Introduction
Judicial review is the power of the higher judiciary to examine the constitutional validity of legislative enactments and executive actions, primarily anchored in Articles 13, 32, and 226 of the Constitution. Distinct from Article 137, which merely provides for the procedural review of the Supreme Court's own judgments, judicial review safeguards constitutional supremacy and prevents the state from abrogating fundamental principles.
Evolution of Judicial Review as a Basic Feature
Through key constitutional milestones, the Supreme Court progressively established that judicial scrutiny cannot be extinguished even by a constituent amendment:
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): While upholding the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, the Supreme Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, establishing that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 is not unlimited and cannot alter the foundational framework of the Constitution.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court explicitly invalidated clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 introduced by the 42nd Amendment, which had sought to immunize constitutional amendments from judicial review, formally declaring judicial review to be a basic feature.
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): A seven-judge bench held that the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 is an integral and untruncatable part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Multi-Dimensional Utility of Judicial Review
Judicial review serves as an indispensable institutional mechanism for upholding constitutional morality:
- Protecting Fundamental Rights: It acts as a bulwark against state overreach. For instance, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and struck down the Electoral Bonds Scheme (2024) for impinging upon the right to information under Article 19(1)(a). The doctrinal shift from procedural compliance in A.K. Gopalan to substantive due process in Maneka Gandhi further widened this rights-based canopy.
- Preserving Federal Equilibrium: Under Article 131, the Supreme Court adjudicates disputes between the Centre and States, ensuring legislative and executive limits are strictly respected, such as in inquiries into borrowing caps and division of taxation competencies.
- Enforcing Executive Accountability: It checks administrative arbitrariness and curbs colourable exercise of power, ensuring strict compliance with the Rule of Law and the principles of natural justice.
Review versus Restraint: Avoiding Judicial Overreach
While judicial review is fundamental to constitutional governance, it must not degenerate into judicial overreach. The judiciary operates under the constitutional framework of separation of powers and must practice self-restraint, refraining from entering the domains of policy formulation or legislative drafting, which belong squarely to the elected branches of government.
Conclusion
The power of judicial review prevents legislative and executive supremacy from eclipsing constitutional supremacy. By holding laws and administrative actions to the touchstone of the Constitution, it preserves institutional checks and balances while maintaining the Constitution as a living, accountable charter.