Introduction
Judicial review is the power of constitutional courts to assess the legislative enactments and executive orders of both Central and State governments to ensure conformity with the Constitution. In landmark judgments such as Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court cemented the power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 as an integral and inviolable part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Significance of Judicial Review as a Basic Feature
Judicial review serves as the primary mechanism for preserving constitutionalism, rule of law, and democratic governance in India:
- Upholding Constitutional Supremacy: It ensures that the Constitution, rather than the legislature, remains the supreme law of the land, establishing institutional checks against majoritarian excess.
- Guardian of Fundamental Rights: Through Articles 32 and 226, the judiciary acts as a bulwark against state infringement on citizens' liberties guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
- Arbitration of Federal Disputes: Under Article 131, judicial review enables the Supreme Court to preserve federal equilibrium by adjudicating jurisdictional conflicts between the Union and the States.
- Non-Derogable Oversight: Judicial review cannot be curtailed by legislative ouster clauses or constitutional amendments. In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that even statutes placed within the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are subject to judicial scrutiny against the basic structure doctrine.
Differences Between the Indian and US Models of Judicial Review
While India adopted the foundational premise of judicial review from the United States, significant differences define the two systems:
- Textual vs. Implied Origin: India's Constitution explicitly codifies judicial review through provisions like Article 13, Article 32, Article 136, and Article 226. In contrast, the US Constitution does not explicitly provide for judicial review; it was judicially established through Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803).
- Review of Constitutional Amendments: The Indian Supreme Court can invalidate constitutional amendments if they violate the basic structure. The US Supreme Court possesses no authority to invalidate constitutional amendments passed under Article V of the US Constitution.
- Legal Standards for Review: India originally adopted the 'Procedure Established by Law' under Article 21, gradually incorporating elements of substantive due process through the Maneka Gandhi (1978) doctrine. The US model strictly operates under substantive and procedural 'Due Process of Law' (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments).
- Advisory Jurisdiction: Article 143 of the Indian Constitution confers advisory jurisdiction on the Supreme Court upon reference by the President. In the US, the doctrine of 'cases and controversies' strictly forbids federal courts from issuing advisory opinions.
- Scope and Decentralisation: In the US, any state or federal court can determine constitutional validity, though the US Supreme Court has final appellate authority. In India, judicial review of constitutional validity is concentrated primarily in the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
Judicial review in India balances parliamentary supremacy with judicial independence, ensuring that government actions remain confined within constitutional boundaries while facilitating socio-economic justice. By reconciling legislative will with constitutional morality, it acts as the primary anchor of Indian democratic stability.