The Judicial Review in India acts as a guardian of the Constitution. It allows courts to examine the validity of laws, executive actions, and amendments. This power ensures that all authorities function within constitutional limits.
What Is Judicial Review?
It is the power of courts to decide whether a law or executive act is constitutional. If it violates fundamental rights or goes beyond legal authority, courts can strike it down. This principle protects the Constitution from arbitrary or unlawful actions by the State.
Origin of Judicial Review in India
The Constitution does not use the exact phrase “judicial review.” Still, Articles 13, 32, 131–136, 143, 226, and 246 give courts this authority. The framers borrowed the concept from the American legal system, but tailored it to India’s parliamentary framework. Article 13(2) specifically bars the State from making any law that violates fundamental rights, giving a clear base for judicial review.
Scope
Indian courts can review three broad areas:
- Legislative actions – Reviewing laws passed by Parliament or state legislatures.
- Administrative actions – Examining government decisions, policies, or rules.
- Constitutional amendments – Ensuring that no amendment damages the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court and High Courts use this power to uphold democracy, protect citizens, and enforce accountability.
Important Case Laws
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its basic structure. Judicial review became a tool to protect the Constitution’s core principles.
The court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), held that limiting the power of judicial review itself was unconstitutional.
In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Court took a narrow view, but later shifted toward a broader interpretation in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), expanding the scope of Article 21.
Limits of Judicial Review
In India, this power is powerful but not unlimited. Courts cannot interfere in policy decisions unless they are arbitrary or violate rights. They do not question wisdom or necessity of laws, only legality. Judicial overreach—where courts interfere excessively in legislative or executive functions—remains a concern. Balance is key. Courts must act firmly yet cautiously to preserve separation of powers.
Judicial Review vs Judicial Activism
Judicial review checks if actions conform to the Constitution. It goes further—it tries to fill gaps where laws are silent or ineffective. While activism helps protect rights, it can also blur the line between law and governance. Courts must apply review, not rule the nation.
Conclusion: The Watchdog of the Constitution
It maintains constitutional supremacy. It checks misuse of power, defends civil liberties, and preserves the rule of law. But this tool works best when used wisely. Courts must interpret, not govern. Their job is to protect justice—without disrupting the balance of powers.
