Introduction
Judicial Review is the judiciary's power to assess the constitutional validity of legislative enactments and executive orders. Recognized as part of the 'Basic Structure' in the Minerva Mills case (1980), it functions as the bedrock of constitutional supremacy and guarantees the rule of law in India.
Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review
While the phrase 'judicial review' is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, several articles establish its firm textual foundation:
- Enforcement of Fundamental Rights: Article 13 declares any law inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights to be void. Articles 32 and 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to issue writs for the enforcement of these rights.
- Preservation of Federal Balance: Article 131 grants original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in Centre-State and inter-State disputes, while Article 246 demarcates legislative competence across the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists.
- Inherent and Remedial Powers: Article 136 allows special leave to appeal against any judicial determination, and Article 142 enables the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice.
Significance in Constitutional Governance
Judicial review acts as a vital check against majoritarian overreach and institutional arbitrariness:
- Guarding Democratic Rights: By striking down the Electoral Bonds Scheme (2024) for violating the voter's right to information under Article 19(1)(a), the judiciary preserved electoral transparency and democratic integrity.
- Upholding Federalism: The courts check unilateral central encroachments into State jurisdictions, as demonstrated by the partial invalidation of the 97th Constitutional Amendment concerning cooperative societies.
- Checking State Arbitrariness: The judiciary has expanded review standards from procedural compliance to substantive due process and the 'doctrine of proportionality', scrutinising whether state action balances public objective with individual freedoms.
Limitations of Judicial Review
To avoid institutional friction and uphold democratic legitimacy, judicial review operates under distinct constitutional and self-imposed limitations:
- Separation of Powers and Policy Restraint: Courts generally defer to executive and legislative discretion on complex economic and technical policies, restraining themselves from crossing into governance or policy-making.
- Explicit Constitutional Exemptions: Specific constitutional provisions restrict judicial scrutiny, such as Article 329 (barring interference in delimitation of constituencies) and Article 262 (excluding judicial intervention in inter-State water disputes).
- Presumption of Constitutionality: Statutes passed by a democratically elected legislature are presumed valid unless demonstrated to be manifestly arbitrary or in clear violation of constitutional commands.
Conclusion
While judicial review serves as an indispensable safety valve for the rule of law and constitutional supremacy, its legitimacy relies on institutional restraint. Upholding this balance prevents the court from substituting legislative wisdom or functioning as an unelected third chamber.