Judicial Review

Introduction

Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to examine whether laws or executive actions are in line with the Constitution.
It ensures that the Constitution remains supreme and protects Fundamental Rights.
The concept was first asserted in the United States and later adopted in India.

Meaning / Definition

Judicial Review means that courts have the authority to:

• Examine laws made by Parliament or state legislatures
• Test executive actions or administrative orders
• Declare them void if they violate the Constitution or Fundamental Rights

It acts as a check on the legislature and executive to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution.

Modes or Types

In the United States

• First used in Marbury v. Madison (1803)
• Court struck down a law that expanded Supreme Court powers beyond the Constitution
• Established that the Constitution is the supreme law, and courts have final say over its meaning

In India

• Based on Article 13 (laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of inconsistency)
• Judicial review extends to:
  • Pre-Constitution laws
  • Post-Constitution laws (if inconsistent with Fundamental Rights)
  • Constitutional amendments affecting Fundamental Rights

Important Case Law

Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)

• First Amendment Act challenged
• Court held amendments under Article 368 are not ‘law’ under Article 13
• Amendment valid

Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)

• 17th Amendment challenged
• Court upheld Shankari Prasad
• Applied doctrine of pith and substance

I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)

• Overruled Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh
• Held Article 13 applies to constitutional amendments
• Amendments violating Fundamental Rights can be void

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

• 24th and 25th Amendments challenged
• Court ruled Parliament cannot alter basic structure of Constitution
• Basic structure includes:
  • Supremacy of Constitution
  • Republican and democratic form of government
  • Secular character
  • Separation of powers
  • Federal character

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

• 39th Amendment, Clause 4 struck down
• Election of Prime Minister and Speaker cannot be barred from judicial review

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

• Judicial review reinforced as part of basic structure
• Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles emphasized

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

• Acts in 9th Schedule after 24 April 1973 are subject to judicial review

Distinction / Comparison

• Judicial Review vs Legislative Supremacy:
  • Judicial Review allows courts to strike down unconstitutional laws
  • Legislative Supremacy would allow Parliament to make any law without challenge
• India follows limited legislative supremacy; Parliament cannot destroy basic structure

Practical Example

• Parliament passes a law violating the right to equality (Article 14)
• Court can review and declare the law void
• Parliament can amend the law to comply with constitutional provisions

Summary

• Judicial Review ensures Constitution supremacy and protects Fundamental Rights
• First developed in the US (Marbury v. Madison, 1803)
• In India, power is derived from Articles 13, 32, 226, 368
• Applies to pre- and post-Constitution laws, executive actions, and constitutional amendments
• Basic Structure of Constitution cannot be altered by Parliament
• Landmark cases: Shankari Prasad, Golak Nath, Kesavananda Bharti, Minerva Mills, Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, I.R. Coelho
• Acts in 9th Schedule after 24 April 1973 are still subject to review