Judicial Review — Basic Structure
Basic Structure
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.
Often confused with
Side-by-side differences the UPSC paper likes to test.
| Aspect | Judicial Review | Judicial Activism |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Power to review constitutional validity of laws and actions | Proactive judicial approach in policy-making and social issues |
| Constitutional Basis | Articles 13, 32, 226 - explicit constitutional foundation | No specific constitutional provision - judicial interpretation |
| Scope | Limited to constitutional validity and legal compliance | Extends to policy formulation and social engineering |
| Approach | Reactive - responds to challenges brought before court | Proactive - court initiates action on social issues |
| Limitations | Basic structure doctrine, political question doctrine | Separation of powers, democratic accountability concerns |
Judicial review is a constitutionally grounded power to examine legal validity, while judicial activism represents a proactive judicial approach to social and policy issues. Judicial review operates within defined constitutional parameters, whereas judicial activism often ventures into policy domains traditionally reserved for legislature and executive.
Both concepts intersect when courts use review powers actively to address social issues, but they serve different constitutional functions - review ensures constitutional compliance while activism drives social change through judicial intervention.
Why it is tested: Frequently tested in questions asking to differentiate between these concepts, their constitutional basis, and their role in Indian democracy. Important for understanding judicial overreach debates and separation of powers.
| Aspect | Judicial Review | Legislative Review |
|---|---|---|
| Authority | Exercised by judiciary (Supreme Court and High Courts) | Exercised by legislature (Parliament and state legislatures) |
| Standard | Constitutional validity and legal compliance | Policy effectiveness and political considerations |
| Binding Nature | Legally binding decisions with constitutional force | Political accountability through democratic process |
| Scope | Limited to legal and constitutional questions | Comprehensive review of policies and administration |
| Remedy | Declaration of invalidity, writs, constitutional interpretation | Policy changes, budget allocations, legislative amendments |
Judicial review focuses on constitutional and legal validity of government actions, while legislative review examines policy effectiveness and administrative performance. Judicial review provides legal remedies through constitutional interpretation, whereas legislative review offers political remedies through democratic accountability.
Both serve as checks on executive power but operate through different mechanisms - judicial review through legal standards and legislative review through political oversight. The two systems complement each other in ensuring comprehensive accountability in democratic governance.
Why it is tested: Important for understanding different types of accountability mechanisms in Indian democracy, separation of powers, and the role of different institutions in governance oversight.