Judicial review means:
The power of constitutional courts to examine legislative, executive and, in appropriate cases, other public actions to determine whether they conform to the Constitution.
Its central purpose is:
To preserve constitutional supremacy and protect Fundamental Rights.
Judicial review is not confined to a single Article.
It is supported by:
India follows:
Constitutional supremacy,
not:
Parliamentary sovereignty.
Judicial review ensures:
Legislature + Executive remain within constitutional limits.
Article 13 provides that:
Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of inconsistency.
Article 13 is a major constitutional basis for:
Reviewing legislation against Fundamental Rights.
Existing laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights become:
Void to the extent of inconsistency.
The State cannot make:
Laws taking away or abridging Fundamental Rights,
and any such law is:
Void to the extent of contravention.
Article 32 provides:
Right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar described:
Article 32
as the:
"heart and soul" of the Constitution.
High Courts can issue writs for:
Fundamental Rights + other legal rights.
Supreme Court + Fundamental Rights.
High Courts + Fundamental Rights + other legal rights.
A High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction:
Even when a matter does not involve a Fundamental Right,
provided an appropriate legal right or public-law issue exists.
Judicial review can examine:
Whether legislation is constitutionally valid.
Whether administrative/executive action is lawful and constitutional.
Whether subordinate legislation stays within the parent Act and Constitution.
Courts may examine:
Articles 245–246 distribute legislative powers between:
Union + States.
Parliament and State Legislatures may make laws:
Within their respective constitutional territorial and legislative spheres.
Distributes legislative subjects through:
Courts can determine:
Whether a legislature has competence to enact a law.
Where Union and State laws conflict in a Concurrent List matter:
Article 254
provides the constitutional framework.
Courts examine whether:
State action unjustifiably restricts protected rights.
Review may examine:
Equality + arbitrariness.
Review may examine:
Whether restrictions are constitutionally permissible and reasonable.
Review may examine:
Whether deprivation of life/liberty follows constitutionally valid and fair procedure.
Modern rights review increasingly uses:
Proportionality.
The Court may consider:
Early approach:
Narrow interpretation of procedure established by law.
The Supreme Court later held:
Procedure must be fair, just and reasonable.
Judicial review under Articles 14, 19 and 21 became:
More substantive and rights-protective.
Articles:
14 + 19 + 21
are closely interrelated in modern constitutional review.
The Supreme Court held:
Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited.
Judicial review therefore extends to:
Constitutional amendments,
but the test is:
Whether the amendment damages the Basic Structure.
Judicial review does not mean:
Courts can reject any constitutional amendment merely because they disagree with its policy.
Examples include:
In:
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980,
the Supreme Court reaffirmed:
Limited amending power
and:
Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
Courts review:
Constitutionality,
but should not normally:
Replace legislative policy choices with judicial preferences.
Judicial activism refers broadly to:
Expansive judicial interpretation in defence of constitutional values.
Judicial overreach is criticism that:
Courts have crossed from constitutional interpretation into policy-making.
Judicial review requires:
Strong rights protection + institutional restraint.
Courts can invalidate:
Unconstitutional laws.
Courts can invalidate or set aside:
Unlawful executive action.
Courts may intervene where discretion is:
Traditional administrative review examines whether an administrative decision is:
So unreasonable that it falls outside the range of lawful decision-making.
Judicial review can examine compliance with:
Common grounds include:
Illegality.
Irrationality.
Procedural impropriety.
Proportionality.
Mala fides.
Arbitrariness.
Judicial review is not generally:
A complete re-hearing on the merits of the administrative decision.
Court may reconsider merits within the appellate power.
Court examines legality, constitutionality and decision-making process.
Article 122 provides:
Courts should not question parliamentary proceedings merely on grounds of procedural irregularity.
Provides corresponding protection concerning:
State Legislature proceedings.
These provisions do not create:
Unlimited immunity from all constitutional review.
In:
Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha, 2007,
the Supreme Court recognised:
Limited judicial review of parliamentary action in appropriate cases.
The:
Keshav Singh case, 1965
demonstrated tension between:
Parliamentary privilege
and:
Judicial power.
The Speaker's constitutional decisions may be:
Subject to judicial review in appropriate circumstances.
In matters under the:
Tenth Schedule,
courts can review the Speaker's decision after it is made, subject to the applicable judicial framework.
Constitutional actions of the Governor may be reviewed where:
Constitutional limits are breached.
Governor-related disputes concerning:
Bills passed by State Legislatures
have become a significant federal judicial-review issue.
The Supreme Court strengthened judicial review of:
Article 356 proclamations.
Where legislative majority is disputed:
Floor test
is an important constitutional mechanism.
Emergency powers are:
Constitutional powers,
not:
Unlimited powers.
The Emergency-era decision demonstrated:
The danger of inadequate judicial protection of liberty.
The approach associated with:
ADM Jabalpur
was subsequently repudiated.
In:
Puttaswamy, 2017,
the Supreme Court expressly recognised the error associated with:
ADM Jabalpur.
The Court recognised:
Privacy as a Fundamental Right.
State surveillance can be reviewed for:
Legality + legitimate aim + proportionality.
In:
PUCL v. Union of India,
the Court laid down safeguards regarding:
Telephone interception.
The Supreme Court held that:
Internet-mediated expression is constitutionally protected.
Judicial review can examine:
Legal basis + necessity + proportionality + procedural compliance.
AI-generated or algorithmic State decisions remain:
Subject to constitutional review.
A government cannot avoid constitutional responsibility by saying:
"The algorithm made the decision."
Courts have used constitutional and environmental principles to review:
Important doctrines:
The NGT provides:
Specialized environmental adjudication.
But:
Judicial review by constitutional courts remains important within their respective jurisdiction.
Courts may review:
Constitutional and statutory reservation policies
for:
The Supreme Court upheld:
103rd Constitutional Amendment.
The Supreme Court permitted:
Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes,
subject to constitutional conditions.
Courts may examine:
State regulation of religious practices
within:
Articles 25–26 + other Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court has developed:
Essential Religious Practices doctrine
to identify practices receiving constitutional protection.
A major concern is:
Courts becoming arbiters of theology.
Judicial review can examine:
Statutory personal-law provisions
for compatibility with:
Tribunal decisions remain:
Subject to judicial review by constitutional courts.
In:
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997,
the Supreme Court held that:
Judicial review by High Courts under Article 226/227 and Supreme Court under Article 32 is part of the Basic Structure.
Parliament cannot:
Completely exclude constitutional judicial review.
Tribunals may provide:
Specialized adjudication,
but:
They cannot replace the constitutional role of High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Article 136 gives the Supreme Court:
Special leave to appeal
from judgments/orders of:
Courts and tribunals,
subject to constitutional and judicial principles.
Judicial review is:
A constitutional check.
Judicial power is:
The broader judicial function of deciding cases and controversies.
Judicial review reinforces:
Rule of law
by ensuring:
Public authorities do not exceed lawful constitutional limits.
Effective review requires:
Independent judiciary + reasoned judgments + procedural fairness.
Critics argue:
Unelected judges can override decisions of elected institutions.
Supporters argue:
Constitutional democracy requires an independent institution capable of protecting rights against majoritarian excess.
Judicial review creates:
Tension between democratic majority rule
and:
Constitutional protection of rights.
India attempts to balance this through:
Constitutional text + Fundamental Rights + judicial review + parliamentary democracy.
Parliamentary sovereignty.
Constitutional supremacy.
Temporary doctrinal position:
Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights.
Established:
Amendment permitted, but Basic Structure cannot be destroyed.
Reinforced:
Limited amending power.
The Court held:
Judicial independence is part of Basic Structure.
The NJAC framework was therefore:
Struck down.
This creates two levels of constitutional review:
Fundamental Rights + constitutional provisions.
Basic Structure test.
Courts use methods including:
Indian constitutional interpretation has often treated the Constitution as:
A living document capable of adapting to changing circumstances.
Important principle:
Courts should not unnecessarily interfere with legitimate policy choices within constitutional bounds.
In technically complex matters, courts may consider:
Institutional expertise + scientific evidence + administrative competence.
Courts may show:
Greater restraint
where:
The Constitution leaves broad policy discretion to elected institutions.
Deference does not mean:
Abdication of constitutional review.
The constitutional balance is:
Review legality,
not:
Govern the country.
Effective judicial review requires:
Accessible constitutional remedies.
Supreme Court.
High Courts.
PIL expanded access to judicial review for:
Public injuries and rights affecting disadvantaged communities.
PIL made judicial review:
More accessible beyond traditional adversarial litigation.
Potential risks include:
Courts have:
Contempt powers
to protect administration of justice.
But:
These powers are also subject to constitutional limitations.
The constitutional balance is:
Legislative autonomy + constitutional review.
Protect judicial independence.
Ensure transparent judicial functioning.
Reduce constitutional litigation delays.
Avoid replacing policy choices unnecessarily.
Strengthen legitimacy through clear constitutional reasoning.
Develop safeguards for AI-generated legal material and digital evidence.
The strongest UPSC formulation is:
"Judicial review is the constitutional mechanism through which limited government becomes enforceable: it protects constitutional supremacy and individual rights while requiring courts to exercise power with institutional restraint."
Judicial review is the power of constitutional courts to examine legislative and executive action for conformity with the Constitution. It is a foundational feature of India's constitutional supremacy and a major safeguard for Fundamental Rights.
A.K. Gopalan → Early Article 21.
Maneka Gandhi → Fair procedure.
Kesavananda Bharati → Basic Structure.
Minerva Mills → Limited amending power.
L. Chandra Kumar → Judicial review as Basic Structure.
S.R. Bommai → Article 356 review.
Raja Ram Pal → Parliamentary action.
Puttaswamy → Privacy.
Anuradha Bhasin → Internet restrictions.
NJAC Case → Judicial independence.
Judicial review should remain neither an unrestricted judicial veto nor a weak formal power. Its constitutional legitimacy lies in protecting the supremacy of the Constitution while respecting the democratic and institutional space of the legislature and executive.
