Introduction
Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both Central and State governments. Explicitly rooted in Articles 13, 32, 136, and 226, it serves as the primary institutional mechanism for upholding constitutional supremacy and the rule of law in India.
Role of Judicial Review in Maintaining Constitutionality
Judicial review preserves the constitutional fabric by safeguarding democratic principles and preventing arbitrary state actions through several avenues:
- Protecting Fundamental Rights (Part III): The judiciary acts as the ultimate guarantor against state overreach by nullifying laws that abridge fundamental freedoms. For instance, in ADR v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bonds scheme for violating the voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a).
- Upholding the Basic Structure: It prevents Parliament from amending the Constitution's core identity out of existence. For example, in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Supreme Court struck down Article 329A(4), affirming that free and fair elections and the rule of law are unamendable basic features of the Constitution.
- Maintaining Federal Equilibrium: It resolves Centre-State and inter-State jurisdictional conflicts under Article 131 and ensures that laws adhere strictly to legislative competencies defined under the Seventh Schedule (Article 246), thereby preventing unilateral centralisation.
- Checking Executive Arbitrariness: It ensures that administrative and executive decisions satisfy the tests of equality, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness under Article 14.
Conclusion
As established in the L. Chandra Kumar case (1997), judicial review itself is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Moving forward, the judiciary must balance this power with judicial self-restraint to avoid judicial overreach, thereby preserving the delicate separation of powers vital for constitutional governance.