Judicial Review under the Indian Constitution

Introduction

Judicial Review is one of the most important features of the Indian Constitution. It means the power of the courts to check whether the laws made by the government are in accordance with the Constitution or not. If any law or action of the government goes against the Constitution, the courts have the authority to declare it invalid. In India, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All organs of the government, including the legislature and executive, must work within their limits. Judicial review helps in maintaining this supremacy. It ensures that no authority becomes too powerful and that all actions are legally correct. The concept of judicial review is not directly written in one single Article, but it is clearly understood from different provisions. Article 13 says that any law which violates Fundamental Rights will be void. Article 32 gives the right to citizens to approach the Supreme Court for the protection of their rights. Similarly, Article 226 gives similar powers to the High Courts. These provisions together form the basis of judicial review in India. Judicial review is also important because it protects the rights and freedoms of people. It acts as a check on the misuse of power by the government. In a country like India, where democracy is followed, such a system is necessary to maintain fairness and justice.

Important Cases

The meaning and scope of judicial review have been explained through many important judgments of the Supreme Court over time.

SPONSORED

1. The first important case is A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. In this case, the Supreme Court took a narrow view of personal liberty. It said that if a law follows the “procedure established by law,” then it is valid. The Court did not go into whether the law was fair or reasonable. Later, this view was considered too limited.
2. After that, in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court gave an important decision. It held that Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. The Court believed that these rights are very important and should not be changed. This case increased the importance of judicial review but also created conflict between Parliament and the judiciary.
3. The most significant case is Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. In this case, the Supreme Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine. According to this doctrine, Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot change its basic structure. The Court also said that judicial review is a part of the basic structure. This means that this power cannot be removed even by a constitutional amendment.
4. Another important case is Minerva Mills v. Union of India. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of the 42nd Amendment, which tried to limit judicial review. The Court said that there must be a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. It also confirmed that judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution.
5. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court further strengthened this concept. It held that the power of judicial review of the High Courts and the Supreme Court cannot be taken away. Even if tribunals are created, their decisions can be reviewed by the courts.
6. All these cases show that judicial review has developed step by step and has become stronger with time. The courts have played a major role in protecting the Constitution and the rights of the people.

Conclusion

In conclusion, judicial review is a very important part of the Indian constitutional system. It ensures that the Constitution remains supreme and that all laws and actions of the government follow its principles. It protects the Fundamental Rights of citizens and prevents the misuse of power. The Supreme Court has clearly stated in many cases that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This means that it cannot be removed under any circumstances. It is a permanent and essential feature of Indian democracy. Although some people criticise judicial review by saying that it gives too much power to judges, it is necessary for maintaining balance in the system. Without it, there would be no effective control over the government, and citizens’ rights could be easily violated. Therefore, judicial review acts as a guardian of the Constitution. It helps in maintaining justice, equality, and the rule of law in the country. It also ensures that democracy functions properly. In the end, it can be said that without judicial review, the Constitution would lose its real meaning and strength.