In the dynamic tapestry of India’s constitutional framework, judicial review stands as a cornerstone, ensuring the adherence to constitutional principles and the protection of fundamental rights. For aspirants preparing for the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) examinations, understanding the concept and significance of judicial review is paramount.
Judicial review is a legal process where a judge assesses the legality of a decision or action taken by a public entity. Essentially, it scrutinizes the procedural aspects of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. Procedure Established by Law signifies that a law is valid only if the prescribed procedure has been meticulously followed by the legislature or relevant body.
On the other hand, Due Process of Law doctrine ensures not only the existence of a law to deprive an individual of life or personal liberty but also mandates that such laws are fair and just. India primarily adheres to the Procedure Established by Law principle. It grants the courts the authority to scrutinize the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches to ensure compliance with the constitutional provisions. Judicial review serves two crucial purposes: validating government actions and safeguarding the constitution against any unconstitutional actions by the government.
Considered a fundamental feature of the constitution, judicial review was affirmed in the Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case in 1975. It is also known as the interpretational and observer roles of the Indian judiciary. Suo Moto cases and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) have broadened the scope for judicial intervention in public matters, even without a formal complaint from the affected party, due to the abandonment of the principle of Locus Standi.
Constitutional Provision
While the Indian Constitution does not explicitly grant courts the authority to invalidate laws, it imposes clear limitations on each branch of government, the breach of which renders laws void. Courts are tasked with determining whether such constitutional boundaries have been exceeded.
Several provisions in the Constitution support the process of judicial review:
- Article 372(1) establishes judicial review of pre-constitution legislation.
- Article 13 declares any law conflicting with Fundamental Rights provisions as void.
- Articles 32 and 226 designate the Supreme and High Courts as protectors and guarantors of Fundamental Rights.
- Articles 251 and 254 stipulate that state laws conflicting with Union laws shall be void.
- Article 246(3) affirms the state legislature’s exclusive authority over State List matters.
- Article 245 subjects the powers of Parliament and State legislatures to constitutional provisions.
- Articles 131-136 empower courts to adjudicate disputes between individuals, individuals and the state, and between states and the Union. The Supreme Court’s interpretations of the Constitution become binding law.
- Article 137 grants the Supreme Court the special power to review its judgments or orders, allowing the reversal of criminal case decisions only if errors are evident on the record.
Types of Judicial Review
1. Review of Legislative Action
This type of review involves examining laws passed by the legislature to ensure they comply with constitutional provisions. It ensures that legislative actions do not violate fundamental rights or exceed the scope of legislative authority granted by the Constitution.
2. Review of Administrative Actions
Judicial review of administrative actions is a mechanism to enforce constitutional discipline over administrative agencies. It involves scrutinizing administrative decisions and actions to ensure they are within the bounds of legal authority, follow due process, and do not violate constitutional rights.
3. Review of Judicial Decision
This type of review allows for the correction or modification of previous judicial decisions by the judiciary itself. It ensures consistency, fairness, and accuracy in the application of legal principles and precedents. Judicial decisions may be reviewed to correct errors of law, reconsider factual findings, or adapt legal interpretations to changing societal norms or circumstances.
Importance of Judicial Review
- Judicial review is crucial for upholding the supremacy of the Constitution.
- It serves as a check against potential abuses of power by the legislative and executive branches.
- It safeguards the rights of individuals.
- It preserves the balance of power between the federal and state governments.
- Ensuring the independence of the judiciary is a vital function of judicial review.
- It acts as a barrier against the potential tyranny of the executive branch.
In conclusion, the power of judicial review enables courts to safeguard fundamental rights and intervene in administrative decision-making processes. However, excessive judicial activism may encroach upon the separation of powers delineated in the Constitution. While lawmaking is the prerogative of the legislature and enforcement falls under the executive’s purview, the judiciary’s role primarily involves interpretation. Maintaining a delicate balance among these branches of government is crucial to uphold constitutional values.
Continue Reading about Supreme Court and High Court.