Judicial Review in India: Examining the Supreme Court's Powers

On this page you will read detailed information about Judicial Review in India.

As a citizen of India, you have a vital interest in how judicial review shapes the interpretation and application of the law. The Supreme Court’s role in determining the constitutionality of legislation and executive action gives it tremendous influence over policy and rights. This article examines the Court’s powers of review, analyzing notable cases that have defined its authority and relationship to democracy. Understanding the scope and limits of judicial review provides critical insight into this pillar of governance 100 words that sustains the rule of law. Continue reading to learn about key issues relating to judicial activism versus restraint, implications for representative government, and the evolving role of the Supreme Court in Indian society.

Table of Contents

What Is Judicial Review in India?

Judicial review refers to the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India to declare laws and executive actions as unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court, as the apex court, is the final interpreter of the Constitution.

The concept of judicial review was incorporated into the Constitution of India, giving the judiciary the power to strike down laws and executive actions that violate fundamental rights or any other provisions under the Constitution. The Supreme Court can review the constitutional validity of any law enacted by the Parliament or state legislatures. It can also review executive actions by the central government or state governments.

The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review is very wide and includes:

Reviewing the constitutional validity of legislative enactments by Parliament and state legislatures. The court can strike down or invalidate laws that violate the Constitution.
Reviewing executive actions of the central government and state governments such as orders, notifications, rules, etc. The court can declare executive actions as unconstitutional and void.
Protecting and enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The court can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Interpreting the provisions of the Constitution and determining the scope and ambit of constitutional provisions. The court’s interpretations are binding.
Maintaining the balance of power between the three organs of the state – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
Deciding disputes between the center and states or between states in a federal structure.

In exercising judicial review, the Supreme Court has the power to uphold or strike down laws and executive actions. Its decisions have implications for the protection of citizens’ rights and governance of the nation. The power of judicial review makes the judiciary a very influential branch in India’s democratic system of government.

Origins and Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review

The power of judicial review in India is derived from the constitution. Article 13 of the Constitution of India prohibits the Parliament and state legislatures from making laws that infringe on the fundamental rights of citizens.

The Supreme Court of India has the power to declare any law made by Parliament or a state legislature as unconstitutional and void if it infringes on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if it is beyond the legislative competence of the legislature.

This power is known as the judicial review power of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review was upheld in A. K. Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950) and has since been invoked in many cases. The court has used it to uphold civil liberties and human rights, as well as to address issues like environmental protection.

Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to act as an independent check on the exercise of legislative and executive power. It helps ensure that laws and executive actions conform to the constitution. The power is intended to prevent tyranny of the majority and protect the rights of minorities.

However, the court’s power of judicial review has been controversial and criticized at times. Some argue that unelected judges should not have the power to overturn laws and policies made by elected representatives. There is also a concern that the court may at times be overreaching. Regardless of the controversy, judicial review remains an integral part of India’s constitutional framework.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review finds its origins and Constitutional basis in:

Article 13 which prohibits the making of laws that infringe on fundamental rights.
The power of the court to declare unconstitutional laws void.
Key cases like A. K. Gopalan vs State of Madras (1950) which upheld this power.
The role of the court as an independent check on the legislature and executive.
The aim to protect rights and prevent tyranny, though it remains controversial.

In the previous post, we had shared information about The Doctrine of Res Judicata: A Core Legal Principle, so read that post also.

Landmark Cases Establishing Judicial Review

Judicial review in India was established through several landmark cases in the 1950s and 1960s. Two of the most significant cases were A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) and Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).

In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court ruled that any law made by Parliament could not violate fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. This case established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review over legislation.

In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court propounded the basic structure doctrine. It ruled that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was not unlimited and did not extend to altering its basic features. This doctrine reinforced the Supreme Court’s authority as the final interpreter of the Constitution.

Other major cases that have shaped judicial review in India include:

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament did not have the power to amend fundamental rights, thereby limiting Parliament’s amending powers.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court stuck down constitutional amendments that violated the basic structure of the Constitution. It reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine established in Kesavananda Bharati.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court ruled that the 39th constitutional amendment, which had placed the Prime Minister’s election beyond judicial review, was unconstitutional. The court asserted its power of judicial review over constitutional amendments.

Through these seminal cases, the Supreme Court has established itself as the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of citizens’ fundamental rights. Judicial review has strengthened constitutionalism and the rule of law in India’s democratic system. The basic structure doctrine in particular has ensured that the Constitution’s core democratic principles remain intact.

Scope and Limits of Judicial Review

The Supreme Court of India has the power of judicial review, which means it can examine the constitutional validity of legislative enactments and executive orders. However, this power is not absolute and the court operates within certain limits.

The court can only review the constitutionality of laws and not their wisdom or policy. It cannot substitute its own opinion for the legislature’s regarding the desirability or adequacy of legislation. The court asks whether the law is constitutionally valid, not whether it’s reasonable or necessary.
Judicial review is confined to questions of constitutionality and statutory interpretation. The court cannot review the proper exercise of discretion by administrative agencies or authorities unless their decisions are shown to be mala fide, unreasonable, or contrary to law.
The doctrine of separation of powers prevents the judiciary from assuming the functions of the legislature or the executive. The court cannot make laws or formulate policies, it can only interpret them.
The court’s power is limited by constitutional amendments and its own previous judgments. Parliament can amend the constitution to nullify the effect of a Supreme Court ruling. And the court usually follows the principle of stare decisis, being bound by its own previous decisions.
Judicial review is a powerful check on the other branches of government, but the court itself is not beyond accountability. Parliament can impeach judges and amend the constitution. The court’s authority ultimately depends on the confidence of the public and the other branches of government.

In summary, while the Supreme Court has the crucial power to determine whether laws and executive actions conform to the constitution, this power is balanced by self-imposed restraints and accountability to prevent overreach. The scope of judicial review in India is defined by the separation of powers and the democratic framework of the constitution.

Judicial Activism vs Judicial Overreach

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has been accused of overstepping its constitutional limits at times in its enthusiasm to uphold civil liberties and push for social justice – a phenomenon known as “judicial overreach.” However, others argue that the court is acting well within its powers of judicial review to protect fundamental rights. This debate around the appropriate scope of judicial power lies at the heart of the tension between judicial activism and judicial overreach.

Judicial activism refers to the court taking an active role in protecting civil liberties and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has issued several landmark judgments that have expanded civil liberties and pushed for progressive social change. For instance, the court has issued directives on police reform, environmental protection, and education. Supporters argue this activism is necessary to uphold constitutional morality in the absence of legislative action.
Judicial overreach refers to the argument that the court has exceeded its constitutional authority through judicial activism. Critics argue that in issuing policy directives and closely monitoring their implementation, the court has assumed administrative and legislative functions – violating the separation of powers. There are also concerns that policymaking through the courts lacks democratic legitimacy.
There are reasonable arguments on both sides. The court must ensure that fundamental rights are protected, but it should also respect the separation of powers and policymaking role of the elected branches of government. Achieving the right balance between judicial activism and restraint is key to ensuring that the court acts as an effective check and balance without overstepping its constitutional role.

The debate around judicial activism and overreach in India is complex with valid points on both sides. Ultimately, the court must exercise its powers of judicial review to uphold civil liberties without assuming legislative or executive functions – a challenging but crucial balancing act in any constitutional democracy.

Criticisms and Controversies Surrounding Judicial Review

Judicial review in India has been subject to various criticisms over the years. Some argue that the Supreme Court has overstepped its constitutional role and encroached on the powers of the legislature and the executive.

A common argument is that the Supreme Court is not an elected body, so it should not have the power to strike down laws passed by Parliament, which consists of elected representatives. This undermines the democratic principle of parliamentary supremacy. The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review allows it to invalidate laws and government actions that it deems unconstitutional, raising concerns about a lack of accountability.

Judicial review has also led to unpredictability in the law. The Supreme Court has the power to overturn its own precedents, and it can be difficult to predict how it might rule in new cases involving the interpretation of constitutional rights. This legal uncertainty can negatively impact businesses and individuals.

The Supreme Court’s expansion of the scope of fundamental rights through creative interpretations of the Constitution has been controversial. Critics argue this amounts to judicial activism and results in the court effectively legislating policy by “discovering” new rights. Supporters counter that the court is fulfilling its role as the protector of citizens’ rights and civil liberties.

There have also been criticisms surrounding a lack of diversity in the higher judiciary. The Supreme Court and high courts have been dominated by upper-caste men, raising questions about their ability to properly understand and protect the rights of marginalized groups. However, the judiciary has taken some steps recently to promote greater inclusion and diversity.

In summary, while judicial review has strengthened civil liberties and held the government accountable, it remains a controversial power with valid arguments on both sides. There are opportunities for reform to address concerns about overreach, unpredictability, and diversity while still upholding the court’s crucial role as the guardian of the Constitution. Overall, judicial review in India continues to be a complex topic with many trade-offs to consider.

Comparative Analysis With Other Countries

The Indian Supreme Court has some of the most extensive judicial review powers compared to supreme courts in other democracies. Unlike the US Supreme Court which can only review federal legislation, the Indian Supreme Court can review both federal and state laws for constitutionality.

Additionally, the Indian Supreme Court has the power of judicial review over administrative actions and orders, not just legislation. It can examine the validity of executive orders, notifications, ordinances, and other administrative decisions. This is a broader power than most other supreme courts possess. For example, the US Supreme Court can only review the constitutionality of administrative actions in a limited set of circumstances.

One of the most unique powers of the Indian Supreme Court is the ability to directly enforce fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Citizens can petition the Court to demand enforcement of their fundamental rights. The Court can then issue orders and writs to compel the government to uphold these rights. Few other supreme courts have such expansive powers to enforce constitutional rights.

The advisory jurisdiction of the Indian Supreme Court is also uncommon. The President of India can refer questions of law or public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion. While the opinion is non-binding, it can have persuasive value. Most supreme courts do not have an advisory role and can only rule on actual disputes between parties.

In conclusion, the judicial review powers of the Indian Supreme Court are remarkably broad in comparison to its counterparts in other democracies. Through its rulings, the Court has also broadly interpreted its own jurisdiction resulting in an expansion of its authority. This has strengthened the Court’s role as an organ of accountability for both the executive and legislative branches of government.

The Future of Judicial Review in India

Judicial review is an integral part of India’s democratic framework and constitution. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding the appropriate scope and limits of the Supreme Court’s powers of review. Some argue the Court has overreached at times, acting as a “super-legislature” by encroaching into policymaking domains better left to the elected branches of government. Others counter that the Court must defend citizens’ fundamental rights and hold the government accountable when it fails to do so.

As India’s democracy matures, the Court will likely aim to strike a balance between these perspectives. It may exercise restraint on matters of policy, focusing review on upholding civil liberties and protecting disadvantaged groups. At the same time, the Court’s authority ultimately depends on public trust that it is acting as an impartial guardian of the Constitution. Overly aggressive review risks undermining that trust, while excessive deference could weaken the Court’s role as a check against potential government overreach or neglect.

Judicial review in India faces both opportunities and challenges in the years to come. On the one hand, as the economy grows and technology advances, new questions around data privacy, intellectual property, and other issues will arise. The Court will need to adapt its jurisprudence to these emerging domains. On the other hand, there are concerns that polarization and hyper-partisanship could start to influence the appointment of judges and undermine the Court’s independence over time.

To navigate these opportunities and threats, the Supreme Court should reaffirm its commitment to principled, non-partisan decision making grounded in the Constitution’s text, structure, and core values. It should also engage in transparent deliberation and cultivate public understanding around the rationale behind its rulings. By bolstering its legitimacy and authority through impartiality, restraint, and openness, the Court can help ensure judicial review remains a cornerstone of Indian democracy for generations to come. Overall, the future of judicial review will depend on the wisdom and integrity of the Court in exercising its powers responsibly within India’s constitutional framework.

Judicial Review in India FAQs: Common Questions Answered

Judicial review refers to the power of the Supreme Court of India to review and invalidate laws and executive actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution. Here are some common questions about judicial review in India:

Q1: What laws can the Supreme Court review?

The Supreme Court can review both Central laws passed by Parliament as well as State laws passed by State Legislatures. The Court examines whether the law in question violates any provision of the Constitution.

Q2: How did the Supreme Court get the power of judicial review?

The Indian Constitution does not explicitly grant the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court. However, the Court assumed this power in the early 1950s. In A.K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras, the Court ruled that it had the power to invalidate laws that violated fundamental rights. This established the Court’s power of judicial review.

Q3: What are the grounds for judicial review?

The Court can invalidate a law on three main grounds:
I) If the law violates any fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution such as equality before law, freedom of speech and expression, etc.
II) If the law is beyond the competence of the legislature which passed it. Laws made by Parliament/State Legislatures must be within the scope of the powers given to them under the Constitution.
III) If the law is vague, ambiguous or uncertain. The language of the law must be clear and precise.
IV) If the law violates the basic structure of the Constitution. The basic structure includes principles such as secularism, federalism, separation of powers, etc.

Q4: To what extent can the Court review constitutional amendments?

The Court has the power to review constitutional amendments and strike them down if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution. However, the Court gives greater deference to constitutional amendments passed by Parliament. It presumes them to be constitutional. But this presumption is rebuttable – the petitioners can produce evidence to show that the amendment violates the basic structure.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review acts as an important check and balance in India’s constitutional system. It helps uphold the rule of law and protect citizens’ rights and liberties. At the same time, the Court exercises restraint and gives due deference to the legislature and the amendment process.

Conclusion

As you have seen, judicial review serves an important function in India’s democracy by empowering the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws and government actions. Understanding the Court’s evolution and key cases provides insight into how judicial review operates to uphold rights and check government overreach. Looking ahead, judicial review will likely remain contentious yet essential as India continues balancing diverse needs and perspectives. Considering viewpoints around judicial activism and restraint allows you to form your own educated opinion on this complex topic integral to the world’s largest democracy.

Disclaimer

The information and services on this website are not intended to and shall not be used as legal advice. You should consult a Legal Professional for any legal or solicited advice. While we have good faith and our own independent research to every information listed on the website and do our best to ensure that the data provided is accurate. However, we do not guarantee the information provided is accurate and make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information on the Site. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL WE HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO YOU FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND INCURRED AS A RESULT OR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE SITE. YOUR USE OF THE SITE AND YOUR RELIANCE ON ANY INFORMATION ON THE SITE IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. Comments on this website are the sole responsibility of their writers so the accuracy, completeness, veracity, honesty, factuality and politeness of comments are not guaranteed.

So friends, today we talked about Judicial Review in India, hope you liked our post.

If you liked the information about Judicial Review in India, then definitely share this article with your friends.

Knowing about laws can make you feel super smart ! If you find value in the content you may consider joining our not for profit Legal Community ! You can ask unlimited questions on WhatsApp and get answers. You can DM or send your name & number to 8208309918 on WhatsApp

Post Views: 14