Explain it in general and from Indian perspective in particular.

Historical Context and Evolution of Judicial Review

The concept of judicial review isn’t entirely novel to India. Even under British rule, courts possessed limited powers of review. However, the true evolution began with the adoption of the Indian Constitution in 1950. The framers, influenced by the US model, implicitly incorporated judicial review as an essential component of the constitutional scheme.

• Early Phase (1950-1967): This period saw the Supreme Court primarily focusing on establishing its authority and interpreting fundamental rights. Cases like Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) affirmed Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, but also laid the groundwork for future limitations.
• Golaknath Case (1967): A watershed moment, the Supreme Court in Golaknath v. State of Punjab ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, creating a conflict with the prevailing understanding of parliamentary supremacy.
• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): This landmark judgment established the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, limiting Parliament’s amending power to aspects that didn’t alter the Constitution’s fundamental features. This case is considered the zenith of judicial review in India.
• Post-Emergency Period: The Supreme Court actively used judicial review to protect civil liberties and ensure accountability of the executive.

Scope of Judicial Review in India

The scope of judicial review in India is broad, encompassing various aspects of governmental action:

• Constitutional Validity of Laws: The judiciary can declare laws passed by Parliament or State Legislatures unconstitutional if they violate fundamental rights or the basic structure doctrine.
• Executive Actions: The Supreme Court and High Courts can review executive orders, administrative rules, and policy decisions. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) is a prime example where the Supreme Court scrutinized the validity of an amendment aimed at shielding electoral laws from judicial review.
• Delegated Legislation: The courts can examine the validity of rules and regulations made by executive authorities under the powers delegated by the legislature.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: Judicial review is a primary mechanism for enforcing fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

Limitations on Judicial Review

Despite its expansive scope, judicial review in India isn’t absolute. Several limitations exist:

• Political Questions Doctrine: Courts generally avoid deciding issues that are considered ‘political questions’ best left to the executive or legislature.
• Doctrine of Separation of Powers: The judiciary respects the boundaries of the legislative and executive branches, refraining from interfering in their legitimate policy choices unless they violate the Constitution.
• Justiciability: A matter must be a ‘ripe’ controversy, presenting a concrete dispute for the court to resolve.
• Self-Imposed Restraints: The judiciary often exercises caution and restraint, particularly in matters of policy, recognizing the expertise of the other branches.

Recent Trends and Developments

Recent years have witnessed evolving trends in judicial review:

• Judicial Activism: The courts have increasingly adopted a proactive role in addressing issues of public importance, such as environmental protection, pollution control, and human rights.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PIL has expanded access to justice and enabled the courts to address grievances of marginalized groups.
• Collegium System: The ongoing debate surrounding the appointment of judges and the role of the judiciary in this process highlights the complexities of maintaining judicial independence.
• National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC): The attempt to replace the Collegium system with the NJAC through a constitutional amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), reaffirming the basic structure doctrine.