THE ROLE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING

Author: Tuba Majeed Nigudkar, Student of Final Year, KLE College of Law, Kalamboli

Proud to share my insights and contributions to the topic of “The Role of Judicial Review in Political Decision-Making.” Judicial review plays a pivotal role in balancing the powers of governance, ensuring accountability, and safeguarding democratic principles.

ABSTRACT

Judicial review is a cornerstone of constitutional democracies, empowering the judiciary to evaluate the legality of legislative and executive actions. This principle upholds the supremacy of the Constitution, ensuring that the fundamental rights of citizens remain safeguarded against potential political overreach. In political decision-making, judicial review acts as a critical check and balance, preventing arbitrariness and promoting accountability.

The doctrine of judicial review traces its roots to the landmark U.S. case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), which laid the foundation for its universal acceptance. In India, this power is enshrined in Articles 13, 32, and 226 of the Constitution, empowering both the Supreme Court and High Courts to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. The judiciary, through this mechanism, has often played a pivotal role in shaping India’s political landscape, influencing decisions ranging from election disputes to the limits of legislative powers.

Key judgments such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala have reinforced the judiciary’s authority to protect the “basic structure” of the Constitution from political encroachments. Similarly, Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain showcased judicial intervention in a politically charged environment, emphasizing the need for an impartial arbiter in democratic governance.

However, judicial review is not without controversy. Critics argue that excessive judicial activism can disrupt the delicate balance of power between the branches of government, leading to allegations of judicial overreach. Conversely, judicial restraint is advocated to respect the domain of elected representatives.

This article explores the evolving role of judicial review in political decision-making, analyzing its impact through landmark cases and its significance in preserving constitutional democracy. By striking a balance between activism and restraint, judicial review serves as a guardian of justice and a protector of democratic values in the political arena.

TO THE POINT

Judicial Review and Its Constitutional Basis in India 

Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to assess the constitutionality of laws, executive actions, and policies enacted by the legislature and the executive. This doctrine ensures that governance aligns with the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Judicial review enables courts to invalidate laws or actions that violate constitutional provisions, safeguarding the principles of democracy, justice, and fundamental rights.

In India, the foundation of judicial review is embedded in the Constitution. The primary articles that establish and define this power include:

  1. Article 13: Declares that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights shall be void. It empowers courts to strike down laws that contravene fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
  2. Article 32: Provides individuals the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights through writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto.
  3. Article 226: Grants High Courts the power to issue writs not only for enforcement of fundamental rights but also for other legal rights.

These provisions collectively establish the judiciary as a guardian of constitutional supremacy and an arbiter in disputes between the state and its citizens.

Relevance in Ensuring Political Accountability

Judicial review is instrumental in maintaining political accountability by acting as a check on the powers of the legislature and executive. It ensures that all political decisions and actions adhere to constitutional principles, thereby preventing arbitrariness and abuse of power.

  1. Preventing Legislative Overreach: Legislatures may sometimes enact laws that violate constitutional principles, such as the fundamental rights of individuals or the federal structure of governance. Through judicial review, such laws can be declared null and void. For instance, in IC Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights cannot be amended by the Parliament under Article 368.
  2. Safeguarding Fundamental Rights: Judicial review protects citizens from arbitrary or discriminatory actions by the executive or legislative branches. This was evident in cases like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the court expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to a fair procedure.
  3. Maintaining Democratic Values: Political decisions that contravene democratic principles can be invalidated through judicial review. For example, the doctrine of the “basic structure” established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) ensures that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a manner that alters its essential features, such as secularism, federalism, or judicial independence.
  4. Regulating Executive Actions: Judicial review prevents the executive from exceeding its authority or acting in a manner contrary to constitutional provisions. For instance, in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the 39th Amendment that sought to immunize the Prime Minister’s election from judicial scrutiny.
  5. Encouraging Good Governance: By holding political entities accountable, judicial review promotes transparency, fairness, and adherence to the rule of law. It fosters trust in democratic institutions by ensuring that no authority is above the Constitution.

In judicial review is a cornerstone of India’s constitutional framework. It reinforces the separation of powers, protects individual rights, and ensures that political decisions remain within the bounds of legality and constitutionality. This mechanism not only upholds the supremacy of the Constitution but also strengthens democracy by holding political actors accountable for their actions.

Use of Legal Jargon

Legal jargon plays a vital role in articulating complex judicial principles, especially in the context of judicial review. Terms like ultra vires, constitutional supremacy, and the basic structure doctrine are frequently used to explain the judiciary’s role in maintaining constitutional integrity.

  1. Ultra Vires: This Latin term translates to “beyond the powers.” It refers to actions or laws that exceed the authority granted to an individual or institution under the Constitution or a statute. Judicial review often involves invalidating ultra vires actions. For example, if a legislature enacts a law infringing on fundamental rights, such as in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the judiciary may strike it down as ultra vires.
  2. Constitutional Supremacy: This principle establishes the Constitution as the highest law of the land. All legislative, executive, and judicial actions must conform to its provisions. Judicial review enforces this supremacy by ensuring that no authority undermines constitutional mandates.
  3. Basic Structure Doctrine: Originating from Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), this doctrine limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. It protects fundamental features like democracy, secularism, and judicial independence from being altered, even through constitutional amendments.

These terms highlight the judiciary’s role in preserving constitutional governance, ensuring that all powers operate within prescribed boundaries while respecting the rule of law.

THE PROOF

Judicial review has significantly shaped political decision-making in India by striking down unconstitutional laws and executive actions that deviate from the principles of the Constitution. Its application in landmark cases underscores its role as a vital check on political authority.

1. Striking Down Unconstitutional Laws

The judiciary has consistently invalidated laws and policies that violate constitutional provisions or fundamental rights. For instance:

  • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark case introduced the basic structure doctrine, ensuring that constitutional amendments cannot alter the fundamental framework of the Constitution. The Supreme Court struck down parts of the 25th Amendment, which curtailed judicial review and threatened the principles of fundamental rights and constitutional supremacy. This decision preserved the sanctity of democracy and protected the balance of power.
  • Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court invalidated clauses of the 42nd Amendment that gave unchecked supremacy to the Directive Principles of State Policy over Fundamental Rights. It reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and emphasized that judicial review itself is an essential part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

2. Striking Down Unconstitutional Executive Actions

Judicial review has also curtailed arbitrary or excessive actions by the executive branch:

  • Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the 39th Amendment that attempted to immunize the Prime Minister’s election from judicial scrutiny. This decision reinforced the principle that no individual, regardless of position, is above the law.

3. Protecting Democratic Values

Judicial review has protected democracy by invalidating political actions that undermine democratic processes. For example:

  • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Court held that the imposition of the President’s Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. This ruling prevented arbitrary dismissals of state governments, ensuring that federalism—a core feature of the Constitution—remains intact.

Through these instances, judicial review has demonstrated its capacity to impact political decisions profoundly. By upholding constitutional principles and restraining political overreach, it reinforces the balance of power and the rule of law in India.

CASE LAWS

1. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

This landmark case arose from the dispute over the election of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, challenged by Raj Narain. The Allahabad High Court found Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractice and invalidated her election. In response, the 39th Amendment was enacted to exclude the Prime Minister’s election from judicial scrutiny.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, struck down this amendment, declaring it unconstitutional as it violated the basic structure of the Constitution. This case reinforced the judiciary’s role as a guardian of electoral integrity and demonstrated that no political figure is above the law.

2. IC Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

In this case, the Supreme Court examined the extent of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The Court ruled that fundamental rights are inviolable and cannot be amended under Article 368. This judgment placed significant limits on parliamentary authority, ensuring that fundamental rights remain protected from political encroachments. Though later modified by the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, it was pivotal in shaping the doctrine of constitutional supremacy and judicial review.

3. Recent Judgments Addressing Political Issues

Judicial review continues to impact contemporary political matters:

  • Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002): The Supreme Court directed political candidates to disclose their criminal records, assets, liabilities, and educational qualifications. This enhanced electoral transparency and accountability.
  • Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014): The Court examined the appointment of ministers with criminal backgrounds, emphasizing the importance of constitutional morality and good governance.
  • Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): Though not directly a political decision, this judgment on decriminalizing Section 377 had significant social and political implications, affirming judicial review as a tool for safeguarding individual rights against outdated laws.

These judgments highlight the judiciary’s crucial role in maintaining constitutional balance and holding political actors accountable. By addressing electoral disputes, limiting legislative overreach, and influencing contemporary political dynamics, judicial review remains a cornerstone of India’s democracy.

CONCLUSION

Judicial review is a cornerstone of democracy, ensuring constitutional supremacy by curbing political overreach and safeguarding fundamental rights. It reinforces accountability and transparency, holding legislative and executive actions to constitutional standards. Landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain demonstrate their role in maintaining the balance of power and protecting democratic principles. However, to prevent judicial overreach, a balance between judicial activism and restraint is essential. Judges should adhere to constitutional limits, avoid ideological biases, and intervene only when clear violations occur, leaving policy decisions to elected representatives. Encouraging legislative accountability and fostering collaboration between government branches can strengthen this balance. By maintaining this equilibrium, judicial review continues to uphold democracy and the rule of law.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

1. What is judicial review?

Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative, executive, and administrative actions. It ensures that laws and decisions comply with the provisions of the Constitution and protects fundamental rights from arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the government.

2. How does judicial review affect political decisions?

Judicial review acts as a check on political authorities by invalidating laws or executive actions that violate constitutional principles. It ensures accountability, transparency, and adherence to democratic values. For instance, in cases like Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, judicial review played a pivotal role in addressing electoral disputes and preserving constitutional integrity.

3. What are some criticisms of judicial review in politics?

Judicial review is often criticized for leading to judicial overreach, where courts interfere excessively in policy matters better left to elected representatives. Critics argue that this undermines the separation of powers and may reflect judicial activism rather than impartial adjudication. Additionally, judicial review can sometimes delay governance by subjecting decisions to prolonged legal scrutiny.

4. How is judicial review linked to the basic structure doctrine?

The basic structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), limits Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution in ways that alter its fundamental framework. Judicial review is instrumental in protecting this doctrine, ensuring that key democratic principles like secularism, federalism, and the rule of law remain intact.

5. Can judicial review be challenged or limited?

While judicial review is a constitutional mandate, its scope and application can be indirectly limited through constitutional amendments, as long as they do not violate the basic structure doctrine. However, any attempts to significantly curtail judicial review would likely face scrutiny from the judiciary itself, ensuring that it remains a critical tool for upholding constitutional governance.

Leave a Reply

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