What is the constitutional basis of judicial review in India?

Judicial review in India derives its constitutional basis from multiple provisions, though not explicitly stated. Article 13 forms the primary foundation by declaring that laws violating fundamental rights shall be void. Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to enforce fundamental rights through writs, while Article 226 grants similar powers to High Courts. Articles 136, 141, and 142 provide additional jurisdictional powers. The Supreme Court's role as constitutional interpreter under Article 141 and its power to ensure constitutional compliance make judicial review an implied but essential constitutional feature. Unlike the US Constitution, which doesn't explicitly mention judicial review either, India's Constitution provides clearer textual support through these provisions.

How does the basic structure doctrine limit judicial review?

The basic structure doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), creates a unique limitation on judicial review in India. While it empowers courts to review constitutional amendments, it also constrains judicial power by preventing courts from altering the Constitution's basic structure themselves. The doctrine identifies certain fundamental features like democratic governance, federal structure, secular character, and separation of powers as unchangeable. This means courts cannot review or strike down these core elements, creating a balance between judicial supremacy and constitutional stability. The doctrine thus limits both parliamentary power to amend and judicial power to interpret, ensuring constitutional continuity while allowing evolutionary change.

What is the difference between judicial review in India and the USA?

Judicial review in India and the USA differs significantly in origin, scope, and limitations. In the USA, judicial review emerged from judicial interpretation in Marbury v. Madison (1803) without explicit constitutional provision, while India's judicial review has clearer constitutional foundations in Articles 13, 32, and 226. The American model allows complete review of constitutional amendments, whereas India's basic structure doctrine limits such review. Indian judicial review is more expansive in scope, covering administrative actions more comprehensively through PIL and Article 226. The US system emphasizes individual rights protection, while India balances individual rights with social justice through directive principles. Additionally, Indian courts exercise more proactive jurisdiction through suo moto powers and social action litigation.

Can the Supreme Court review its own judgments under judicial review?

The Supreme Court can review its own judgments through specific mechanisms, but this is distinct from judicial review of legislative or executive actions. Under Article 137, the Court can review its judgments to correct apparent errors, but this power is limited and rarely used. The Court can also reconsider constitutional interpretations through larger benches, as seen when the Kesavananda Bharati case overruled aspects of earlier judgments. However, the Court cannot use judicial review to examine its own judicial decisions in the same way it reviews laws or executive actions. The doctrine of precedent (stare decisis) generally binds the Court to its earlier decisions, though constitutional interpretations can evolve through larger bench decisions that clarify or modify previous rulings.

What are the limitations on judicial review power in India?

Judicial review in India operates within several constitutional and self-imposed limitations. The basic structure doctrine prevents courts from reviewing constitutional amendments that form the Constitution's core framework. The political question doctrine limits review of matters involving high policy or political discretion. Procedural limitations include requirements of standing, justiciability, and ripeness for judicial intervention. Courts also observe principles of judicial restraint, presumption of constitutionality, and deference to legislative wisdom in policy matters. The separation of powers doctrine prevents judicial encroachment into legislative and executive domains. Additionally, certain constitutional provisions like Article 31C (though partially struck down) and the Ninth Schedule (with limitations post-Coelho) provide some immunity from judicial review.

How has judicial review evolved since independence?

Judicial review in India has evolved through distinct phases since independence. The initial phase (1950-1967) showed judicial restraint with decisions like Shankari Prasad accepting unlimited parliamentary power to amend the Constitution. The second phase began with Golak Nath (1967), which restricted parliamentary power over fundamental rights. The transformative phase came with Kesavananda Bharati (1973), establishing the basic structure doctrine that balanced parliamentary sovereignty with constitutional supremacy. The expansion phase saw increased judicial activism through PIL, environmental protection, and social justice interventions. Recent developments include review of the collegium system, technology-related constitutional issues, and pandemic-era governance challenges. This evolution reflects the judiciary's growing confidence in constitutional interpretation while adapting to changing social and political contexts.

What is the role of judicial review in protecting fundamental rights?

Judicial review serves as the primary mechanism for protecting fundamental rights in India's constitutional framework. Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo-warranto) for fundamental rights enforcement, making it the 'guardian of the Constitution.' Courts examine laws and executive actions against fundamental rights standards, striking down violations under Article 13. The expansion of judicial review through PIL has democratized access to constitutional remedies, allowing public interest litigation for marginalized groups. Judicial review also protects fundamental rights from majoritarian tyranny by reviewing legislative actions that might violate minority rights or individual liberties. The doctrine ensures that no authority, including Parliament, can completely abrogate fundamental rights, maintaining the Constitution's supremacy in rights protection.

How does judicial review relate to separation of powers?

Judicial review embodies the principle of separation of powers by enabling the judiciary to check legislative and executive actions for constitutional compliance. It prevents concentration of power in any single branch by allowing courts to review laws passed by the legislature and actions taken by the executive. However, judicial review also creates tension within separation of powers when courts are perceived as overstepping into policy-making domains. The basic structure doctrine maintains this balance by limiting judicial power while preserving constitutional supremacy. Courts exercise self-restraint through doctrines like political questions and deference to legislative judgment in policy matters. The challenge lies in maintaining judicial independence for constitutional interpretation while respecting democratic governance and institutional boundaries established by the separation of powers principle.

What is the significance of the Ninth Schedule in judicial review?

The Ninth Schedule, introduced by the First Amendment in 1951, was designed to protect certain laws from judicial review by placing them beyond the scope of fundamental rights challenges. Initially, laws in the Ninth Schedule enjoyed complete immunity from judicial review, as established in Shankari Prasad. However, the I.R. Coelho case (2007) significantly changed this position by ruling that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment (April 24, 1973) could be subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution. This development shows the evolution of judicial review, where even constitutional provisions designed to limit judicial power have been subjected to constitutional scrutiny. The Ninth Schedule thus represents the ongoing tension between legislative sovereignty and judicial review in Indian constitutional law.

How do High Courts exercise judicial review powers?

High Courts exercise judicial review powers primarily through Article 226, which grants them broader writ jurisdiction than the Supreme Court's Article 32 powers. High Courts can issue writs not only for fundamental rights violations but also for any other purpose, making their judicial review power more expansive in scope. They review state laws, local government actions, and administrative decisions for constitutional and legal validity. High Courts also exercise judicial review through ordinary civil and criminal jurisdiction when constitutional questions arise. Their decisions on judicial review can be appealed to the Supreme Court under Articles 132, 133, and 136. The federal structure ensures that High Courts serve as the first line of constitutional protection, with the Supreme Court providing final constitutional interpretation. This two-tier system strengthens judicial review by providing accessible constitutional remedies at the state level.

← ALL TOPICS

Indian Polity & Governance

NEXT TOPIC →

Composition and Jurisdiction

Judicial Review

Indian Polity & Governance

Constitution VerifiedUPSC Verified

Version 1Updated 5 Mar 2026

Explore This Topic

Definition Detailed Explanation Landmark Judgments Basic Structure Amendments UPSC Importance Prelims Strategy Mains Strategy Prelims MCQs Mains Questions MCQ Practice Predicted 2026 Revision Notes Current Affairs

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution states: 'The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.' Article 32 declares the right to constitutional remedies as the 'heart and soul' of the Constitution, empowering the Supreme Court to issue writs for enfor…

Quick Summary

Judicial review is the power of courts, particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts, to examine and determine the constitutional validity of laws and executive actions. Though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it derives from Articles 13, 32, and 226.

The doctrine operates on three levels: reviewing constitutional amendments (limited by basic structure doctrine), legislative actions (laws passed by Parliament and state legislatures), and administrative actions (executive decisions and policies).

The evolution of judicial review shows distinct phases: initial restraint (Shankari Prasad, 1951), expansion (Golak Nath, 1967), and balance through the basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).

Key limitations include the basic structure doctrine, political question doctrine, and principles of judicial restraint. The power serves as a crucial check on legislative and executive authority, protecting fundamental rights and maintaining constitutional supremacy.

Recent developments include review of the Ninth Schedule laws (I.R. Coelho, 2007) and expansion through Public Interest Litigation. Judicial review ensures that no law or action can violate the Constitution's fundamental principles, making the judiciary the final interpreter of constitutional meaning while balancing democratic governance with constitutional values.

Vyyuha

Your 6-Month Blueprint, Updated Nightly

AI analyses your progress every night. Wake up to a smarter plan. Every. Single.…

Judicial review: Power to examine constitutional validity of laws/actions

Constitutional basis: Articles 13, 32, 226 (implied, not explicit)

Key cases: Shankari Prasad (1951), Golak Nath (1967), Kesavananda Bharati (1973)

Basic structure doctrine: Parliament can amend but not destroy Constitution's core

Three types: Constitutional amendments, legislative actions, administrative actions

Limitations: Basic structure, political question doctrine, judicial restraint

I.R. Coelho (2007): Ninth Schedule laws after 1973 reviewable if violating basic structure

Vyyuha Quick Recall - 'BASIC REVIEW': B-asic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati 1973), A-rticles 13,32,226 (constitutional foundation), S-hankari Prasad to Coelho (evolution timeline), I-mplied power (not explicit), C-onstitutional amendments limited (basic structure), R-eview types three (amendments, legislative, administrative), E-volution through PIL (expanded access), V-oid laws violating FR (Article 13), I-ndependent judiciary (separation of powers), E-WS case recent (2022 basic structure applied), W-rit jurisdiction (SC Article 32, HC Article 226).

Memory Palace: Imagine Supreme Court building with three floors - ground floor has Article 13 making void laws, first floor has Article 32 with writs, second floor has Article 226 with broader powers, and the dome represents basic structure protecting constitutional core from parliamentary amendments.

Judicial Review

Quick Summary

Related Topics