Scope of judicial review in India
⚖️ Scope of Judicial Review in India
1. Introduction
Judicial Review is the power of the courts to examine the actions of the legislature and executive to ensure they conform to the Constitution. It acts as a check on the other organs of the state, safeguarding the supremacy of the Constitution.
Judicial Review in India is primarily concerned with:
The constitutionality of laws passed by Parliament or state legislatures.
The legality of executive actions, administrative decisions, and subordinate legislation.
Protection of fundamental rights.
2. Constitutional Basis
Article 13: Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights are void.
Articles 32 & 226: Writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts to enforce fundamental rights.
Article 136: Special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against any judgment.
Article 141: Binding nature of Supreme Court decisions.
Article 245-255: Law-making powers of Parliament and State Legislatures subject to constitutional limits.
Basic Structure Doctrine: Judicial Review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati).
3. Scope of Judicial Review
The courts can review:
(a) Legislative Actions:
Validity of laws passed by Parliament or State legislatures.
Whether laws violate fundamental rights or exceed legislative competence (Article 246).
Whether laws violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
(b) Executive Actions:
Administrative decisions, rules, regulations, and orders.
Abuse of power, arbitrariness, procedural fairness, and jurisdictional errors.
Violation of fundamental rights by executive action.
(c) Subordinate Legislation/Delegated Legislation:
Whether the delegated legislation conforms to the parent act.
Whether it is ultra vires or arbitrary.
4. Limitations on Judicial Review
Political questions doctrine (some political or policy decisions are non-justiciable).
Areas where the Constitution grants exclusive power (e.g., Presidential discretion).
Courts generally do not review the wisdom of legislative policy but focus on legality and constitutionality.
Certain ouster clauses limit judicial review, but courts interpret them narrowly.
5. Landmark Case Laws Explaining Scope of Judicial Review
Case 1: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
Facts: Challenge to the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, especially fundamental rights.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot alter its ‘basic structure’.
Scope: Judicial review extends to constitutional amendments to ensure they don’t violate the basic structure.
Significance: Established judicial review as part of the basic structure doctrine.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her a hearing.
Held: The Court expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) to include the right to fair procedure.
Scope: Judicial review includes examining procedural fairness in administrative action affecting fundamental rights.
Significance: Broadened the scope of judicial review to substantive due process, not merely procedural compliance.
Case 3: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262
Facts: The selection committee for appointing officers was alleged to be biased.
Held: The Supreme Court held that even if the statute does not expressly provide for a hearing, natural justice (fair play) is mandatory.
Scope: Judicial review ensures fairness and absence of bias in administrative decisions.
Significance: Expanded scope to ensure fair hearing and reasonable exercise of power.
Case 4: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1
Facts: Imposition of President’s rule in several states challenged.
Held: The Court laid down detailed guidelines for the exercise of Article 356 (President’s Rule) and held such actions are subject to judicial review.
Scope: Judicial review applies even to high executive discretion, like dismissal of State governments.
Significance: Reinforced judicial control over executive excess in federal matters.
Case 5: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545
Facts: Eviction of pavement dwellers challenged as violation of right to livelihood.
Held: Right to livelihood is a part of right to life under Article 21.
Scope: Judicial review protects socio-economic rights and not merely civil-political rights.
Significance: Expanded scope to review government actions affecting fundamental human rights broadly.
Case 6: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261
Facts: Validity of tribunals ousting High Court jurisdiction.
Held: Judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be ousted.
Scope: Courts can review decisions of administrative tribunals.
Significance: Strengthened judicial oversight over administrative adjudication.
Case 7: Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
Facts: Challenged rules for dismissal of government employees without inquiry.
Held: Judicial review includes ensuring procedural safeguards even in service matters.
Scope: Administrative actions violating principles of natural justice can be reviewed.
Significance: Emphasized fairness and due process in administrative decisions.
6. Types of Judicial Review in India
| Type | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Review | Validity of laws, constitutional amendments, fundamental rights. |
| Administrative Review | Review of executive or administrative actions for legality, fairness, reasonableness. |
| Subordinate Legislation | Review of rules and regulations made under statutory powers. |
| Quasi-judicial Review | Review of decisions made by tribunals and administrative bodies. |
7. Conclusion
Judicial review in India is wide-ranging and plays a pivotal role in upholding constitutionalism.
It covers legislative, executive, and administrative actions.
The judiciary safeguards fundamental rights, checks abuse of power, and preserves the basic structure of the Constitution.
However, judicial review respects the limitations of judicial competence and the separation of powers by not interfering in purely political or policy matters.
RELATED Blog
0 comments