknath v. State of Punjab.” AIR 1967 SC 1643.
“Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.” AIR 1973 SC 1461.
“Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain.” AIR 1975 SC 2299.