Judicial Review — Revision Notes

⚡ 30-Second Revision

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

2-Minute Revision

Judicial review is the judiciary's power to examine constitutional validity of legislative and executive actions. Though not explicitly mentioned, it derives from Articles 13 (laws violating fundamental rights void), 32 (Supreme Court writ powers), and 226 (High Court writ jurisdiction).

Evolution shows three phases: unlimited parliamentary power (Shankari Prasad, 1951), restriction on fundamental rights amendments (Golak Nath, 1967), and balanced approach through basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).

Basic structure includes constitutional supremacy, democratic government, secular character, separation of powers, and federalism - elements Parliament cannot amend. Judicial review operates on three levels: constitutional amendments (limited by basic structure), legislative actions (full review), and administrative actions (expanded through PIL).

Key limitations include basic structure doctrine, political question doctrine, and judicial restraint principles. Recent developments include I.R. Coelho case (2007) making post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws reviewable and expansion through PIL for social justice.

Current relevance shown in COVID-19 governance review and EWS reservation validity.

5-Minute Revision

Judicial review represents the judiciary's constitutional power to examine and determine the validity of legislative enactments and executive actions against constitutional standards. This doctrine, fundamental to Indian constitutional law, operates as a crucial check on governmental power while maintaining constitutional supremacy.

Constitutional Foundation: Though not explicitly stated, judicial review derives from multiple provisions. Article 13 declares laws violating fundamental rights void, Article 32 empowers Supreme Court writ jurisdiction for rights enforcement, and Article 226 grants broader writ powers to High Courts. Articles 136, 141, and 142 provide additional jurisdictional support.

Historical Evolution: The doctrine evolved through landmark cases. Shankari Prasad (1951) established unlimited parliamentary power to amend the Constitution. Golak Nath (1967) reversed this, declaring fundamental rights as transcendental and beyond amendment. Kesavananda Bharati (1973) balanced these positions through the basic structure doctrine, allowing amendments while protecting constitutional core.

Basic Structure Doctrine: This unique Indian contribution identifies unchangeable constitutional elements including supremacy of Constitution, democratic and republican government, secular character, separation of powers, federal structure, and judicial review itself. Parliament cannot amend these core features, creating a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional stability.

Scope and Types: Judicial review operates on three levels: (1) Constitutional amendments - limited by basic structure doctrine, (2) Legislative actions - comprehensive review of laws against constitutional provisions, (3) Administrative actions - review of executive decisions and policies, expanded significantly through PIL.

Key Limitations: Basic structure doctrine prevents complete constitutional transformation, political question doctrine avoids policy matters, presumption of constitutionality places burden on challengers, and separation of powers maintains institutional boundaries. Self-imposed judicial restraint ensures democratic governance balance.

Contemporary Relevance: Recent applications include I.R. Coelho (2007) making post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws reviewable, COVID-19 governance interventions, EWS reservation validity, and technology-related constitutional challenges. The doctrine continues evolving to address modern governance challenges while maintaining constitutional principles.

Prelims Revision Notes

1
Constitutional Articles: 13 (laws violating FR void), 32 (SC writ powers), 226 (HC broader writ jurisdiction), 136 (SC appellate jurisdiction), 141 (SC decisions binding), 142 (enforcement powers)

1
Landmark Cases Timeline:

- Shankari Prasad (1951): Unlimited parliamentary power - Golak Nath (1967): FR beyond amendment - Kesavananda Bharati (1973): Basic structure doctrine - Minerva Mills (1980): 42nd Amendment provisions struck - I.R. Coelho (2007): Ninth Schedule post-1973 reviewable

1
Basic Structure Elements: Constitutional supremacy, democratic government, republican form, secular character, separation of powers, federal structure, judicial review, rule of law, independence of judiciary

1
Three Types: Constitutional amendments (basic structure limit), Legislative actions (full review), Administrative actions (PIL expansion)

1
Constitutional Amendments: 1st (1951) - Ninth Schedule, 24th (1971) - Parliament's power affirmed, 25th (1971) - Article 31C, 42nd (1976) - attempted judicial review limitation

1
Ninth Schedule: Created 1951, initially immune from review, I.R. Coelho made post-April 24, 1973 laws reviewable if violating basic structure

1
Writ Types: Habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, quo-warranto

1
Limitations: Basic structure, political question doctrine, standing requirements, justiciability, ripeness, judicial restraint

1
India vs USA: India has basic structure limitation, broader administrative review, PIL expansion; USA has unlimited amendment review, individual rights focus

1
Recent Cases: EWS reservation (2022), COVID-19 interventions (2021), privacy rights, environmental protection

Mains Revision Notes

Analytical Framework for Judicial Review:

1
Constitutional Significance: Judicial review embodies constitutional supremacy principle, ensuring no authority exceeds constitutional limits. It serves as guardian of fundamental rights, federal structure, and democratic values while maintaining separation of powers balance.

1
Evolution and Transformation: The doctrine's journey from unlimited parliamentary sovereignty (Shankari Prasad era) to balanced constitutionalism (post-Kesavananda Bharati) reflects India's constitutional maturity. Each phase addressed specific challenges: property rights vs social justice, fundamental rights vs directive principles, parliamentary power vs constitutional limitations.

1
Basic Structure Innovation: India's unique contribution to constitutional jurisprudence, the basic structure doctrine prevents constitutional destruction while allowing evolutionary change. It addresses the paradox of constituent power vs constituted power, ensuring constitutional continuity amid democratic change.

1
Democratic Tensions: Judicial review creates inherent tension between unelected judiciary and elected legislature. Critics argue it undermines democratic will, while supporters emphasize constitutional protection. The challenge lies in maintaining judicial independence while ensuring democratic accountability.

1
Expansion Through PIL: Public Interest Litigation democratized judicial review, transforming it from elite access to mass remedy. This expansion addressed social justice issues but raised concerns about judicial overreach and separation of powers violations.

1
Contemporary Challenges: Modern judicial review faces new challenges: technology governance, environmental protection, social media regulation, data privacy, and pandemic governance. These require constitutional interpretation for unprecedented situations.

1
Comparative Perspective: Unlike American unlimited review or British parliamentary sovereignty, India's model balances judicial supremacy with democratic governance through basic structure limitations and political question doctrine.

1
Future Directions: Judicial review must evolve to address globalization, technological advancement, and changing social needs while maintaining constitutional values and democratic principles. The balance between judicial activism and restraint remains crucial for constitutional governance.

Vyyuha Quick Recall

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.

Also build Paper II skills

Dense constitutional and IR passages mirror CSAT-style comprehension and argument evaluation—build those skills in parallel. CSAT hub.

• Valid & invalid arguments
• Syllogisms
• Critical reasoning