Judicial Review is the power of the Judiciary to examine the constitutional validity of:
If an action is found inconsistent with the Constitution, the court may declare it invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.
Judicial Review is an important safeguard for:
Judicial Review means the authority of courts to examine whether laws and government actions conform to the Constitution.
The basic principle is:
Constitution > Ordinary Law > Executive Action
Therefore, all organs of government must function within constitutional limits.
The Constitution does not contain a single Article titled:
"Judicial Review"
Instead, the power is derived from several constitutional provisions.
Important provisions include:
Article 13 is one of the most important constitutional foundations of Judicial Review.
It provides that laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of their inconsistency.
Therefore:
Law
↓
Violates Fundamental Rights
↓
Article 13
↓
Void to extent of inconsistency
4. Article 32
Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Therefore, it provides an important mechanism through which Judicial Review can be exercised.
The five writs are:
Habeas Corpus
Mandamus
Prohibition
Certiorari
Quo Warranto
5. Article 226
High Courts also exercise Judicial Review through their writ jurisdiction under:
Article 226
Unlike Article 32, Article 226 can be used for:
Fundamental Rights
Other legal rights
Therefore, the scope of Article 226 is wider than Article 32.
6. Article 227
Article 227 gives High Courts:
Power of superintendence
over courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction, subject to constitutional limitations.
This also contributes to judicial control over the functioning of subordinate courts and tribunals.
7. Judicial Review of Legislation
Courts can examine whether legislation is constitutionally valid.
A law may be challenged on grounds such as:
Violation of Fundamental Rights
Lack of legislative competence
Violation of constitutional limitations
Conflict with other constitutional provisions
If the law is unconstitutional, the court may invalidate it to the extent of the constitutional violation.
8. Judicial Review of Executive Action
Judicial Review is not limited to legislation.
Courts can also examine:
Executive orders
Administrative decisions
Government policies
Administrative actions
The purpose is to ensure that executive power is exercised:
According to law and the Constitution
9. Legislative Competence
The Judiciary can examine whether Parliament or a State Legislature has the constitutional authority to make a particular law.
The distribution of legislative powers is primarily governed by:
Article 246
read with the:
Seventh Schedule
Therefore, a law may be challenged if the legislature has acted beyond its constitutionally assigned field.
10. Federal Distribution of Powers
India divides legislative subjects between:
Union List
State List
Concurrent List
Judicial Review helps ensure that:
Parliament and State Legislatures remain within their respective constitutional fields.
11. Repugnancy
Where both Parliament and State Legislatures have competence over a Concurrent List subject, conflicts may arise between their laws.
Article 254 provides the constitutional framework concerning:
Repugnancy
Judicial Review may be required to determine whether a State law is inconsistent with a Parliamentary law.
12. Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights
One of the most important functions of Judicial Review is:
Protection of Fundamental Rights
Courts can invalidate State action that violates rights guaranteed under Part III.
This prevents the State from exercising unrestricted power.
13. Judicial Review and Rule of Law
Judicial Review supports:
Rule of Law
because government authorities are required to act according to:
Constitution
Law
Established legal principles
No public authority is above constitutional limitations.
14. Judicial Review and Constitutional Supremacy
India follows:
Constitutional Supremacy
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Therefore:
Constitution
↓
Supreme law
↓
Legislature + Executive + Judiciary
↓
Must operate within constitutional limits
15. Judicial Review and Separation of Powers
Judicial Review does not mean that courts govern the country.
Instead, it allows the Judiciary to ensure that:
Legislature remains within constitutional limits
Executive remains within legal authority
Constitutional rights are protected
It therefore supports the constitutional balance among institutions.
16. Judicial Review vs Judicial Activism
These concepts are different.
Judicial Review
Power to examine constitutional validity
Judicial Activism
An approach involving active judicial intervention or interpretation
A court may exercise Judicial Review without necessarily adopting an activist approach.
17. Judicial Review vs Judicial Restraint
Judicial Review
The constitutional power to review government action.
Judicial Restraint
A judicial approach that emphasises:
Deference to elected institutions
Limited intervention
Respect for institutional boundaries
Judicial Review and Judicial Restraint can coexist.
18. Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments
The power of Judicial Review also extends to:
Constitutional Amendments
However, Parliament has a wide power to amend the Constitution under:
Article 368
This power is subject to the:
Basic Structure Doctrine
19. Basic Structure Doctrine
In:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973
the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot alter or destroy the:
Basic Structure of the Constitution
This placed a substantive constitutional limitation on the amending power.
20. Evolution of Judicial Review of Amendments
The position evolved through important cases.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, 1951
The Supreme Court initially upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1965
The Court again upheld the constitutional amendment power.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967
The Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights in the manner then considered by the Court.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973
The Court established the:
Basic Structure Doctrine
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980
The Court reinforced the limitations on Parliament's amending power and emphasised the balance between:
Fundamental Rights
Directive Principles
21. Basic Features Recognised by Courts
The Basic Structure Doctrine has been associated with features including:
Supremacy of the Constitution
Rule of Law
Judicial Review
Judicial Independence
Separation of Powers
Federalism
Secularism
Democracy
Republican form of government
Parliamentary system
Free and fair elections
Dignity and liberty of the individual
The list is not considered exhaustive.
22. Judicial Review as Basic Structure
The Supreme Court has recognised:
Judicial Review
as part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Therefore, Parliament cannot completely eliminate the power of constitutional courts to review government action.
23. Judicial Review and Emergency
Judicial Review also operates in relation to Emergency powers, subject to the constitutional framework and amendments.
The constitutional experience during the Emergency highlighted the importance of effective judicial protection of rights.
The 44th Constitutional Amendment strengthened protection of:
Article 20
Article 21
during an Emergency.
24. Judicial Review of Presidential and Governor Actions
Certain constitutional actions of the President and Governors may be subject to Judicial Review.
However, the Constitution may provide specific limitations and immunities.
For example:
Article 361
provides constitutional immunity to the President and Governors from being answerable to courts for the exercise of their official powers and duties.
This does not create absolute immunity for every governmental action connected with constitutional offices.
25. Judicial Review of Ordinances
Courts can examine the constitutional validity of:
Presidential Ordinances
Governor's Ordinances
Ordinance-making power is subject to constitutional limitations.
Therefore:
Executive law-making through ordinances is not beyond Judicial Review.
26. Judicial Review of Administrative Action
Administrative actions may be reviewed where they involve issues such as:
Lack of jurisdiction
Arbitrariness
Violation of Fundamental Rights
Violation of natural justice
Mala fide exercise of power
Failure to follow mandatory legal requirements
The precise scope depends on the nature of the action and applicable law.
27. Judicial Review and Writs
Writ jurisdiction is one of the principal mechanisms through which Judicial Review is exercised.
Article 32
→ Supreme Court
→ Fundamental Rights
Article 226
→ High Courts
→ Fundamental Rights + Other purposes
28. Judicial Review and Tribunals
Tribunal decisions are subject to judicial scrutiny within the constitutional framework.
In:
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997
the Supreme Court held that the power of Judicial Review vested in:
High Courts under Article 226/227
Supreme Court under Article 32
forms part of the Constitution's Basic Structure.
Tribunals may perform important adjudicatory functions, but they do not completely replace the constitutional jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court.
29. Importance of Judicial Review
Judicial Review:
Protects Fundamental Rights
Maintains constitutional supremacy
Prevents arbitrary government action
Maintains federal balance
Protects constitutional limitations
Strengthens Rule of Law
Preserves the Basic Structure
30. Limitations of Judicial Review
Judicial Review is not unlimited.
Courts generally avoid:
Replacing legislative policy choices merely because another policy seems preferable
Interfering in areas involving legitimate institutional discretion without constitutional or legal violation
Acting as a substitute for the Legislature or Executive
This is where:
Judicial Restraint
becomes important.
31. Judicial Review and Policy Decisions
Courts generally distinguish between:
Legality
and:
Policy wisdom
Judicial Review primarily examines whether government action is:
Constitutional
Legal
Procedurally valid
Non-arbitrary where constitutional standards apply
Courts do not ordinarily substitute their policy preference for that of the elected government merely because another policy appears better.
32. Judicial Review and Parliamentary Sovereignty
India does not follow the model of absolute:
Parliamentary Sovereignty
Instead, Parliament is subject to:
Constitutional Supremacy
Therefore, legislation can be reviewed for constitutional validity.
33. Judicial Review in India vs USA
Both India and the United States recognise Judicial Review.
However, there are important differences.
India
Judicial Review operates within a:
Written Constitution + Parliamentary system + Constitutional limitations
USA
Judicial Review developed strongly through:
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
India's Judicial Review is based on multiple constitutional provisions rather than a single judicial decision creating the entire doctrine.
34. Judicial Review — Key Constitutional Provisions
Article 13
→ Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights
Article 32
→ Supreme Court writ jurisdiction
Article 131
→ Original federal jurisdiction
Article 132
→ Constitutional appeals
Article 136
→ Special Leave
Article 143
→ Advisory jurisdiction
Article 226
→ High Court writ jurisdiction
Article 227
→ High Court superintendence
Article 245
→ Territorial extent of legislative power
Article 246
→ Distribution of legislative powers
Article 254
→ Repugnancy
Article 368
→ Constitutional amendment
35. UPSC Prelims Facts
Judicial Review
→ Power to examine constitutional validity of State action
Article 13
→ Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights
Article 32
→ Supreme Court constitutional remedies
Article 226
→ High Court writ jurisdiction
Article 246
→ Distribution of legislative powers
Article 254
→ Repugnancy
Article 368
→ Constitutional amendment
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973
→ Basic Structure Doctrine
Minerva Mills, 1980
→ Limits on amending power
L. Chandra Kumar, 1997
→ Judicial Review under Articles 226/227 and 32 as part of Basic Structure
36. UPSC Prelims Traps
Trap 1
"Judicial Review is expressly contained in one Article titled Judicial Review."
False
It is derived from several constitutional provisions.
Trap 2
"Judicial Review applies only to Parliamentary laws."
False
It can also apply to:
Executive action
Administrative action
Ordinances
Constitutional amendments, subject to the Basic Structure Doctrine
Trap 3
"Parliament can completely remove Judicial Review through a constitutional amendment."
False
Judicial Review is part of the:
Basic Structure
Trap 4
"Article 32 and Article 226 have exactly the same scope."
False
Article 226 is wider because it extends to:
Fundamental Rights + Other purposes
Trap 5
"Judicial Review means courts can replace any government policy they dislike."
False
Judicial Review primarily examines:
Constitutionality and legality
not merely policy preference.
Trap 6
"Judicial Review means judicial supremacy over the Constitution."
False
India follows:
Constitutional Supremacy
Trap 7
"Judicial Review of constitutional amendments began only with the Basic Structure Doctrine."
False
The Supreme Court considered the amending power in earlier cases including:
Shankari Prasad
Sajjan Singh
Golaknath
The Basic Structure Doctrine was established in:
Kesavananda Bharati, 1973
37. Quick Revision
JUDICIAL REVIEW
↓
Examine State Action
↓
Legislative
+
Executive
+
Administrative
+
Constitutional Amendments
↓
Constitutional Validity
ARTICLE 13
↓
Fundamental Rights
↓
Unconstitutional Law
↓
Void to extent of inconsistency
ARTICLE 32
↓
Supreme Court
↓
Fundamental Rights
ARTICLE 226
↓
High Courts
↓
Fundamental Rights
+
Other Purposes
KESAVANANDA BHARATI
↓
1973
↓
Basic Structure Doctrine
↓
Parliament Cannot Destroy
Basic Structure
JUDICIAL REVIEW
+
JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
↓
Constitutional Balance
38. Mains Answer Framework
Introduction
Define Judicial Review as the power of constitutional courts to examine the validity of legislative and executive action against the Constitution.
Constitutional Basis
Mention:
Article 13
Article 32
Article 226
Article 245
Article 246
Article 254
Article 368
Importance
Protects Fundamental Rights
Maintains Constitutional Supremacy
Upholds Rule of Law
Maintains federal balance
Checks arbitrary government action
Protects Basic Structure
Challenges
Judicial overreach concerns
Policy vs legality
Institutional boundaries
Increasing litigation
Way Forward
Judicial restraint
Clear constitutional reasoning
Respect for institutional boundaries
Timely adjudication
Consistent constitutional standards
Conclusion
Judicial Review is not a mechanism for judicial supremacy but a constitutional safeguard that ensures every organ of government remains within the limits prescribed by the Constitution.