Judicial review in India is one of the most significant features of the constitutional framework and serves as a cornerstone of constitutional governance, democratic accountability, and the rule of law. It refers to the power of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts, to examine the validity, legality, and constitutionality of legislative enactments, executive actions, administrative decisions, and delegated legislation, and to strike down or invalidate such actions when they violate the Constitution.
Judicial review ensures that all organs of the state function within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and that the fundamental rights of citizens are protected against arbitrary or unlawful exercises of power. The doctrine is rooted in the principle of constitutional supremacy, which establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and requires all laws and governmental actions to conform to its provisions. Unlike parliamentary sovereignty in the traditional British sense, where Parliament is supreme, the Indian constitutional system is based on constitutional supremacy, meaning that even Parliament is subject to constitutional limitations.
Judicial review acts as the mechanism through which courts enforce these limitations and preserve the constitutional balance among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. The importance of judicial review lies not merely in its legal function but also in its broader role as a safeguard of democracy, liberty, equality, justice, and the rule of law. The origins of judicial review in India can be traced to constitutional developments in other jurisdictions, particularly the United States, where the doctrine was firmly established in the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in that case recognized the authority of courts to declare laws unconstitutional if they conflicted with the Constitution.
Although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly define judicial review in a single provision, the doctrine is deeply embedded in various constitutional articles and principles. The framers of the Constitution deliberately incorporated provisions that empower the judiciary to review governmental actions and protect constitutional values. Articles 13, 32, 131 to 136, 141, 142, 226, and 227 collectively provide the constitutional foundation for judicial review in India. Article 13 is particularly significant because it declares that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency.
This provision establishes the authority of courts to invalidate laws that violate constitutional guarantees and serves as a direct constitutional basis for judicial review. Judicial review in India operates in several dimensions, including the review of legislative actions, executive actions, administrative decisions, delegated legislation, and constitutional amendments. The review of legislative actions involves examining whether laws enacted by Parliament or state legislatures conform to constitutional provisions.
Courts may invalidate legislation if it exceeds legislative competence, violates fundamental rights, infringes constitutional principles, or contravenes the basic structure of the Constitution. Legislative competence refers to the authority of a legislature to enact laws on particular subjects as allocated under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. If Parliament or a state legislature enacts a law on a subject beyond its constitutional jurisdiction, the law may be declared unconstitutional. Similarly, legislation that infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution may be struck down.
Through judicial review, courts ensure that legislative bodies remain within their constitutional limits and respect the rights of citizens. The review of executive actions constitutes another important aspect of judicial review. Executive authorities exercise extensive powers affecting the lives of individuals and communities, including powers relating to administration, regulation, law enforcement, public welfare, taxation, licensing, and governance. Judicial review enables courts to examine whether executive actions are lawful, reasonable, non-arbitrary, and consistent with constitutional requirements.
Executive decisions may be challenged on grounds such as illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, mala fide exercise of power, abuse of discretion, violation of natural justice, and infringement of fundamental rights. Courts do not ordinarily substitute their own policy preferences for those of the executive, but they ensure that executive powers are exercised within legal and constitutional boundaries. This supervisory function is essential for preventing abuse of power and maintaining governmental accountability.
Administrative actions and delegated legislation are also subject to judicial review. Modern governance relies heavily on administrative agencies and regulatory bodies that exercise quasi-legislative, executive, and quasi-judicial powers. These authorities formulate regulations, issue orders, grant licenses, conduct investigations, and make decisions affecting individual rights and interests. Judicial review ensures that administrative authorities act within the powers conferred by statutes and adhere to principles of fairness, reasonableness, and legality.
Delegated legislation, including rules, regulations, notifications, and orders issued by administrative agencies, may be challenged if it exceeds statutory authority, violates constitutional provisions, or conflicts with the parent legislation. The doctrine of ultra vires plays a central role in this context by ensuring that administrative authorities do not exceed the powers delegated to them by the legislature. One of the most remarkable developments in Indian constitutional law is the extension of judicial review to constitutional amendments through the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Initially, the scope of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 became a subject of judicial controversy. In Shankari Prasad v Union of India and Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s broad amending powers. However, in I.C. Golaknath v State of Punjab, the Court held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. This issue was ultimately resolved in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala in 1973. In this historic judgment, the Supreme Court held that while Parliament possesses wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter or destroy its basic structure.
The Court identified certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as constitutional supremacy, democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, separation of powers, and the rule of law, as forming part of the basic structure. Constitutional amendments violating these essential features may be declared unconstitutional. The Basic Structure Doctrine represents one of the most significant contributions of Indian jurisprudence to constitutional law and underscores the central role of judicial review in preserving constitutional identity.
Judicial review in India is closely linked to the protection of fundamental rights. Articles 32 and 226 provide powerful remedies for enforcing constitutional rights through writ jurisdiction. Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights, while Article 226 grants High Courts broader authority to issue writs not only for fundamental rights but also for other legal rights. The writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto constitute important instruments through which courts exercise judicial review.
These remedies enable individuals to challenge unlawful detentions, compel performance of public duties, restrain authorities from exceeding their jurisdiction, quash illegal decisions, and challenge unlawful appointments to public offices. The availability of writ remedies ensures that judicial review remains accessible and effective in protecting individual liberties. The development of Public Interest Litigation has significantly expanded the scope and accessibility of judicial review in India. Traditionally, only persons directly affected by governmental actions could approach courts. However, the Supreme Court gradually relaxed the doctrine of locus standi and allowed public-spirited individuals and organizations to seek judicial remedies on behalf of disadvantaged and marginalized groups.
Public Interest Litigation has enabled courts to address issues relating to bonded labor, child labor, environmental degradation, prison conditions, corruption, women’s rights, consumer protection, and social welfare. Through PIL, judicial review has become a powerful tool for promoting social justice and ensuring governmental accountability. The judiciary has used PIL to expand the interpretation of fundamental rights and address systemic issues affecting vulnerable populations. Judicial review has also played a transformative role in the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Initially interpreted narrowly, Article 21 has evolved into a comprehensive source of numerous rights through judicial review.
The Supreme Court has recognized rights relating to human dignity, privacy, livelihood, education, health, clean environment, legal aid, shelter, speedy trial, and access to justice as integral components of the right to life. This expansive interpretation reflects the judiciary’s commitment to adapting constitutional principles to changing societal needs and ensuring meaningful protection of human rights. The doctrine of judicial review has been instrumental in advancing constitutionalism and human rights jurisprudence in India. Despite its importance, judicial review is not unlimited.
Courts have consistently emphasized that judicial review concerns the legality of decisions rather than their merits. Judicial review is not an appeal against governmental decisions, nor does it authorize courts to govern the country or formulate public policy. Courts generally exercise restraint in matters involving economic policy, national security, foreign affairs, and technical expertise, recognizing the institutional competence of the executive and legislature in such areas. The doctrine of separation of powers requires courts to respect the functions of other branches of government while ensuring compliance with constitutional norms.
Judicial review therefore involves a delicate balance between activism and restraint. Excessive judicial intervention may undermine democratic accountability, while insufficient intervention may permit illegality and arbitrariness. Courts seek to maintain this balance by focusing on legality, fairness, rationality, and constitutional compliance. Judicial review has produced numerous landmark judgments that have shaped Indian constitutional development. Cases such as Kesavananda Bharati, Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, Minerva Mills v Union of India, S.R. Bommai v Union of India, Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, and many others demonstrate the transformative impact of judicial review on governance and rights protection.
Through these decisions, the judiciary has strengthened constitutional values, protected individual freedoms, promoted transparency, and enhanced governmental accountability. Judicial review has also contributed to the development of doctrines such as proportionality, legitimate expectation, procedural fairness, and constitutional morality. These principles continue to influence contemporary legal and administrative decision-making.
The significance of judicial review extends beyond legal doctrine because it serves as a vital mechanism for preserving democracy and the rule of law. In a constitutional democracy, governmental powers must remain subject to legal limits and judicial scrutiny. Judicial review ensures that constitutional guarantees are not merely symbolic but are effectively enforced in practice. It protects minorities against majoritarian excesses, prevents concentration of power, and promotes accountability within public institutions.
At the same time, the legitimacy of judicial review depends upon judicial independence, integrity, impartiality, and adherence to constitutional principles. Courts derive their authority not from political power but from public confidence in their ability to administer justice fairly and impartially. The continued effectiveness of judicial review therefore requires a judiciary that is independent, competent, and committed to constitutional values. In conclusion, judicial review in India is one of the most powerful and essential features of the constitutional system. It serves as the guardian of the Constitution, the protector of fundamental rights, the defender of constitutional supremacy, and the custodian of the rule of law.
Through judicial review, courts ensure that legislative, executive, and administrative actions remain within constitutional limits and respect the rights and freedoms of citizens. The doctrine has evolved significantly through judicial interpretation and has contributed to the development of a vibrant constitutional democracy committed to justice, liberty, equality, and dignity. As India continues to face new social, economic, technological, and governance challenges, judicial review will remain an indispensable instrument for preserving constitutional values and ensuring that public power is exercised responsibly, lawfully, and in the interests of the people.
Leave a Reply