Judicial Review

1. Meaning and Concept of Judicial Review #

Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality and legality of legislative enactments, executive actions, and administrative decisions, and to declare them void or inoperative if they violate the Constitution.

In simple terms, judicial review acts as a constitutional safeguard, ensuring that:

• The Legislature does not exceed its law-making powers,

• The Executive acts within the limits of law, and

• Fundamental Rights and constitutional principles are protected.

Judicial review is not expressly defined in the Indian Constitution, but it is implicit in the constitutional scheme and has been firmly established through judicial interpretation.

2. Origin of Judicial Review – United States of America #

The doctrine of judicial review originated in the United States and was judicially recognized in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

This case laid the foundation of judicial review worldwide, influencing constitutional democracies, including India.

3. Marbury v. Madison (1803) #

Facts:
In the last days of President John Adams’ term, several judicial appointments were made. William Marbury was appointed as a Justice of the Peace, but his commission was not delivered. When Thomas Jefferson became President, his Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver Marbury’s commission. Marbury approached the Supreme Court directly, seeking a writ of mandamus under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, 1789.

Issues:

1. Did Marbury have a legal right to the commission?

2. Was there a legal remedy available to him?

3. Could the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus under Section 13 of the Judiciary Act?

Held:

• Marbury had a legal right to his commission.

• A legal remedy was available.

• However, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, 1789, which authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus in original jurisdiction, was unconstitutional, as it expanded the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what was provided in the U.S. Constitution.

Principle Established:
For the first time, a court declared an Act of the Legislature unconstitutional and void, thereby firmly establishing the doctrine of judicial review. Chief Justice John Marshall famously held that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

4. Judicial Review in the Indian Constitutional Framework #

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Indian Constitution does not contain a single express provision titled “Judicial Review.” However, the power is clearly implied through multiple provisions, including:

• Article 13 – Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights are void.

• Articles 32 and 226 – Empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue writs.

• Articles 131–136 – Provide appellate and original jurisdiction.

• Articles 245–246 – Limit legislative competence.

Judicial review in India covers:

1. Legislative actions (ordinary laws and constitutional amendments),

2. Executive actions, and

3. Administrative decisions.

Over time, the Supreme Court of India has held that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away even by a constitutional amendment.

5. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) #

Facts:
Swami Kesavananda Bharati, head of a religious mutt in Kerala, challenged the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Constitutional Amendment Acts, which curtailed the right to property and sought to limit judicial review over constitutional amendments.

Issues:

1. Whether Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution under Article 368.

2. Whether Fundamental Rights can be amended or abrogated.

3. Whether there are any inherent limitations on the amending power of Parliament.

Held:

• Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution.

• However, Parliament cannot alter or destroy the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.

• Judicial review was recognized as an essential feature of the basic structure.

Significance:
This case propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, holding that constitutional supremacy would collapse if courts lacked the power to review constitutional amendments. Judicial review thus became a permanent and inviolable feature of Indian constitutional law.

6. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) #

Facts:
Minerva Mills challenged the validity of Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, which:

• Gave primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights, and

• Excluded judicial review of constitutional amendments.

Issues:

1. Whether Parliament could exclude judicial review of constitutional amendments.

2. Whether giving absolute primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights was constitutional.

Held:

• Clauses excluding judicial review were unconstitutional.

• Limited amending power and judicial review are part of the basic structure.

• Harmony and balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is a core constitutional value.

Principle Established:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial review cannot be abolished, and that Parliament cannot convert a limited Constitution into an unlimited one.

7. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) #

Facts:
The case concerned laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment, which were traditionally immune from judicial review under Article 31B.

Issues:

1. Whether laws inserted into the Ninth Schedule after 24 April 1973 are immune from judicial review.

2. Whether such laws can violate the basic structure.

Held:

• Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after Kesavananda Bharati are subject to judicial review.

• If such laws violate Fundamental Rights forming part of the basic structure, they can be struck down.

Importance:
The Court ensured that judicial review itself cannot be neutralized indirectly by constitutional devices like the Ninth Schedule. This judgment strengthened constitutional supremacy and reinforced judicial review as a guardian of the basic structure.

8. Conclusion #

Judicial review is the cornerstone of constitutional governance. From its origin in Marbury v. Madison to its robust evolution in India through Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills, and I.R. Coelho, judicial review has ensured:

• Supremacy of the Constitution,

• Protection of Fundamental Rights,

• Maintenance of federal balance, and

• Prevention of arbitrary exercise of power.

In the Indian context, judicial review is not merely a power, but a constitutional duty of the judiciary, forming an inseparable part of the basic structure of the Constitution.