Development of Judicial Review
Development of Judicial Review
1. Introduction
Judicial Review is the power of courts to examine the actions of the legislative and executive branches and declare them unconstitutional or invalid if they exceed their legal authority. It is a cornerstone of constitutional democracy, ensuring the supremacy of the constitution and protecting individual rights against arbitrary governance.
2. Historical Origins
Judicial review has roots in early legal traditions but was formally established in the modern sense in the United States.
It reflects the principle that no one, including the government, is above the law.
Over time, judicial review has expanded globally with different nuances depending on constitutional structure.
3. Key Principles
Supremacy of the Constitution: Acts inconsistent with the constitution are void.
Checks and Balances: Courts act as checks on legislative and executive powers.
Protection of Fundamental Rights: Judicial review safeguards rights against state infringement.
Rule of Law: Ensures legality and accountability of governmental actions.
4. Landmark Cases Illustrating the Development
A. Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (United States)
Facts:
William Marbury petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the delivery of his judicial commission.
Holding:
Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the Supreme Court had the power to review acts of Congress and declare them unconstitutional.
The Court established judicial review as a constitutional principle.
Significance:
The foundational case that formally established judicial review in the U.S.
Set the precedent that the judiciary can invalidate laws contrary to the Constitution.
B. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 (India)
Facts:
The case challenged Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is subject to the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Judicial review includes the power to invalidate constitutional amendments violating the basic structure.
Significance:
Strengthened judicial review in India by limiting parliamentary sovereignty.
Introduced the concept of the “basic structure” as inviolable.
C. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) (United States)
Facts:
Arkansas state officials resisted Supreme Court orders to desegregate schools.
Holding:
The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that state governments are bound by federal judicial decisions and cannot ignore constitutional mandates.
Significance:
Reinforced judicial review’s supremacy over state actions.
Asserted the authority of the judiciary in protecting constitutional rights.
D. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 (India)
Facts:
Challenged the constitutional validity of certain amendments affecting property rights.
Holding:
The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial review is part of the basic structure and cannot be abrogated by constitutional amendments.
Significance:
Affirmed the inviolability of judicial review.
Ensured continued judicial oversight on constitutional changes.
E. R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 (United Kingdom)
Facts:
Questioned whether the government could trigger Article 50 (to leave the EU) without Parliamentary approval.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the government must get Parliament’s consent, emphasizing parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review of executive action.
Significance:
Demonstrated judicial review’s role in maintaining constitutional balance in the UK.
Reinforced parliamentary control over major constitutional changes.
5. Evolution of Judicial Review Globally
In the United States, judicial review is explicit and well-established.
In India, judicial review evolved as a tool to maintain constitutional supremacy and protect fundamental rights, with a focus on limiting parliamentary power.
In the UK, judicial review primarily concerns administrative action and ensuring government acts within legal bounds, with parliamentary sovereignty limiting constitutional review.
Other countries have adopted judicial review tailored to their constitutional frameworks.
6. Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Principle Established | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison (1803) | United States | Judicial review established | Foundation of judicial review |
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | India | Basic Structure Doctrine and judicial review | Limits on parliamentary sovereignty |
| Cooper v. Aaron (1958) | United States | Federal judicial supremacy over states | Reinforces supremacy of judicial decisions |
| Minerva Mills (1980) | India | Judicial review is basic structure | Protects judicial review from constitutional amendments |
| R (Miller) v. Secretary of State (2017) | UK | Parliamentary approval required for executive action | Checks executive powers in UK |
7. Conclusion
Judicial review has developed as a fundamental constitutional principle that empowers courts to uphold the supremacy of the constitution, protect individual rights, and ensure that legislative and executive actions remain within constitutional limits. Its evolution reflects the need for judicial oversight in governance, adapting to different constitutional systems and political environments.
RELATED Blog
0 comments