Doctrine of Judicial Review in India

India’s Constitution is the supreme law of the land, providing the framework for governance and the protection of citizens’ rights. The Indian legal system is based on a system of checks and balances, with three main branches: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. While the legislature makes laws and the executive enforces them, the judiciary ensures that these laws and actions comply with the Constitution.

One of the key tools that the judiciary employs to maintain this check is judicial review. Judicial review is the process by which courts assess the constitutionality of laws, executive actions, and judicial decisions. 

The main objective of judicial review is to ensure that all actions taken by the government are within the limits prescribed by the Constitution. In this process, the judiciary acts as a guardian of the Constitution and protector of individual rights.

What is Judicial Review?

Judicial review is a mechanism that allows the judiciary to review the actions and decisions of the legislative and executive branches to determine whether they comply with the Constitution. The concept is rooted in the principle that no law or government action can be above the Constitution.

Unlike an appeal, judicial review is concerned not with the correctness of a decision but with its conformity to the Constitution. It questions whether the process of decision-making was legal and whether the decision itself violates the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

Importance of Judicial Review

The importance of judicial review lies in its ability to safeguard the rule of law. It ensures that all governmental actions comply with constitutional norms and protects the rights of individuals against arbitrary actions by the state. Judicial review also acts as a mechanism to maintain the separation of powers, ensuring that no organ of the government exceeds its authority. The courts, through judicial review, can annul laws or actions that violate the Constitution, making it a key tool in preserving democracy.

Historical Development of Judicial Review

Origins of Judicial Review

The doctrine of judicial review is often traced back to the United States, where it was established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The case set the precedent that the judiciary has the power to review the constitutionality of laws and government actions. In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that a law that conflicts with the Constitution is void.

While India borrowed the concept of judicial review from the U.S. Constitution, its application has evolved in a manner suited to the Indian context. India adopted judicial review in its own Constitution to ensure that laws passed by the legislature and actions taken by the executive comply with the Constitution, particularly the provisions related to fundamental rights.

Judicial Review in India

India’s journey with judicial review began with the adoption of the Constitution in 1950. Although judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution, it has been implicitly incorporated through various provisions. The judiciary in India has played a crucial role in reviewing both the laws passed by the legislature and the actions of the executive, ensuring that they do not violate the Constitution.

Judicial review in India was formally recognised and clarified in various landmark cases, including Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975). These cases affirmed the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of fundamental rights.

Constitutional Provisions for Judicial Review

Although there is no specific provision in the Constitution that directly empowers judicial review, several articles provide the basis for its practice. These articles outline the role of the judiciary in ensuring that laws and actions conform to the Constitution.

Article 13

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution forms the foundation of judicial review in India. It declares that any law that is inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution) shall be void. This provision empowers the judiciary to strike down laws that violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens.

Articles 32 and 226

• Article 32: It grants individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. This article empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions or writs to ensure the protection of these rights.
• Article 226: It provides the High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal remedies. This allows citizens to approach the High Court for redressal of grievances and ensures that actions by public authorities do not violate constitutional provisions.

Both of these articles support the mechanism of judicial review in India by empowering the courts to examine the constitutionality of laws and actions.

Articles 251 and 254

• Article 251: It deals with the relationship between Union and State laws. In case of inconsistency between the two, the Union law prevails, and the state law becomes void.
• Article 254: Similar to Article 251, it states that if there is a conflict between a law made by the State Legislature and a law made by the Parliament, the latter will prevail.

These articles ensure that laws made by the Union and State legislatures conform to the constitutional framework, and the courts have the power to review their validity if there is any inconsistency.

Other Relevant Articles

• Article 245: It defines the extent of the powers of the Parliament and State Legislatures. Any law passed by them must be in accordance with the Constitution.
• Article 246: It outlines the subject matter on which the Union and State legislatures can legislate. It ensures that the legislative powers of each body are in accordance with the Constitution.
• Articles 131–136: These provisions empower the courts to adjudicate disputes involving the Union and the States, ensuring that the Constitution is upheld in disputes related to governance and jurisdiction.
• Article 137: It allows the Supreme Court to review any judgement or order passed by it, reinforcing the doctrine of judicial review within the judiciary itself.

Types of Judicial Review in India

Judicial review in India can be categorised into three main types: review of legislative actions, review of administrative actions, and review of judicial decisions. These reviews allow the judiciary to scrutinise the actions of the legislature, the executive, and even itself to ensure they align with constitutional principles.

Review of Legislative Actions

The judiciary has the power to review laws passed by the legislature to ensure that they do not violate the Constitution. This includes examining whether a law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, especially Fundamental Rights. If the court finds that a law violates the Constitution, it can declare it unconstitutional and void.

For example, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not amend the Constitution to alter or remove Fundamental Rights, asserting the power of judicial review over constitutional amendments.

Review of Administrative Actions

Administrative actions refer to decisions or actions taken by government authorities or agencies. The judiciary has the power to review these actions to ensure that they are lawful and within the scope of authority granted to these bodies. If an administrative action is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or unjust, the court can intervene and quash the decision.

Review of Judicial Decisions

Judicial review also extends to the decisions made by courts. The judiciary has the power to review its own decisions, particularly when there is a need to correct errors or revise previous interpretations of the law. This ensures that the legal system remains dynamic and responsive to new challenges.

Landmark Cases in Judicial Review

Several landmark cases have played a crucial role in shaping the doctrine of judicial review in India. These cases have defined the limits of judicial review, the scope of judicial powers, and the relationship between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament could not amend the Constitution in a way that would infringe upon the Fundamental Rights. The decision was significant because it laid down that the Constitution, particularly Fundamental Rights, could not be altered by parliamentary amendments. The ruling was later overturned by the 24th Amendment, which allowed Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. However, the case remains important in the history of judicial review in India as it marked the first significant judicial intervention in the realm of constitutional amendments.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

The Kesavananda Bharati case is perhaps the most important case in the history of judicial review in India. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could amend the Constitution but could not alter its “basic structure.” This decision solidified the doctrine of judicial review as an essential part of the Constitution. It also marked a clear limitation on the power of Parliament to make changes to the Constitution, ensuring that no amendment could violate the fundamental framework of governance.

Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

In this Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The court ruled that even amendments made to the Constitution by the Parliament would be subject to judicial scrutiny if they were inconsistent with the Constitution’s core principles.

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

The Vishaka case expanded the scope of judicial review by addressing issues of workplace sexual harassment. The Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment violated women’s fundamental rights, particularly their right to dignity and equality. The court laid down guidelines for addressing sexual harassment in the workplace, even in the absence of specific legislation. This case is significant because it shows how the judiciary uses judicial review to protect the rights of individuals in evolving social contexts.

Application of Judicial Review in India

Judicial review has had far-reaching implications for the governance of India. It has played a crucial role in shaping laws, ensuring executive accountability, and protecting individual rights.

Review of Legislative Acts

The judiciary has exercised its power of judicial review to strike down laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution. One of the key roles of judicial review is to ensure that laws passed by the legislature do not infringe upon the Fundamental Rights of citizens. This process ensures that the legislative body stays within the bounds set by the Constitution.

Review of Administrative Actions

The judiciary also plays a vital role in reviewing administrative actions to ensure that public authorities do not exceed their powers or violate constitutional principles. This function ensures that citizens are protected from arbitrary or unfair actions by the executive and administrative agencies.

Judicial Review of Judicial Decisions

The judiciary also reviews its own decisions to correct errors and ensure that legal interpretations evolve with societal changes. This self-corrective mechanism helps maintain consistency and fairness in the application of the law.

Limitations of Judicial Review

While judicial review is a powerful tool for maintaining the rule of law, it is not without limitations.

Impact on Government Functions

Judicial review can sometimes hinder the functioning of the government by striking down laws or executive actions. Critics argue that judicial review can lead to judicial activism, where the judiciary oversteps its role and impedes the work of the legislature and executive.

Separation of Functions

India follows a system of separation of functions rather than a strict separation of powers. This means that the judiciary can oversee the actions of the executive and legislature, but it should not substitute its own judgement for that of elected representatives or government officials.

Precedent and Judicial Overreach

Judicial decisions often become binding precedents. While this ensures consistency in the application of law, it can also lead to judicial overreach, where courts are seen as making laws rather than interpreting them. This has raised concerns about the potential encroachment of the judiciary into the legislative and executive domains.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Judicial Review is a cornerstone of the Indian legal system. By ensuring that government actions and laws conform to the Constitution, judicial review upholds the supremacy of the Constitution and protects the fundamental rights of citizens. Through landmark cases and the application of judicial review, the Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that the executive and legislature remain accountable to the Constitution.