Judicial Review in India: Meaning, Importance, and Landmark Cases

Judicial review is a cornerstone of India’s democratic system, allowing the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of laws and government actions. It ensures that the legislature and executive act within the framework of the Constitution, protecting citizens’ rights and maintaining the rule of law.

Judicial review empowers courts to strike down unconstitutional laws, policies, or executive actions, ensuring that no authority exceeds its powers. This system maintains the balance between the three pillars of democracy: the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.

What is Judicial Review?

In simple terms, judicial review is the power of courts to review legislation, regulations, and executive orders to ensure they conform to the Constitution of India.

Key features include:

• Acts as a check on arbitrary powers of the legislature and executive.

• Protects fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.

• Ensures rule of law by declaring unconstitutional laws or actions invalid.

Constitutional Basis:

• Article 13: Laws inconsistent with the Constitution are void.

• Articles 32 & 226: Empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to enforce fundamental rights.

• Article 141: Decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts in India.

Importance of Judicial Review

1. Protection of Fundamental Rights: Courts can strike down laws violating citizens’ fundamental rights.

2. Maintaining Constitutional Supremacy: Judicial review ensures all authorities act according to the Constitution.

3. Preventing Misuse of Power: It acts as a safeguard against arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the government.

4. Promoting Accountability: Government actions are subject to judicial scrutiny.

5. Safeguarding Democracy: Ensures a balance of power among legislature, executive, and judiciary.

Landmark Judicial Review Cases in India

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

• Key Point: Introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.

• Significance: Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its “basic structure,” including fundamental rights.

2. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

• Key Point: Judicial review applied to electoral disputes and government actions.

• Significance: Reinforced the principle that no one, including the Prime Minister, is above the Constitution.

3. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

• Key Point: Struck down constitutional amendments that violated the basic structure.

• Significance: Strengthened judicial review and emphasized balance of power between legislature and judiciary.

4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

• Key Point: Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

• Significance: Courts can review arbitrary government actions affecting personal liberty, reinforcing judicial review powers.

5. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

• Key Point: Judicial review of state government dismissal under Article 356.

• Significance: Limited misuse of Article 356, strengthening federalism in India.

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

• Key Point: Judicial review of laws placed under the 9th Schedule.

• Significance: Laws in the 9th Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution.

Conclusion

Judicial review in India is a powerful tool to uphold the Constitution, protect fundamental rights, and prevent misuse of power. Landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills, and S.R. Bommai demonstrate how judicial review ensures that democracy functions effectively and the rule of law is maintained.