Introduction
Judicial Review is the foremost concept in the Indian Constitution. Judicial review is essential to democracy because it protects individual rights, upholds the rule of law, and keeps the balance of power. The Supreme Court and High Courts of India have been given the crucial authority of judicial review, which enables them to judge whether legislation and executive actions are constitutional. This power guarantees that no legislation or action can infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Judicial review, which is acknowledged as an essential component of the Constitution’s core framework, preserves the rule of law and shields citizens against capricious government. As such, it acts as a vital check on the nation’s legislative and executive branches.
Meaning of Judicial Review
The ability of the judiciary to assess whether executive orders and legislative actions of the federal and state governments are lawful is known as judicial review. The judiciary declares them unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid (null and void) if it examines them and determines that they violate the Constitution (ultra vires).
As so, the government is unable to enforce them.
History of Judicial Review
In the United States, the Supreme Court established its authority to overturn laws that violate the US Constitution, giving rise to the concept of judicial review. The concept of judicial review was modified for the Indian context after being taken from the US Constitution. One of the sources for the Indian Constitution is the US Constitution. The U.S. Constitution had a significant influence on the development of judicial review in India. India, however, has modified this idea to suit its distinct social structure and constitution. This historical trajectory demonstrates India’s dedication to a vibrant and changing legal system that can handle the intricacies of a populous and diverse democracy.
In the 1951 case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, the Supreme Court created the power of judicial review for the first time, ruling that the Constitution did not limit the Parliament’s amending authority. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruled in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) that the fundamental framework of the Constitution could not be changed and that the Parliament’s amending authority was restricted.
Example of Judicial Review
Suppose a law restricting virtual freedom of speech is passed. One could contend that this law infringes upon the Indian Constitution’s guarantee of free speech. They might appeal to the Supreme Court or High Court. After reviewing the legislation, the judges would determine if it violates the Constitution. They can overturn it if they believe it to be unconstitutional.
This is an example of judicial review in action, where the judiciary checks the legislative branch’s authority to ensure that laws are just and constitutional.
Scope of Judicial Review
The following grounds may be used to contest the constitutionality of a legislative act or executive order before the Supreme Court or the High Court.
- It transgresses the Constitution’s Part III’s guarantee of fundamental rights.
- The authority that framed it has no jurisdiction over it.
- It violates the provisions of the constitution.
Types of Judicial Review
- Reviews of Legislative Actions:
- This review entails the authority to confirm that laws enacted by the legislature adhere to the 1950 Indian Constitution.
- Review of Administrative Actions:
- This is a tool for enforcing constitutional discipline over administrative agencies while exercising their powers.
- Review of Judicial Decisions:
- The judiciary itself uses this review to amend or rectify earlier rulings.
Constitutional Provision of Judicial Review
- There is no direct and express provision in the constitution empowering the courts to invalidate.
- Some provisions in the constitution supporting the process of judicial review are:
- Article 372 (1): Establishes the judicial review of the pre-constitution legislation.
- Article 13: Declares that any law which contravenes any of the provisions of the part of Fundamental Rights shall be void.
- Articles 32 and 226: Entrusts the roles of the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights to the Supreme and High Courts.
- Articles 251 and 254: In case of inconsistency between union and state laws, the state law shall be void.
- Article 246 (3): Ensures the state legislature’s exclusive powers on matters pertaining to the State List.
- Article 137: Gives a special power to the SC to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. An order passed in a criminal case can be reviewed and set aside only if there are errors apparent on the record.