Judicial Review of Legislative Actions: Expanding the Scope
- ByAdmin --
- 13 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
Judicial review is a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that legislative and executive actions remain within the bounds of constitutional propriety. Over the years, Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court, have broadened the ambit of judicial review to safeguard fundamental rights, uphold constitutional supremacy, and strengthen democratic accountability. This expansion reflects the dynamic interpretation of the Constitution to meet contemporary challenges.
Constitutional Foundation of Judicial Review
- Article 13:
Declares that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights shall be void.
- Article 32:
Empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Article 226:
Grants High Courts the power to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights.
- Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973):
Established that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited and cannot alter the “basic structure.”
Expanding the Scope of Judicial Review
Initially, judicial review primarily focused on checking legislative and executive actions against fundamental rights. Over time, its scope expanded significantly:
- Review of Constitutional Amendments:
Post Kesavananda Bharati, constitutional amendments are also subject to judicial review to ensure they do not violate the basic structure.
- Scrutiny of Legislative Competence:
Courts review whether legislatures have acted within their jurisdiction, based on the division of powers under the Seventh Schedule (Union, State, and Concurrent Lists).
- Substantive Review of Laws:
Not just procedural compliance but also the content of laws is examined to determine if they are arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory (Article 14).
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
Expanded access to courts for enforcing rights of marginalized sections and checking legislative inaction.
- Economic Legislation:
Earlier seen as beyond review, now laws regulating the economy are also scrutinized for reasonableness and fairness (see Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (1970)).
Important Judicial Developments
- Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980):
Reinforced that judicial review is a part of the basic structure and cannot be taken away.
- State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010):
Held that even laws relating to investigation and prosecution of crimes could be judicially reviewed if fundamental rights are at stake.
- Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016) (NJAC case):
Struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment as violating judicial independence, thus expanding review over laws altering judicial appointments.
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020):
The Court reviewed executive actions related to internet shutdowns against the touchstone of constitutional rights, indicating an expansive view of judicial review.
Key Principles Governing Judicial Review
- Presumption of Constitutionality:
Legislation is presumed valid until proven otherwise.
- Limited to Constitutional Grounds:
Courts do not question policy decisions unless they violate fundamental rights or constitutional provisions.
- Doctrine of Severability:
If part of a statute is unconstitutional, only that part is struck down unless it is inseparable.
- Doctrine of Eclipse:
Laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are not void ab initio but become dormant and can be revived if the inconsistency is removed.
Challenges and Criticisms
- Judicial Overreach:
Critics argue that excessive intervention by courts in policy matters undermines the separation of powers (Article 50, Directive Principles).
- Delay in Decision-Making:
Judicial review of complex laws sometimes leads to policy paralysis.
- Balancing Act:
Courts must carefully balance between enforcing constitutional mandates and respecting legislative wisdom.
Conclusion
Judicial review remains the bedrock of India's constitutional democracy. Its expanding scope signifies the judiciary's proactive role in preserving constitutional values and rights. However, courts must tread carefully to avoid encroaching into the domain of policymaking, ensuring that the delicate balance of powers envisaged by the Constitution is maintained. A vigilant but restrained judicial review strengthens democracy, protects rights, and ensures that legislative actions do not transgress constitutional limits.
RELATED Blog
0 comments