Judicial review is one of the strongest pillars of Indian democracy. It is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative

Judicial Review in India – Meaning, Scope, and Contemporary Relevance

Judicial review is one of the strongest pillars of Indian democracy. It is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive actions, and to declare them invalid if they conflict with the Constitution of India. This power ensures that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land and that no authority—whether Parliament, state legislature, or government—can act beyond the limits set by it.

The concept of judicial review is not unique to India. It originated in the United States in the famous Marbury v. Madison (1803) case and has been adopted in varying forms by many constitutional democracies. In India, however, judicial review has acquired a distinct and vital character. 

The Supreme Court and the High Courts act as guardians of the Constitution, ensuring that laws and administrative actions are fair, just, and reasonable, and that the fundamental rights of citizens remain protected.

Over time, Indian courts have used judicial review not only to strike down unconstitutional laws but also to expand and deepen fundamental rights, making it a dynamic tool for justice. At the same time, they have laid down principles of judicial restraint, reminding themselves that the judiciary must not encroach on the functions of the legislature and executive.

---

Historical Development of Judicial Review in India

The roots of judicial review in India can be traced to both British colonial governance and the U.S. constitutional model. Under British rule, courts occasionally checked executive actions through writs like habeas corpus and mandamus, but Parliament remained supreme.

When India adopted its Constitution in 1950, the framers deliberately chose constitutional supremacy instead of parliamentary supremacy. They provided for fundamental rights enforceable by courts and gave the judiciary the authority to strike down laws and executive actions that violate the Constitution.

The early decades of the Republic saw important tests of this power. In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), the Supreme Court initially allowed Parliament wide powers to amend the Constitution. But in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) the Court held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, setting the stage for a constitutional showdown.

The decisive moment came in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), when a 13-judge bench formulated the basic structure doctrine. The Court ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure, which includes fundamental rights, the rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review itself. This doctrine remains the bedrock of Indian constitutionalism and a shining example of judicial review in action.

---

Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review

The Constitution of India provides a clear textual foundation for judicial review, unlike some countries where it is implied. Key provisions include:

• Article 13: Declares that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights shall be void.

• Article 32: Gives the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called Article 32 the “heart and soul of the Constitution”.

• Article 226: Grants similar writ jurisdiction to High Courts, not only for fundamental rights but also for other legal rights.

• Articles 131–136: Confer wide powers on the Supreme Court to decide disputes between the Centre and the states and to hear appeals involving constitutional questions.

• Articles 245, 246, 251 and 254: Define the legislative competence of Parliament and state legislatures and provide for review when a law exceeds that competence or conflicts with central law.

Together, these provisions make it clear that judicial review is not an implied power but an express constitutional mandate in India.

---

Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial review in India operates at three major levels, giving courts a broad supervisory role over governance.

Review of Legislative Actions

The judiciary has the power to strike down parliamentary or state laws if they violate the Constitution. This includes checking whether:

• The law violates fundamental rights.

• The law exceeds the legislature’s authority as defined in the Seventh Schedule.

• The law breaches the basic structure of the Constitution.

Examples include the Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills judgments, where constitutional amendments were partly invalidated for violating the basic structure.

Review of Executive Actions

The courts can also review administrative and executive decisions to ensure they are not arbitrary, unreasonable, or mala fide. For instance, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court struck down the government’s arbitrary restriction on the petitioner’s right to travel abroad, expanding the meaning of personal liberty under Article 21.

Review of Judicial Decisions

Finally, the Supreme Court has the power to review its own judgments under Article 137 and entertain curative petitions to correct gross miscarriages of justice. High Courts also have limited review powers over their decisions.

---

Key Supreme Court Judgments on Judicial Review

Over the decades, the Supreme Court has delivered landmark judgments that define and expand the scope of judicial review.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

This is the cornerstone of constitutional law in India. The Court held that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution does not include the power to destroy its basic structure. Judicial review itself was held to be part of that basic structure, making it immune even from constitutional amendment.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)

The Court struck down a constitutional amendment that sought to immunize the election of the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny, reaffirming that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure.

Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)

The Court invalidated parts of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, stressing that a balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles is part of the basic structure and beyond Parliament’s amending power.

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

The Court held that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973 (the date of Kesavananda) are open to judicial review if they violate the basic structure.

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

Reaffirming the vitality of judicial review, the Court declared the right to privacy a fundamental right, striking down provisions of law that infringed it without due process.

These and many other judgments show how judicial review has continuously evolved to protect liberty, equality, and the rule of law.

---

Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights

Judicial review is closely linked to fundamental rights. Articles 32 and 226 give citizens the right to move the Supreme Court or High Courts directly for protection of these rights. Over time, the Supreme Court has expanded the meaning of key rights:

• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) has been interpreted to include right to livelihood, health, education, privacy, and a clean environment.

• Article 14 (Equality before the Law) has been used to strike down arbitrary or discriminatory laws.

• Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression) has been defended through strict scrutiny of censorship laws.

Through judicial review, these rights have become living guarantees of dignity and justice.

---

Judicial Review, Judicial Activism, and Judicial Overreach

Judicial review must be distinguished from judicial activism and judicial overreach.

• Judicial review is the constitutional duty of the courts to examine the validity of laws and executive actions.

• Judicial activism refers to proactive measures by courts to fill legislative gaps or direct government policy, often in response to public interest petitions.

• Judicial overreach occurs when courts cross the line and start performing legislative or executive functions, inviting criticism of violating the separation of powers.

Indian courts have repeatedly stated that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, but they have also emphasized the need for self-restraint to maintain harmony among the three organs of government.

---

Significance of Judicial Review in a Democracy

Judicial review serves several vital functions in Indian democracy:

• Guardian of the Constitution: Ensures that the Constitution remains supreme and that all organs of government act within its limits.

• Protector of Fundamental Rights: Prevents violations of basic rights and liberties.

• Maintainer of Rule of Law: Ensures that no authority acts arbitrarily or beyond the law.

• Balancer of Federalism: Resolves disputes between the Centre and states and maintains the constitutional distribution of powers.

• Check on Absolute Power: Prevents authoritarianism by keeping the legislature and executive accountable.

Without judicial review, constitutional guarantees would remain mere words on paper.

---

Criticism and Limitations

Despite its importance, judicial review has faced criticism:

• It is sometimes seen as undemocratic, as unelected judges can strike down laws passed by elected representatives.

• Critics accuse courts of judicial overreach, especially when they issue directions on policy matters.

• The process can be slow and costly, causing delays in justice.

• In rare cases, conflicting judgments have created uncertainty.

Nevertheless, most scholars and citizens agree that judicial review is indispensable for protecting constitutional values and preventing abuse of power.

---

Contemporary Relevance

Judicial review continues to play a crucial role in modern India. In recent years, the Supreme Court has used this power to decide cases on digital privacy (Puttaswamy, Aadhaar), environmental protection (clean air and rivers), electoral reforms, and reservation policies.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, courts used judicial review to monitor government action on health care, migrant workers, and vaccination policy, ensuring that emergency measures remained consistent with fundamental rights.

The increasing complexity of governance—from data surveillance and artificial intelligence to climate change and global trade—makes judicial review more relevant than ever as a check on power and a guarantor of citizens’ rights.

---

Conclusion

Judicial review is the heart of the Indian Constitution. By giving the Supreme Court and High Courts the power to strike down unconstitutional laws and actions, the framers ensured that no authority can override the Constitution.

Over the decades, through landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills, I.R. Coelho, and Puttaswamy, judicial review has protected the basic structure of the Constitution, fundamental rights, and the rule of law. It has also evolved to meet new challenges such as environmental degradation, digital privacy, and social justice.

While concerns about judicial overreach remain, the absence of judicial review would leave citizens vulnerable to arbitrary government power and legislative excess. As India continues to grow as a constitutional democracy, judicial review will remain the ultimate safeguard of liberty, equality, and constitutional supremacy, ensuring that the promise of justice in the Preamble is not just an aspiration but a living reality.