Judicial Review is the judiciary's power to assess the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders. In India, this power is rooted in the Constitution, which stands as the supreme law of the land. The judiciary can declare any law or order that conflicts with the Constitution unconstitutional and void. This mechanism ensures that all governmental actions conform to the Constitution, thus maintaining the rule of law.
Historical Context
The concept of Judicial Review was first established in the United States through the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), where the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its authority to invalidate laws that contravened the Constitution. The Indian Constitution, influenced by the U.S. model, incorporates Judicial Review, distinguishing itself from the British system of parliamentary supremacy, where courts cannot invalidate parliamentary enactments.
The Indian Constitution explicitly provides for Judicial Review through several articles:
- Article 13: Declares that any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights shall be void.
- Articles 32 and 226: Entrust the Supreme Court and High Courts with the responsibility of protecting and enforcing Fundamental Rights.
- Article 246: Allocates the powers of legislation between the Union and the States, making any transgression subject to judicial scrutiny.
- Article 254: In conflict between Union and State laws, the law made by Parliament prevails, and any inconsistent State law becomes void.
- Article 372: Ensures the continuity of pre-constitutional laws, subject to Judicial Review.
These provisions empower the judiciary to review and invalidate any legislative or executive actions that violate the Constitution, thereby acting as the guardian of the Constitution and the rights it guarantees.
Key Cases and Developments
1. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the First Amendment, ruling that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
2. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Supreme Court reversed its earlier stance, ruling that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, marking a significant shift in Judicial Review.
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark case introduced the "Basic Structure Doctrine," asserting that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its basic structure.
4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court struck down a part of the 42nd Amendment, reinforcing the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, and reaffirming the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Both the Supreme Court and High Courts exercise Judicial Review, but the Supreme Court holds the final authority. It extends to both Central and State laws and can challenge constitutional amendments, except those placed in the Ninth Schedule. Judicial Review is limited to legal questions, not political ones, and is invoked only when a case is brought before the courts.
Judicial Review in India is a crucial mechanism for upholding the Constitution and ensuring that the government acts within its limits. However, the judiciary must exercise this power judiciously, respecting the doctrine of separation of powers and maintaining a balance between safeguarding constitutional values and allowing democratic processes to function effectively.
Post a Comment