Meaning
Judicial review is the power of constitutional courts to examine the validity of legislative and executive actions and invalidate them if they violate the Constitution.
In India, judicial review is exercised primarily by the Supreme Court and High Courts.
It ensures that:
- Parliament and state legislatures remain within constitutional limits;
- executive authorities act according to law;
- fundamental rights are protected;
- the Constitution remains supreme.
Constitutional Basis
The Constitution does not place judicial review in a single provision. It emerges from several Articles, particularly:
- Article 13: laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of inconsistency;
- Article 32: empowers the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights;
- Article 226: empowers High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights and other legal rights;
- Articles 131–136: provide important jurisdictional powers to the Supreme Court;
- Articles 245–246: define legislative competence of Parliament and state legislatures.
Judicial review is therefore an inherent part of India’s constitutional structure.
Scope of Judicial Review
Courts may review:
Legislative Action
A law may be invalidated if it:
- violates Fundamental Rights;
- exceeds legislative competence;
- violates another constitutional provision;
- damages the Basic Structure where a constitutional amendment is involved.
Executive and Administrative Action
Administrative decisions may be reviewed for:
- illegality;
- arbitrariness;
- mala fide exercise of power;
- procedural impropriety;
- violation of natural justice;
- irrationality or unreasonableness;
- violation of Fundamental Rights.
Judicial review examines the legality of decision-making, not ordinarily the wisdom of the policy itself.
Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 is wide but not unlimited.
A constitutional amendment cannot destroy the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Elements recognised as part of the Basic Structure include:
- supremacy of the Constitution;
- judicial review;
- rule of law;
- secularism;
- federalism;
- separation of powers;
- democracy.
Thus, even constitutional amendments are subject to limited judicial review.
Major Cases
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973
Established the Basic Structure doctrine.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980
Held that limited amending power and judicial review are themselves part of the Basic Structure.
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997
Held that the power of judicial review of High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 forms part of the Basic Structure and cannot be excluded by ordinary legislation.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994
Confirmed that proclamation of President’s Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
Judicial Review and Judicial Activism
These concepts should be distinguished.
Judicial Review
A constitutionally recognised power to test governmental action against constitutional and legal standards.
Judicial Activism
A broader description of an assertive judicial approach in interpreting rights or issuing directions where institutional gaps exist.
Judicial activism is therefore a style or degree of judicial intervention, whereas judicial review is a constitutional power.
Limitations
Judicial review is not unlimited.
Courts generally avoid interfering in:
- purely political questions where no judicially manageable legal issue exists;
- policy choices merely because another policy may appear preferable;
- matters requiring specialised executive assessment, unless illegality or constitutional violation is shown.
Courts are also constrained by:
- separation of powers;
- institutional competence;
- evidentiary limitations;
- need for judicial restraint.
The objective is constitutional control, not judicial substitution of executive or legislative policy.
Significance
Judicial review is essential for:
- constitutional supremacy;
- protection of Fundamental Rights;
- federal balance;
- rule of law;
- prevention of arbitrary government;
- enforcement of constitutional limitations.
In a written Constitution with limited governmental powers, judicial review acts as a key institutional safeguard against unconstitutional exercise of authority.
Conclusion
Judicial review is the power of constitutional courts to ensure that legislative, executive and even constitutional-amending powers remain within constitutional limits. In India, it is not merely a judicial function but a recognised component of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
