Judicial Review in India: Scope, Importance, Landmark Cases and Limitations

Judicial review is a vital power granted to the Supreme Court and High Courts in India, allowing them to assess the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. This authority ensures that no law or action can violate the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Recognized as a fundamental aspect of the Constitution’s basic structure, judicial review upholds the rule of law and protects citizens from arbitrary governance. Thus, it serves as a crucial check on legislative and executive powers in the country.

Judicial Review in India

The Doctrine of Judicial Review in India

• Origin: The doctrine of judicial review originated and developed in the USA. It was propounded for the first time in the famous case of Marbury versus Madison (1803) by John Marshall, the then Chief Justice of the American Supreme Court.
• Constitutional Authority: In India, the Constitution itself confers the power of judicial review on the judiciary i.e. for both the Supreme Court as well as High Courts. 
• Meaning of Judicial Review: It is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments. 
• Declaration of Invalidity: If they are found to be violative of the Constitution (ultra vires), then they are declared as illegal, unconstitutional, and invalid by the judiciary. 
  • Consequently, they cannot be enforced by the Government.
• Basic Feature of the Constitution: The Supreme Court has declared the power of judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution or an element of the basic structure of the Constitution. 
• Inviolability of Judicial Review: Consequently, the power of judicial review cannot be curtailed or excluded even by a constitutional amendment.

Classification of Judicial Review

Classification of Judicial Review: According to Justice Syed Shah Mohamed Quadri they can be classified into the following three categories:

1. Judicial review of constitutional amendments.
2. Judicial review of legislation of the Parliament and State Legislatures and subordinate legislations.
3. Judicial review of administrative action of the Union and State and authorities under the state.

• Landmark Cases of Judicial Review by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court  has used the power of judicial review in various cases such as:

• Golaknath case (1967)
• Bank Nationalisation case (1970)
• Privy Purses Abolition case (1971)
• Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)
• Minerva Mills case (1980)

• Supreme Court Ruling on the 99th Constitutional Amendment: The Supreme Court in 2015 declared both the 99th Constitutional Amendment, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 as unconstitutional and null and void.

Importance of Judicial Review

Judicial review is needed for the following reasons:

• To prevent the tyranny of executives and maintain the federal balance.
• For checking the misuse of power by the legislature and executive.
• For maintaining supremacy of the Constitution.
• Securing the independence of the judiciary.
• Protecting the rights of the people.

Constitutional Provisions for Judicial Review

Provisions Explicitly Conferring Judicial Review: Though the phrase ‘Judicial Review’ has nowhere been used in the Constitution, But there are various provisions from  several Articles which  explicitly confer the power of judicial review on the Supreme Court and the High Courts. 

• These provisions are explained below:

Scope of Judicial Review

Grounds for Challenging Constitutional Validity: If any law or an executive order is passed then its constitutional validity can be challenged in the Supreme Court or High Court for the following reasons

• Infringement of Fundamental Rights,
• If outside the competence of the authority
• Repugnant to the constitutional provisions.
• Scope of Judicial Review in India vs. USA: It is evident from the above that the scope of judicial review in India is narrower than the USA, because the American Constitution provides for ‘due process of law’ against that of ‘procedure established by law’ which is contained in our Indian Constitution.
• Due Process vs. Procedure Established: Due process grants broader protections for citizens’ rights, allowing challenges on both substantive and procedural grounds, while Indian judicial review focuses primarily on substantive issues without delving into the reasonableness, suitability, or policy implications of the law.

• Interpretation of “Due Process of Law”: After the  Maneka Gandhi case, the phrase “due process of law” , though is not mentioned explicitly anywhere in the Indian Constitution, but it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to be a fundamental right. 
• Protection Against Government Action: This interpretation ensures that the government cannot deprive individuals of their life, liberty, or property without adhering to due process of law.

• Protection Against Legislative Action: In India, due process of law is not only a protection against arbitrary executive action, but also against arbitrary legislative action. 
• Judicial Authority to Strike Down Laws: This means that the Supreme Court can strike down laws that it finds to be unfair, unjust, or unreasonable.

Judicial Review of the Ninth Schedule

Protection of Ninth Schedule Acts: As per Article 31B the acts and regulations which are placed in the Ninth Schedule are protected from being challenged and invalidated on the ground of contravention of any of the Fundamental Rights. 

• Insertion of Article 31B: Article 31B was inserted into the Constitution  by the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951.
  • The First Amendment was passed in 1951 by the Provisional Parliament by amending Articles  such as Article 15,19,85,87,174 ,etc. and the members were  who had just finished drafting the Constitution as part of the Constitutional Assembly.
  • This act provided for the saving of laws for the acquisition of estates, etc.
  • Thereafter, Ninth Schedule was added   to protect the land reforms and other laws included to form the part of  the judicial review.  
    • Later, After Article 31, Articles 31A and 31B were inserted.
• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967):  During this case, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament did not have the power to amend the Fundamental Rights  enshrined in the Constitution. 
  • However, this decision was later overturned 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): During 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 could not be altered.
• I.R. Coelho case (2007): The Supreme Court ruled that judicial review is a ‘basic feature’ of the Constitution and can’t be taken away by simply putting it under the Ninth Schedule. 
  • It also recommended that  the laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 can be  challenged in court if they violate Fundamental Rights.
• Supreme Court’s Conclusions on Judicial Review: While delivering the above judgement, the Supreme Court made the following conclusions:
• Impact of Law on Fundamental Rights: The law that abrogates or abridges rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution may violate the basic structure doctrine or it may not.
• • Judging Constitutional Amendments: It requires that the validity of a new Constitutional Amendment should be judged on its own merits. 
  • Judicial Scrutiny of Laws in the Ninth Schedule: The Supreme Court held that any law placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of the Kesavananda Bharati case) is subject to judicial scrutiny and can be declared unconstitutional if it violates the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • Finality of Actions Under Impugned Acts: The action taken and transactions finalised as a result of the impugned Acts shall not be open to challenge.

Limitation of Judicial Review

Limitation on Government Functioning: It limits the functioning of the government and is permissible only to find if the procedure in reaching the decision has been correctly followed but not the decision itself.

• Precedent of Judicial Opinions: The opinions of the judges once taken for any case become the standard for ruling other cases.
• Violation of Constitutional Limits: It violates the limit of power set to be exercised by the Constitution when it overrides any existing law.
• Influence of Personal Motives on Judgments: The judgments can be influenced by personal or selfish motives.
• Potential Violation of Separation of Powers: It may violate the principle of Separation of Power.

Conclusion

Judicial review plays a critical role in maintaining the balance of power within Indian democracy. It not only protects fundamental rights but also upholds the supremacy of the Constitution. 

• While there are limitations to this power, its significance in preventing misuse of authority cannot be overstated. 
• Ultimately, judicial review ensures that justice prevails and that the government remains accountable to the people it serves.

DOWNLOAD PDF