Judicial and other remedies: Judicial Review- Progressive-Constitutional Remedies
Judicial and Other Remedies: Judicial Review & Progressive Constitutional Remedies
1. Introduction
When administrative or governmental actions violate laws or fundamental rights, citizens need remedies to seek justice. Remedies can be judicial (through courts) or non-judicial (alternative dispute resolution, ombudsman, tribunals).
Judicial review is a key mechanism where courts examine the legality and constitutionality of administrative or legislative actions.
Progressive constitutional remedies refer to the innovative reliefs developed by courts, especially the Supreme Court, to enforce fundamental rights and uphold the Constitution dynamically.
2. Judicial Review: Definition and Scope
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine and invalidate laws, executive actions, or policies that violate the Constitution.
It is a tool to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution.
Judicial review extends to legislative, executive, and administrative actions.
Grounds for judicial review include illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and violation of fundamental rights.
3. Progressive Constitutional Remedies
Indian courts have expanded traditional remedies to make justice more accessible and effective.
Remedies under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution empower courts to enforce fundamental rights.
Courts have innovated remedies such as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), suo motu cognizance, and issuing writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto.
These progressive remedies aim to strengthen accountability, transparency, and protection of rights.
4. Important Case Laws on Judicial Review and Progressive Remedies
Case 1: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Context: Challenge to constitutional amendments affecting property rights.
Held: Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
Significance: Judicial review can invalidate amendments violating the Constitution’s core principles, ensuring constitutional supremacy.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Context: Passport impoundment without fair hearing.
Held: Expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) to include due process and fairness.
Significance: Strengthened judicial review of administrative action and introduced the principle that laws and actions must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Case 3: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Context: Transparency in judicial appointments.
Held: Recognized public interest litigation (PIL) as a tool to allow any public-spirited individual to approach courts.
Significance: Broadened access to justice and expanded judicial remedies beyond traditional parties.
Case 4: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) (Environmental case)
Context: Environmental pollution and protection of public health.
Held: The Supreme Court used PIL to direct the government to take measures to control pollution.
Significance: Demonstrated the use of progressive remedies to enforce the right to a healthy environment under Article 21.
Case 5: Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Context: Challenge to constitutional amendments curtailing judicial review.
Held: Judicial review is part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be abrogated.
Significance: Reinforced judicial review as a constitutional safeguard.
Case 6: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Context: Custodial deaths and police excesses.
Held: Issued detailed guidelines for arrest and detention to prevent abuse.
Significance: Judicial innovation to protect fundamental rights and prevent misuse of power.
5. Summary Table of Remedies and Case Laws
| Remedy Type | Description | Key Case | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial Review | Courts examine constitutionality and legality | Kesavananda Bharati | Basic structure limits on amendments |
| Due Process & Fairness | Administrative actions must be reasonable & fair | Maneka Gandhi | Expanded Article 21 protections |
| Public Interest Litigation | Access to justice for social issues | S.P. Gupta | Wider locus standi; social justice focus |
| Writs & Directions | Courts can issue mandamus, habeas corpus, etc. | M.C. Mehta | Environmental protection via PIL |
| Limiting Abuse of Power | Guidelines to prevent rights violations | D.K. Basu | Police accountability measures |
6. Conclusion
The judicial review system in India is a powerful constitutional tool safeguarding democracy, fundamental rights, and the rule of law. Over time, Indian courts have developed progressive remedies such as PIL and expanded writ jurisdiction to make justice more accessible and responsive to societal needs.
This dynamic system helps control arbitrariness, uphold constitutional morality, and ensure that the executive and legislature operate within constitutional limits.
RELATED Blog
0 comments