THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA : A Constitutional Analysis


Author: Divisha mishra , ICFAI law school , ICFAI University Dehradun


Abstract

Judicial review is a crucial part of constitutional governance. It empowers court to determine the legality of legislative and executive actions. In India, judicial review has evolved through a rough interaction of constitutional provisions, judicial pronouncements, and legislative developments. Anchored in Article 13,32, and 226 of the Indian Constitution, judicial review has emerged as a shield for fundamental rights and a tool to uphold the principle of constitutional supremacy. This article delves into its evolution, key case laws, its implications for democratic governance, and its significance in preserving the rule of law.


Proof: judicial review in India finds its foundation in the Constitution and the judiciary’s interpretation in the constitution and the Judiciary’s interpretation of its provisions. Article 13(2) expressly declared void laws that contravene fundamental rights stating that “ the state shall not make any law which takes away or violates the rights conferred by this part.” Article 31 and 226 confer powers to the Supreme Court and High Courts of India, to enforce these rights. The legitimacy of this Doctrine was reinforced in key Judgments establishing its indispensability in Indian constitutional framework. Additionally Article 245 and 246 read with 7th schedule, delineate the scope of legislative competency subject to the Judicial Review in India.


To The Point : the concept of Judicial Review was introduced into Indian Legal system through the influence of common law principles, particularly from the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) in US. It was incorporated into the Indian Constitution to ensure checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and Judicial branches. Overtime, the scope of Judicial Review has expanded significantly:


Fundamental Rights: initially judicial review was limited to ensure laws not to contravene fundamental rights.


Constitutional Amendments: judicial review was extended to constitutional amendment that violate the doctrine of Basic Structure post Kesavananda Bharati case.
Administrative Actions: now courts can review executive actions to ensure the standards of legality, rationality, and procedural propriety. 
Economic and Policy Decisions: recently courts shows judicial review in economic policies and environmental governance as well.

CASE LAWS
A.K. GOPALAN V. STATE OF MADRAS (1950)
This case marked the judiciary’s initial engagement with judicial review. The fundamental  rights. The Supreme Court held that each right under Part III of the Indian constitution was distinct and that procedural laws were sufficient to meet constitutional requirement. This judgment emphasized a narrow interpretation of rights, sparking debates on judicial conservatism.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
A pivotal case in the evolution of Judicial review, it established the basic structure doctrine. The court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 such amendments cannot alter its fundamental framework. This judgment safeguarded judicial review’s application to constitutional amendments, ensuring the protection of core principles such as secularism, federalism, and democracy.

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
In this case the court invalidated amendments that sought to exclude laws implementing Directive Principles from Judicial Review. It emphasized on a importance of harmonious balance between fundamental rights and directive principles. The judgment reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as a sentinel of constitutional governance.

I.R. Coelho v. State Of Tamil Nadu (2007) 
Initially The 9th Schedule was used to shield laws from judicial review. However, the court ruled that laws violating the basic structure Doctrine, even if placed in the 9th schedule, could be reviewed. This judgment reinforced the judiciary’s authority to protect constitutional integrity and prevent legislative overreach.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union Of India (2018)
This case demonstrated judicial review’s progressive application. The Supreme court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts under Section377 of the IPC, affirming individual liberty, dignity, and equality as fundamental constitutional values. The judgment showcased judicial review as a tool to align laws with evolving societal norms, reflecting the Constitution’s dynamic nature.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union Of India (1997)
The court held that the power of judicial review vested in the supreme court and High court is part of the Constitution’s basic structure. Tribunals could not oust this jurisdiction, reaffirming the judiciary’s supremacy in constitutional interpretation.

Conclusion

Judicial review in India has evolved as a dynamic and indispensable instrument of constitutional governance. By upholding fundamental rights and ensuring adherence to constitutional principles, it serves as a bulwark against arbitrary and unconstitutional actions. While its expansive application has occasionally invited debates on judicial activism, its necessity in preserving the rule of law remain undisputed. Moving forward, the judiciary must strike a balance between its role as a constitutional guardian and respecting the separation of powers, Additionally, continuous training for judges on evolving jurisprudential trends can further enhance the efficacy of judicial review.


FAQS


What do we mean by judicial review in India ?
Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions and nullify them if they violate the Constitution.

What are the Constitutional provisions for judicial review in India?
Articles 13, 32, and 226 primarily empowers courts to conduct judicial review in India. Articles 245 and 246 provide additional support by defining legislative competence.

How does judicial review differ from judicial activism?
Judicial review is a constitutional mandate to ensure legality, while judicial activism involves proactive judicial intervention in legislative and executive domains, often based on broader interpretations of the law.

Why is the basic structure doctrine important?
It ensures that constitutional amendments do not alter the fundamental framework of the constitution, preserving its core values and principles.

Can judicial review be abolished in India?
No, judicial review is integral to the constitution’s basic structure, as affirmed in Kesavananda bharati and subsequent judgments.

What is the ninth schedule, and how does it relate to judicial review?
The ninth schedule was came to protect some laws from judicial scrutiny. However post I.R. Coelho, even laws in the ninth schedule are subject to review if they violates the basic structure.

What is the role of High Courts in judicial review?
High Courts exercise judicial review under Article 226, enabling them to address violations of fundamental rights and ensure administrative actions comply with the constitutions.

How does judicial review impact economic and environmental policies?
Courts have increasingly used judicial review to assess the constitutionality of policies impacting the economy and the environment, ensuring adherence to principles of equity and sustainability.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *