Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Judicial review, a fundamental principle of constitutionalism, refers to the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. In India, this power, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is inferred from its structure and spirit. The landmark case of *Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala* (1973) firmly established the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, solidifying judicial review as a cornerstone of Indian democracy. The efficacy of this power, however, remains a subject of ongoing debate, particularly concerning its scope, limitations, and potential for judicial overreach.
Constitutional Basis and Evolution of Judicial Review
While the Indian Constitution doesn’t explicitly grant the power of judicial review, Articles 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies), 136 (Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court), 142 (Enforcement of decrees of Supreme Court), 226 (High Court’s writ jurisdiction), and 245 (Parliament’s legislative competence) collectively provide the foundation for it. Initially, the judiciary adopted a conservative approach, deferring to the legislature. However, post-independence, particularly with the advent of public interest litigation (PIL) in the 1980s, the scope of judicial review expanded significantly.
Scope of Judicial Review in India
The scope of judicial review in India is broad, encompassing:
- Constitutional Validity of Laws: The judiciary can declare laws passed by Parliament or State Legislatures as unconstitutional if they violate fundamental rights or transgress the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Executive Actions: The judiciary can review executive orders, administrative rules, and policy decisions to ensure they are within the bounds of the law and the Constitution.
- Delegated Legislation: The judiciary scrutinizes laws made by bodies under delegated authority from the legislature.
- Fundamental Rights Enforcement: Article 32 provides citizens the right to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.
Landmark Cases Demonstrating Efficacy
Several landmark cases demonstrate the efficacy of judicial review in safeguarding constitutional principles:
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, limiting Parliament’s amending power.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) by introducing the concept of ‘due process’.
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): Highlighted the importance of free and fair elections and the rule of law.
- MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987): Pioneered environmental jurisprudence through PIL, leading to stricter environmental regulations.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Addressed sexual harassment at the workplace, establishing guidelines in the absence of specific legislation (later codified in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013).
Limitations and Challenges to Judicial Review
Despite its strengths, judicial review in India faces several limitations:
- Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Overreach: The line between legitimate judicial intervention and overstepping into the legislative domain is often blurred, leading to accusations of judicial activism.
- Implementation Challenges: Judicial pronouncements often require legislative action for effective implementation, which can be delayed or stalled.
- Backlog of Cases: The massive backlog of cases in Indian courts hinders timely justice delivery and reduces the effectiveness of judicial review. (Statistic: As of December 2023, over 4.9 crore cases were pending in Indian courts – Source: National Judicial Data Grid).
- Appointment Process: Concerns regarding the collegium system for appointing judges raise questions about transparency and accountability.
- Political Pressure: The judiciary, while independent, is not immune to political pressure and public opinion.
Recent Developments and Debates
Recent debates surrounding judicial review include the challenge to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act (struck down in 2015) and ongoing discussions about the need for greater transparency in the collegium system. The increasing use of PIL, while beneficial, has also led to concerns about frivolous litigation and abuse of the process. The debate over the scope of judicial review continues, with some arguing for a more restrained approach and others advocating for a more proactive role for the judiciary in protecting fundamental rights and promoting social justice.
| Aspect | Strengths of Judicial Review | Weaknesses/Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Safeguard | Protects fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution. | Potential for judicial overreach and encroachment on legislative powers. |
| Accountability | Holds the executive and legislature accountable to the Constitution. | Implementation of judicial orders can be slow and ineffective. |
| Social Justice | Promotes social justice through PIL and proactive intervention. | Susceptible to political pressure and public opinion. |
Conclusion
Judicial review remains a vital component of India’s constitutional framework, serving as a crucial check on the power of the legislature and executive. While its efficacy is undeniable in safeguarding fundamental rights and upholding the rule of law, it is not without its limitations. Addressing the challenges of case backlog, ensuring transparency in judicial appointments, and maintaining a delicate balance between judicial activism and restraint are crucial for strengthening the efficacy of judicial review and preserving its legitimacy in the long run. A robust and independent judiciary is essential for a thriving democracy, and continuous self-assessment and reform are necessary to ensure it remains so.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.