Courts and Judicial Review

The Constitution of India establishes the basis for the Indian judicial system. India’s federal structure divides legislative authority between the Centre and States. Judicial Review is a cornerstone of Indian democracy, empowering the courts to act as guardians of the Constitution. Judicial Review safeguards the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, like freedom of speech and equality. If a law restricts these rights unreasonably, the courts can strike it down.

Key Takeaways:

• The Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention “judicial review,” but it’s implied through various articles like Article 13, Article 32, and Articles 136, 142, and 226.
• Judicial Review is not about judging the wisdom of a law but its constitutionality.
• It prevents any one branch of government (legislature, executive, or judiciary) from becoming too powerful. By checking the others, judicial review upholds a balance.

• It’s the process by which the Supreme Court and High Courts examine the actions of the legislature (lawmakers) and executive (government) to ensure they comply with the Constitution.
• Judicial Review refers to a court’s evaluation of an executive or legislative act, such as a statute or administrative judgment, to determine if it violates the Constitution.
• In certain nations, such as the United States, France, and Canada, judicial review permits courts to reject laws or executive acts that violate the Constitution.
• In the United Kingdom, judicial review powers are limited; courts do not have the jurisdiction to overturn or invalidate parliamentary legislation. Similarly, there may be other nations where courts have different kinds of limits and can review only one branch.

• One of the most important aspects of the Indian Constitution is judicial review, which has contributed to the preservation of the document’s supremacy, ideals, and guiding principles.
• The Supreme Court and the High Courts of several states have the authority to conduct judicial reviews of legislative and administrative decisions.
• This authority has mostly been used to uphold and defend constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. Judicial Review has also been utilized, although less frequently, in cases involving legislative competence related to center-state relations.
• Courts have applied theories including “proportionality,” “legitimate expectation,” “reasonableness,” and the “principles of natural justice” with regard to judicial scrutiny of executive or administrative activities.
• The scope of judicial review in Indian courts focuses on three key issues:
  • Constitutional Protection of Fundamental Rights;
  • Legislative Competence of the Center and States;
  • Fairness in Executive Actions.

• Most democratic nations’ constitutions have a partial or complete system of horizontal separation of powers between the three parts of government, or the state: legislative, executive, and judicial.
• The separation of powers theory establishes different authorities and responsibilities for each branch of government, following the Constitution’s organizational structure.
• The Constitution establishes checks and balances to prevent one branch from overstepping its authority or abusing its powers. India adheres to the system of power division between the three arms of government as outlined in the Indian Constitution. India is a parliamentary republic.
• The executive division is made up of the Prime Minister, the President, and the bureaucracy. The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, the two chambers of Parliament, make up the legislative branch.
• The Supreme Court is the last arbiter of constitutional interpretation in the judiciary, which operates independently of the other two institutions.

Judicial Review is not about judging the wisdom of a law but its constitutionality. The scope of judicial review in India is considered narrower compared to some countries. India’s judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding the Constitution and safeguarding citizens’s rights through judicial review. Individuals or groups can file petitions challenging a law or government action in the High Court or the Supreme Court. The courts then examine the case and decide if the law or action violates the Constitution. If found unconstitutional, the court declares it null and void.

What are some reasons for judicial review?

• Protect Fundamental Rights
• Ensure due process.
• Prevent Misuse of Power

How does someone challenge a law through judicial review?

Individuals or groups that think that legislation or government action infringes on their basic rights may file a petition with the High Court or the Supreme Court.

What happens during a judicial review process?

The courts will weigh both parties’ arguments and investigate the law or action in issue. They will apply appropriate legal concepts to decide if it violates the Constitution.

What happens if the Court declares something unconstitutional?

If the Court determines that the law or action breaches the Constitution, it may declare it “void” or “ultra vires” (beyond legal authority). This indicates that the law or action is no longer legally enforceable.

Can courts rewrite laws during judicial review?

No. The court’s function is to overturn unlawful provisions, not to rewrite the entire legislation. The legislature may then be required to change the legislation to ensure compliance with the Constitution.

Is judicial review about judging the quality of a law?

No. Courts do not determine whether a statute is a good or terrible policy choice. They only consider it if it violates the Constitution.

Are there any limitations to judicial review?

• Jurisdiction: Judicial Review is limited to the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
• Time Constraints: There are time constraints for submitting a petition for judicial review.
• Alternative Remedies: If another legal remedy exists, the court may reject a judicial review petition.