Role Of Constitutional Courts In Reviewing Criminal Laws
I. Meaning of Constitutional Review in Criminal Law
Constitutional review is the power of Constitutional Courts to examine whether criminal laws made by the legislature or actions taken by the executive comply with the Constitution, especially Fundamental Rights.
Criminal laws directly affect:
Personal liberty
Dignity
Privacy
Equality before law
Therefore, courts closely scrutinize them.
II. Constitutional Provisions Involved
Constitutional Courts mainly review criminal laws under:
Article 14 – Equality before law (arbitrariness)
Article 19 – Freedoms (speech, movement, profession)
Article 21 – Life and personal liberty (due process)
Article 20 – Protection in criminal cases
III. Role of Constitutional Courts in Reviewing Criminal Laws
1. Ensuring Laws Are Not Arbitrary or Discriminatory
2. Protecting Personal Liberty and Due Process
3. Striking Down Unconstitutional Penal Provisions
4. Reading Down Laws to Save Constitutionality
5. Expanding Human Rights Jurisprudence
IV. Important Case Laws (Detailed)
1. State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952)
Issue:
Validity of a criminal law restricting freedom of association.
Role of Court:
The Supreme Court laid down the test of reasonableness for reviewing laws restricting fundamental rights.
Held:
Courts must examine nature of restriction, purpose, extent, and urgency.
Judicial review is essential to prevent abuse of criminal law.
Significance:
This case established that criminal restrictions are not immune from constitutional scrutiny.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Issue:
Whether “procedure established by law” under Article 21 allows unfair or arbitrary criminal procedures.
Role of Court:
The Supreme Court transformed Article 21.
Held:
Any law depriving liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Criminal laws and procedures must satisfy Articles 14, 19, and 21 together.
Significance:
Introduced substantive due process into Indian criminal law.
Gave courts power to invalidate harsh criminal procedures.
3. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)
Issue:
Constitutionality of mandatory death penalty under Section 303 IPC.
Role of Court:
Reviewed proportionality of punishment in criminal law.
Held:
Mandatory death sentence violates Articles 14 and 21.
Removes judicial discretion and is arbitrary.
Significance:
Courts can strike down cruel and disproportionate punishments.
Reinforced judicial oversight over sentencing laws.
4. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Issue:
Constitutionality of death penalty under IPC.
Role of Court:
Balanced individual rights with state interest.
Held:
Death penalty is constitutional only in the “rarest of rare” cases.
Courts must consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Significance:
Prevented arbitrary use of capital punishment.
Shows courts regulating, not just striking down, criminal laws.
5. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)
Issue:
Cruel treatment of prisoners and custodial torture.
Role of Court:
Extended constitutional protections inside prisons.
Held:
Prisoners do not lose fundamental rights.
Torture and inhuman treatment violate Article 21.
Significance:
Judicial review extends to execution of criminal law, not just statutes.
Humanized criminal justice system.
6. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Issue:
Validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act (criminalizing online speech).
Role of Court:
Reviewed vague and overbroad criminal provisions.
Held:
Section 66A was vague, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
Violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(a).
Significance:
Courts protect citizens from misuse of criminal law.
Set standards against vague penal provisions.
7. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Issue:
Constitutionality of Section 377 IPC (criminalizing consensual same-sex relations).
Role of Court:
Reviewed colonial-era criminal law using modern constitutional values.
Held:
Criminalizing consensual adult relationships violates Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Right to dignity and privacy must prevail.
Significance:
Courts act as guardians of minority rights.
Criminal law must evolve with constitutional morality.
8. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008)
Issue:
Criminal prohibition on women working in bars.
Role of Court:
Examined gender-based criminal restrictions.
Held:
Law based on stereotypes violates Article 14.
Protective discrimination cannot justify unreasonable criminal bans.
Significance:
Courts prevent misuse of criminal law to enforce social morality.
V. Methods Used by Courts While Reviewing Criminal Laws
Striking Down – Declaring the law unconstitutional
Reading Down – Narrowing interpretation to save the law
Guidelines – Issuing safeguards against misuse
Balancing Test – Individual rights vs state interest
VI. Conclusion
Constitutional Courts play a crucial and dynamic role in reviewing criminal laws by:
Preventing arbitrary state power
Protecting personal liberty and dignity
Ensuring punishments are humane and proportionate
Aligning criminal law with constitutional values
They act as the final guardians of justice, ensuring that criminal law serves society without violating fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
comments