Judicial review of legislative action
🔍 Judicial Review of Legislative Action
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine and invalidate legislative or executive actions if they are found to be unconstitutional or violate fundamental rights or principles of law.
When it comes to legislative action, judicial review involves:
Assessing the validity of laws passed by Parliament or state legislatures.
Determining whether the law exceeds constitutional limits or violates fundamental rights.
Ensuring that legislation complies with the basic structure of the constitution (in countries like India).
Protecting citizens against arbitrary or ultra vires laws.
Legislative acts have presumptive validity, meaning courts assume laws are constitutional unless proven otherwise.
Judicial review acts as a check and balance on legislative power and preserves the supremacy of the Constitution.
📚 Landmark Case Laws on Judicial Review of Legislative Action
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803) (USA)
📌 Jurisdiction: United States
📌 Principle: Establishment of judicial review of legislative acts
🔍 Facts:
William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
Chief Justice John Marshall declared that it was the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is and that the Supreme Court has the authority to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.
🧩 Key Takeaways:
First case establishing judicial review in the U.S.
Court asserted the power to invalidate legislative acts conflicting with the Constitution.
Foundation for constitutional supremacy and court’s role as interpreter.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 (India)
📌 Jurisdiction: India
📌 Principle: Basic Structure Doctrine limiting legislative power
🔍 Facts:
Kesavananda Bharati challenged constitutional amendments that sought to curtail fundamental rights.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution is not unlimited. Parliament cannot alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.
🧩 Key Takeaways:
Basic Structure Doctrine introduced.
Judicial review can strike down constitutional amendments violating basic structure.
Parliament’s legislative action is subject to constitutional limits.
3. United States v. Lopez (1995) 514 U.S. 549
📌 Jurisdiction: United States
📌 Principle: Limits on Congress’ legislative power under Commerce Clause
🔍 Facts:
Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act criminalizing possession of firearms near schools. Lopez was charged under this law.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause because the law had nothing to do with commerce or economic activity.
🧩 Key Takeaways:
First case in decades to limit Congressional legislative power.
Judicial review checks if legislation exceeds enumerated powers.
Ensures separation of powers and federalism principles.
4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625 (India)
📌 Jurisdiction: India
📌 Principle: Reaffirmed Basic Structure and limited amendment power
🔍 Facts:
The government enacted constitutional amendments curtailing fundamental rights and expanding state power.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down parts of the amendment violating the basic structure and re-emphasized that legislative amendments are subject to judicial review.
🧩 Key Takeaways:
Reinforced judicial review over legislative constitutional amendments.
Protected fundamental rights from legislative encroachment.
Strengthened constitutional supremacy.
5. R (Jackson) v. Attorney General (2005) UKHL 56
📌 Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
📌 Principle: Parliamentary sovereignty vs judicial review
🔍 Facts:
Challenge to the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 passed using the Parliament Act 1949 procedure.
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
House of Lords confirmed that while Parliament is sovereign, courts retain the power to review legislation that violates fundamental constitutional principles.
🧩 Key Takeaways:
Judicial review exists even in a system with parliamentary sovereignty.
Courts can assess the validity of legislative acts that affect fundamental constitutional norms.
Emphasizes the rule of law and constitutional governance.
🧾 Summary Table
| Case Name | Jurisdiction | Principle | Judicial Review Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison (1803) | USA | Established judicial review | Power to invalidate unconstitutional laws |
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | India | Basic Structure Doctrine limits amendments | Legislative action limited by Constitution |
| United States v. Lopez (1995) | USA | Limits on Congress’ commerce power | Law struck down as exceeding power |
| Minerva Mills (1980) | India | Reaffirmed basic structure & review | Some amendments invalidated |
| R (Jackson) v. AG (2005) | UK | Judicial review in parliamentary system | Parliamentary acts reviewed for fundamental violations |
✅ Conclusion
Judicial review of legislative action is a cornerstone of constitutional law. It ensures that legislative bodies act within the limits of the Constitution, protecting citizens from unconstitutional laws. Courts play a vital role in maintaining the balance of power and safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals against legislative excesses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments