Indian Polity & Constitution25 Essential Exam Concepts

Judicial Review in India: Constitutional Power, Scope & Basic Structure

In constitutional law, comparative jurisprudence, and democratic governance, Judicial Review represents the sovereign authority vested in the independent judiciary to examine the constitutional validity of legislative enactments, administrative executive actions, and delegated orders. Fundamentally, the doctrine ensures the supremacy of a written constitution over ordinary parliamentary legislation and executive decrees. If any statutory enactment, government notification, or administrative action violates the text, principles, or structural imperatives of the Constitution, the constitutional courts possess the binding legal power to declare such measures ultra vires, null, and void ab initio.

While the modern doctrine of judicial review originated in the United States Supreme Court through the landmark judgment authored by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Indian constitutional system does not rely merely upon implied judicial interpretation. Instead, the framers of the Constitution of India embedded judicial review directly into the fabric of the supreme document. Article 13(2) explicitly declares that the State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges the Fundamental Rights conferred by Part III, and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. Complementing this, Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court as the guarantor of Fundamental Rights through prerogative writs, while Article 226 grants broad review powers to High Courts for Fundamental Rights and other legal remedies.

In the landmark constitutional jurisprudence of India, judicial review operates across three distinct operational dimensions: the review of legislative actions for legislative competence and rights compliance; the review of executive administrative actions for procedural fairness, proportionality, and natural justice; and the review of constitutional amendments. In the historic judgment of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), an eleven-judge bench established that Judicial Review constitutes an inviolable component of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution, placing it permanently beyond the amending power of Parliament under Article 368. Subsequent verdicts, including Minerva Mills (1980) and L. Chandra Kumar (1997), reaffirmed that judicial review by the Supreme Court and High Courts is an essential constitutional mechanism preserving federalism and the rule of law.

Explore Indian Polity & Constitution Hub

Essential Concepts & Key Facts

High-yield conceptual summaries for competitive exams and rapid revision.

Judicial review is the power of constitutional courts to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative statutes and executive orders.
Any law or executive decree found contrary to constitutional provisions is declared unconstitutional, ultra vires, and legally void.
The doctrine historically originated in the US Supreme Court landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803) under Chief Justice John Marshall.
In India, judicial review is explicitly founded upon constitutional provisions rather than being derived purely from judicial convention.
Article 13(2) prohibits the State from enacting laws that abridge Fundamental Rights, rendering non-compliant statutes void.
Article 32 guarantees citizens the right to move the Supreme Court directly to enforce Fundamental Rights via prerogative writs.
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs not only for Fundamental Rights but also for any other legal rights, giving it broad scope.
Articles 131 to 136 establish original, appellate, and special leave jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over federal and legal disputes.
Article 137 grants the Supreme Court the authority to review any judgment pronounced or order made by itself.
Article 245 and Article 246 delineate legislative competence between Union and State legislatures under the Seventh Schedule.
The judiciary applies the Doctrine of Severability: only the unconstitutional portion of a statute is struck down if separable.
The Doctrine of Eclipse holds that pre-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights remain dormant (eclipsed) rather than dead.
In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the Supreme Court adopted a narrow literal interpretation of 'procedure established by law'.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded Article 21, establishing that state procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable.
This shift incorporated the American substantive 'due process of law' into Indian constitutional jurisprudence under Article 21.
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that Judicial Review is part of the inviolable Basic Structure.
In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the court struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, protecting judicial review of amendments.
In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the court held that judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 cannot be excluded by tribunals.
In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the court ruled that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are subject to judicial review.
Judicial review differs from Judicial Overreach: the judiciary exercises review to uphold legality, avoiding encroachment into executive policy.
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
Judicial review maintains the institutional checks and balances indispensable for federalism, individual liberty, and constitutional supremacy.

Judicial Review in India: Constitutional Power, Scope & Basic Structure

Essential Concepts & Key Facts

Related Knowledge Topics to Discover

Looking for more specific GK questions?