Introduction
Judicial Review (JR) is the power of the judiciary to test the constitutionality and legality of State actions, recognized as an integral part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997). Rooted in Articles 13, 32, and 226, it serves as a vital safeguard for constitutional supremacy and the rule of law across administrative, legislative, and judicial domains.
1. Judicial Review of Administrative Action
Judicial review of administrative action focuses primarily on the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself, as affirmed in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994).
- Illegality: Reviewing whether the authority acted ultra vires or exceeded statutory jurisdiction.
- Procedural Impropriety: Reviewing breaches of the principles of natural justice, such as audi alteram partem (right to a fair hearing).
- Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness): Challenging decisions so outrageous in their defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible authority could have arrived at them.
- Proportionality: Ensuring that executive actions imposing restrictions are proportionate and adopt the least intrusive means to achieve a legitimate aim (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017; Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, 2020).
- Constitutional Tools: Prerogative writs under Articles 32 and 226, such as the Writ of Mandamus issued to compel an administrative authority to perform a mandatory statutory duty.
2. Judicial Review of Legislative Enactments
The judiciary acts as a bulwark against majoritarian legislative overreach by testing primary and subordinate legislation on well-defined constitutional grounds.
- Violation of Fundamental Rights: Under Article 13, any law inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights is void to the extent of such inconsistency (e.g., invalidation of the Electoral Bonds Scheme in 2024 under Article 19(1)(a)).
- Lack of Legislative Competence: Enactments that transgress the federal distribution of powers demarcated under Articles 245–246 and the Seventh Schedule.
- Violation of the Basic Structure: Constitutional amendments are evaluated against the essential features of the Constitution (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973).
3. Judicial Review of Judicial Decisions
To correct patent errors of law or prevent a gross miscarriage of justice, the higher judiciary possesses self-corrective mechanisms to review its own rulings.
- Review Petition (Article 137): Empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it, strictly to rectify an error apparent on the face of the record.
- Curative Petition: Evolved under Article 142 in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) as a final, rare remedy to cure gross violations of natural justice or apparent bias after a review petition has been dismissed.
Conclusion
While Judicial Review is indispensable for upholding the rule of law and protecting the constitutional Golden Trinity of Articles 14, 19, and 21, courts must exercise judicial restraint. Maintaining the balance between judicial activism and avoiding judicial overreach preserves the doctrine of separation of powers and reinforces public trust in constitutional governance.