Judicial review in the context of Indian law refers to the power of the judiciary to review and potentially invalidate actions, decisions, or laws made by the legislative or executive branches of the government. The fundamental idea behind judicial review is to ensure that governmental actions comply with the provisions of the Constitution and do not exceed the constitutional limits imposed on each branch of the government. The power of judicial review is a key element of the system of checks and balances in a constitutional democracy. Key points related to judicial review in the context of Indian law include: Constitutional Basis: The power of judicial review in India is primarily based on the provisions of the Constitution of India. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any law or action inconsistent with its provisions can be declared void by the judiciary. Supreme Court and High Courts: The Supreme Court of India and the High Courts have the authority to exercise judicial review. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on constitutional matters, and it can review decisions of both the central and state governments. High Courts have jurisdiction over matters within their respective states. Writ Jurisdiction: The power of judicial review is often exercised through writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court and High Courts can issue writs, such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to protect fundamental rights and enforce constitutional provisions. Review of Legislation: Courts can review the constitutionality of legislation. If a law is found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, it can be declared void, either in whole or in part. Review of Executive Actions: Judicial review extends to actions taken by the executive branch, including administrative decisions, orders, and policies. Courts can examine whether these actions are within the scope of the executive's powers and comply with constitutional principles. Fundamental Rights Protection: A significant aspect of judicial review in India is the protection of fundamental rights. Courts can intervene to safeguard the fundamental rights of individuals if they are violated by state actions. Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a mechanism through which the judiciary can take suo motu cognizance of matters affecting public interest and enforce constitutional rights. It allows the judiciary to address issues even without a specific legal claim by an affected party. Arbitrariness and Unreasonableness: Courts can strike down governmental actions that are arbitrary, unreasonable, or violate the principles of natural justice. Judicial review is a crucial component of the Indian legal system, and it serves as a mechanism to ensure that governmental powers are exercised within the framework of the Constitution. It contributes to the protection of individual rights, the rule of law, and the overall health of India's constitutional democracy.

Dear client, Judicial Review is an essential feature of the Indian democracy. By upholding the rule of law, protecting individual rights, and maintaining the balance of power, judicial review serves as a cornerstone of democracy. This article on Judicial Review aims to study in detail its meaning, constitutional provisions, scope, significance, and other related aspects. Meaning of Judicial Review Judicial review refers to the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments. If on examination, the judiciary finds them violative of the Constitution (ultra vires), it declares them illegal, unconstitutional, and invalid (null and void). Consequently, they cannot be enforced by the government. Evolution of Doctrine of Judicial Review The doctrine of Judicial Review originated and developed in the USA. In India, the Constitution itself confers the power of judicial review on both the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Supreme Court has declared the power of judicial review as a ‘Basic Feature’ of the Constitution. Constitutional Provisions for Judicial Review Though the phrase ‘Judicial Review’ has nowhere been used in the Constitution, there are many constitutional provisions that confer the power of Judicial Review on the Supreme Court and the High Courts. Some of the prominent of such constitutional provisions include: Article 13 provides that any law that is inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights shall be null and void. Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights as well as for any other purposes. Hence, it cannot be curtailed or excluded even by a Constitutional Amendment Act. Types of Judicial Review The Judicial Review can be categorized into several types based on the scope and nature of the review: Constitutional Judicial Review – This involves the examination of the constitutionality of legislative acts, executive orders, and administrative decisions. Courts determine whether these actions are in line with the Constitution. Statutory Judicial Review – In this type, courts interpret and assess the validity of statutes or regulations. This review ensures that laws are applied correctly and are consistent with other legal provisions. Administrative Judicial Review – Courts review the decisions and actions of administrative agencies. This type of review checks for compliance with statutory mandates, procedural correctness, and the reasonableness of agency decisions. Procedural Judicial Review – This focuses on whether the correct legal processes and procedures were followed in making a decision. Courts ensure that due process and fair trial principles are upheld. Substantive Judicial Review – Courts evaluate the substance or content of laws and decisions to determine their fairness, reasonableness, and adherence to principles of justice. This review goes beyond procedural aspects to the merits of the case. Benefits of Judicial Review Some of the major benefits of judicial review can be seen as follows: Upholds Constitutional Supremacy – Judicial review reinforces the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and ensures that all laws and government actions must conform to the principles and values enshrined in the Constitution. Checks and Balances – By exercising judicial review, courts serve as a check on the powers of the legislative and executive branches of government. This helps maintain a balance of power and prevents any single branch from becoming too dominant or abusing its authority. Checks Misuse of Powers – It helps check the misuse of power by the legislature and executive. This, in turn, prevents the possibility of tyranny of the government. Protects Citizens’ Rights – Judicial review acts as a safeguard against government actions that infringe upon the rights and liberties of individuals guaranteed by the Constitution. Maintains Federal Balance – It helps settle any dispute related to the division of powers between the Center and the States. This, in turn, ensures that the federal balance is maintained. Independence of Judiciary – By checking the executive and legislature from encroaching upon the judiciary’s jurisdiction, it helps secure the independence of the judiciary. Protection of Minority Rights – Judicial review serves as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority by protecting the rights of minority groups from oppressive or discriminatory legislation targeting vulnerable or marginalized communities. Accountability and Transparency – Judicial review enhances transparency and accountability in governance to ensure that government decisions are subject to public scrutiny and vigilance. Problems with Judicial Review The major criticisms of the doctrine of the Judicial Review can be seen as follows: Frequent Interference – Some critics fear frequent judicial interventions in governmental decisions or policies in the name of judicial review. This, in turn, can create uncertainty and instability in governance. Fear of Judicial Overreach – Critics argue that judicial review can lead to judicial overreach, where courts overstep their boundaries and encroach upon the domains of the legislature and executive. Delays and Backlogs – Judicial review processes can be time-consuming and costly, leading to delays in resolving legal disputes and creating backlogs in court systems. This can hinder the timely resolution of important legal issues. Undermining Democracy – Some argue that unelected judges wielding the power to invalidate laws can undermine the powers of elected representatives. This goes against the basic principle of democracy. Conclusion The doctrine of Judicial Review serves as a cornerstone of democracy. While it faces certain challenges and criticisms, its role in safeguarding constitutional governance and preventing the abuse of power remains indispensable. It ensures that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land and that government actions remain within the bounds of the Constitution. Should you have any queries, please feel free to contact us!