Judgment Reviews Law at India
Judicial review in India is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, ensuring that laws and executive actions align with constitutional principles. The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in interpreting and upholding this power, leading to several landmark judgments that have shaped Indian constitutional law.
Key Aspects of Judicial Review in India
Constitutional Foundation: Judicial review is rooted in Articles 13, 32, and 226 of the Indian Constitution. Article 13 empowers courts to declare laws inconsistent with fundamental rights as void. Articles 32 and 226 provide individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights.
Basic Structure Doctrine: Established in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), this doctrine asserts that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that alters its 'basic structure'. This principle has been upheld in subsequent cases, reinforcing the judiciary's role in safeguarding the Constitution's core values.
Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments: In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Supreme Court held that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This means that even constitutional amendments are subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure they do not violate fundamental principles.
Judicial Review of Executive Actions: The judiciary has the authority to review executive actions to ensure they do not exceed constitutional limits. For instance, in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review, emphasizing the need for constitutional propriety in federal governance.
Protection of Fundamental Rights: Judicial review serves as a mechanism to protect individual rights against arbitrary state actions. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, linking it with Articles 14 and 19, thereby ensuring that any law depriving a person of personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Limitations on Judicial Review: While judicial review is a cornerstone of Indian democracy, it has its limitations. The judiciary refrains from interfering in matters of policy or areas where the legislature has discretion, unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles.
Recent Developments
In a significant 2025 ruling, the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu clarified that the Governor cannot exercise an absolute or pocket veto over legislation duly passed by the State Legislature. The Court established time limits for the Governor to act on bills, subjecting delays to judicial review to ensure timely assent and uphold the federal structure of governance.
Conclusion
Judicial review in India is a vital tool for maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that all laws and executive actions conform to constitutional mandates. Through its vigilant oversight, the judiciary upholds the balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, safeguarding the democratic framework of the nation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments