The Constitution of India establishes a parliamentary system of government in which the executive derives its authority from the Constitution and remains accountable to the legislature. At the Union level, Articles 74 and 75 form the constitutional foundation of the executive structure. Article 74 provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions. Although the executive power of the Union is formally vested in the President under Article 53, the real executive authority is exercised by the Council of Ministers. Article 75 further deals with the appointment, tenure, and collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the Lok Sabha. Similar constitutional provisions exist for the States under Articles 163 and 164 relating to the Governor and the State Council of Ministers. The executive, therefore, functions within a constitutional framework that combines political accountability with legal responsibility.
Judicial review of executive action is one of the most important features of the Indian constitutional system. The power of judicial review enables courts to examine whether executive actions are constitutional, lawful, fair, reasonable, and consistent with Fundamental Rights. This power is derived from Articles 13, 32, 136, 141, 142, and 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India and the High Courts exercise the power of judicial review to ensure that executive authorities do not act arbitrarily or beyond the limits imposed by the Constitution and statutory law. Judicial review is also considered part of the basic structure of the Constitution, as recognized in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. This means that even constitutional amendments cannot remove or destroy the power of courts to review executive and legislative actions.
The scope of judicial review over executive action in India is broad and extensive. Courts may review executive actions on several grounds such as violation of Fundamental Rights, lack of legislative competence, mala fide exercise of power, arbitrariness, abuse of discretion, procedural impropriety, and violation of principles of natural justice. In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that arbitrariness is opposed to equality and therefore violates Article 14 of the Constitution. This principle was further strengthened in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where the Court held that executive action affecting life and personal liberty must satisfy standards of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14, 19, and 21. These judgments significantly expanded the scope of judicial review and ensured that executive discretion remains subject to constitutional limitations.
The judiciary has also exercised judicial review over constitutional powers exercised by the President and Governors. Although these constitutional authorities generally act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, their actions are not entirely immune from judicial scrutiny. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court reviewed the exercise of power under Article 356 relating to President’s Rule in States. The Court held that the President’s satisfaction is not beyond judicial review and that courts may examine whether the proclamation was based on relevant material or whether the power was exercised mala fide or arbitrarily. Similarly, in Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, the Supreme Court invalidated the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly because the executive action was based on unconstitutional considerations. These cases strengthened federalism and constitutional accountability in India.
Judicial review also extends to administrative actions and executive decisions involving public employment, tenders, taxation, preventive detention, and regulatory functions. The courts ensure that administrative authorities comply with principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that even administrative actions affecting rights must comply with principles of fairness and natural justice. Similarly, in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, the Court explained that judicial review primarily examines the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. Courts may interfere where executive action is illegal, irrational, procedurally improper, or mala fide. However, courts generally avoid substituting their own views for executive policy decisions.
Although the power of judicial review is extensive, it is not unlimited. Courts ordinarily exercise self-restraint in matters involving economic policy, foreign affairs, defence, national security, and political questions. The judiciary recognizes the principle of separation of powers and therefore does not interfere merely because another policy option may appear more desirable. In Balco Employees’ Union v. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that economic policy decisions should generally remain within executive discretion unless they are unconstitutional or arbitrary. This approach reflects judicial discipline and respect for the functions of the executive branch while still preserving constitutional accountability.
Judicial review of executive actions serves as an essential safeguard for democracy, rule of law, and protection of Fundamental Rights in India. The constitutional framework established under Articles 74 and 75 ensures that executive power is exercised through a democratically accountable Council of Ministers, while judicial review ensures that such power remains subject to constitutional limitations. Through landmark decisions such as Kesavananda Bharati, Maneka Gandhi, S.R. Bommai, and Tata Cellular, the judiciary has developed a strong constitutional jurisprudence ensuring legality, fairness, transparency, and accountability in executive governance. Judicial review therefore acts as a vital mechanism for maintaining constitutional balance and protecting citizens against arbitrary or unlawful exercise of executive authority.
Leave a Reply