JUDICIAL REVIEW

ABSTRACT

Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality and legality of actions taken by the legislative and executive branches. Originating in the landmark U.S. case Marbury v. Madison (1803), this doctrine ensures that no public authority exceeds its legal jurisdiction and that fundamental rights are protected. In India, judicial review is exercised by both the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 32 and 226, respectively. The grounds for judicial review include illegality, excess of jurisdiction, procedural impropriety, and proportionality. However, limitations such as judicial overreach and frequent interference highlight the need for balance between judicial activism and self-restraint.

KEYWORDS

Judicial review, Constitution, Marbury v. Madison, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Impropriety, Proportionality, Judicial Activism, Separation of Powers, India.

INTRODUCTION

Judicial review serves as a cornerstone of democratic governance by enabling the judiciary to ensure that legislative and executive actions adhere to constitutional principles. The doctrine originated in Marbury v. Madison (1803) in the United States and has since become a critical function of judicial systems worldwide, including India. It empowers courts to strike down laws and decisions that violate constitutional provisions, protecting citizens’ fundamental rights and maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution. In India, judicial review is fundamental to safeguarding democratic processes and preventing the abuse of power. The paper explores the concept of judicial review, its significance, grounds, and limitations, as well as its role in preserving the checks and balances between government branches.

WHAT IS JUDICIAL REVIEW?

The power of the judiciary to determine and review the validity of a law or order may be described as judicial review. Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution. The term judicial review was introduced in the case of Marbury V. Madison in the year 1803. In this case, President Adam’s tenure as a member of the Federalist Party came to an end, and President Jefferson, an anti-federalist, assumed office. Adam nominated federal party members to be judges on his last day. However, Jefferson opposed this when he became president. Thus, he prevented Secretary of State Madison from forwarding the judges’ appointment letter. One of the justices, Marbury, filed a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court. The Court refused to entertain the plea and first opposed the order of the legislature i.e. Congress and thus the US Supreme Court developed the doctrine of judicial review.

A sort of court process known as judicial review allows the judge to assess whether a public body’s decision or action was legal. If the judiciary finds that the action done by the public body is unconstitutional, it can declare it void.

IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial Review upholds the importance of the Constitution and the supremacy of the Constitution.
Judicial Review safeguards the fundamental rights of the citizen by reviewing the unlawful practices of public bodies.
It prevents the misuse of power by the legislature and the executive and keeps a check on them.

FEATURES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial Review can be exercised by both Supreme Court as well as High Court under Article 226 and Article 32 but the final power to interpret the constitution lies with the apex court i.e. Supreme Court.
Laws made by both the state government and center government are subject to judicial review
The court itself cannot exercise the power of judicial review, it is only possible when someone challenges the law or the rule in the Hon’ble Court.
In the case of I. R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu The court went on to say that the Judicial Review is a ‘basic feature’ of the Constitution and it could not be taken away by putting a law under the 9th Schedule.[1]

WHO CAN DO JUDICIAL REVIEW?

The concept that guides the judiciary’s evaluation of legislative and executive activities is known as judicial review. The judiciary is vested with the authority to evaluate the actions of the other two branches of government in India, despite the principle of separation of powers being in place for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Both the Supreme Court and the High Courts in India have the authority to conduct judicial review. The Indian Constitution grants the courts the authority to conduct judicial reviews in accordance with Articles 226 and 227 for High Courts and Articles 32 and 136 for the Supreme Court.

GROUNDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

Constitutional Amendment

During this stage, all constitutional amendments made by the authority are subject to judicial review. It is decided that all of the amendments that violate fundamental rights are invalid and unlawful. One can track the history of every judicial review of the constitutional changes. We have already seen in the above-mentioned case laws that the constitutional changes were contested and all those against the constitution are deemed unconstitutional and rendered void.

Illegality

Lack of jurisdiction

Any supposed activity of an administrative authority that lacks the legal jurisdiction to carry out a specific act shall, by definition, be null and void. If the authorities used jurisdiction over which they had no prior authority, a court may examine an administrative action. This review may be done on the following grounds (inter alia):

1. That the rules under which the administrative authority is composed and is exercising jurisdiction, are in itself unconstitutional.

2. That the authority is not properly made in accordance with the rules and regulations or the laws.

3. The authority may have assumed jurisdiction that does not belong to it because it made an error in deciding on a factual matter pertaining to jurisdiction.

4. That certain important preliminaries were ignored while being prerequisites for the exercise of the jurisdiction.

5. That the administration/officials were inept in assuming jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter, areas, and parties.

Excess of jurisdiction

Every administrative authority must exercise its authority within the confines of the authority that has been granted to it; that is, it cannot rule everything by staying inside the four corners of the law. An action that exceeds the power will be considered ultra vires and will be null and void.

Abuse of jurisdiction

This ground basically means that there should not be an act done in bad faith (mala fide actions), but authority must always exercise its discretion for the reason it is allotted to it and must act in good faith (bona fide actions).

Failure to exercise jurisdiction

The person in charge or the authority must carry out the authority’s mandate in one form or another if it is granted by law, even if it is discretionary. Among other things, a failure to use discretion can occur in the following five situations:

1. Unauthorised delegation,

2. Self-imposed fretters on discretion,

3. Following orders from a higher authority,

4. Non-application of mind,

5. Power coupled with duty.

Procedural impropriety

Every administrative action must adhere to a “fair procedure” in order to prevent procedural impropriety. The fair procedure would include

Rule against bias

It indicates that no one has the right to judge their own case (nemo judex in causa sua).

Rule of fair hearing

No one shall be sentenced without being given a fair hearing, according to the fair hearing rule (Audi alteram partum).

Moreover, procedural impropriety also comprises the failure to observe regulations laid down in statutes along with the failure to observe the basic common rules of natural justice, as stated above.

Proportionality

In order to achieve proportionality, the administrative power cannot take more extreme measures than are necessary to achieve the intended results. One way to convey proportionality is to use the analogy “taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.” This doctrine endeavors to balance means with ends. Proportionality shares space with ‘reasonable restrictions’.

TYPES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review can be divided into three main categories, which are as follows:

Reviews of legislative actions

This kind of judicial examination implies that the legislation passed by the legislature are compliant with the Constitution’s legal provisions. There have been other Supreme Court cases where this issue has been discussed.

Review of administrative actions

This is one more way that the administrative agencies might exercise their jurisdiction while maintaining constitutional discipline. It is important to remember that the definition of “state” includes the judicial review of administrative decisions made by the Union of India, state governments, and their representatives.

Review of judicial decisions

This kind of review is carried out by the judiciary itself to update or correct earlier decisions or declarations.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS

Judicial Precedents play an important role in legislative procedures by ensuring that the laws which are made are in compliance with the constitution. These judicial precedents lays down a boundary for execution of power Below are some significant judicial precedents and their impacts on the legislative process:

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)- This is a landmark case that established the Basic Structure Doctrine which held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.[2]
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)- In this case Supreme Court expanded the boundaries of Article 21 of the constitution holding that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable.[3]
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)- In this case, the Supreme Court held that the parliament cannot amend the fundamental rights granted under the constitution. The court held that Fundamental Rights have a transcendental position and cannot be altered by ordinary legislative processes.[4]
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)- In this case Supreme Court declared various amendments made to election laws as unconstitutional and struck down Article 329A, which provided immunity to the election of the Prime Minister and Speaker of the Lok Sabha from judicial review. The court ruled that such laws violated the basic structure of the Constitution.[5]

LIMITATIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

The high courts’ and the Apex Court’s exercise of power over judicial review is subject to several restrictions. In fact, when the judiciary oversteps its boundary and intrudes into matters that are authorized by the executive, it is termed judicial activism; whereas, when power is exploited further, it can lead to judicial overreach. Some of the restrictions on judicial review are listed below:

Restricts the functioning of the government

Judicial review has a restricted scope in terms of availability and functionality. Here, the role of the court is to perform a review of the method through which an outcome was deduced so as to determine whether such a finding is defective and must be rescinded, instead of re-making the ruling in question or investigating the merits of the decision deduced. In short, it is only allowable to the degree of determining whether the method of reaching the inference was properly adhered to or not. It is not a decision in itself.

Violation of limits set by the Constitution

It transgresses the Constitution’s limitations on power when it supersedes any earlier legislation. It is claimed that the Constitution’s exercise of legislative authority was incorrect in this case.

The concept of separation of power not observed

The concept of separation of functions is followed rather than that of separation of power. Additionally, the concept of separation of powers is not strictly adhered to. However, a system of checks and balances has been introduced, thus entrusting the judiciary with the power to overturn any unconstitutional laws passed by the legislature.

Sets a precedent

Once a judge has rendered a decision in one case, the decision would be the foundation for another case decision, setting a precedent.

Selfish motives and influences

The local public may suffer from judicial review since there is a possibility that the decision will be skewed toward personal or self-serving interests. This may result in harm to the general public.

Frequent interference by the court has a negative effect on the local public

Repeated court interventions can undermine the confidence of people in the integrity, quality, and efficiency of the government.

Lack of the capability to overrule administrative decisions

Inability to overturn judgments made by administrators. The decisions made by the administrative authority cannot be overturned by the court. If a review of an administrative ruling is authorized, the decision of the court would be substituted, thus regarded to be a shortcoming due to inadequate knowledge.

Judicial activism and judicial self-restraint

The question of whether judicial activism and self-control should cross a boundary is hotly debated.

Doctrine of Strict Necessity

According to the stringent necessity theory, the court can only make a decision on a constitutional issue when it is absolutely necessary for it to do so. As a result, decisions about constitutional issues won’t be made more broadly than necessary.

CONCLUSION

Judicial review plays a vital role in upholding constitutional supremacy and protecting individual rights by reviewing the legality of legislative and executive actions. It acts as a safeguard against the misuse of power and ensures adherence to constitutional norms. However, while judicial review is essential for maintaining democratic integrity, excessive judicial intervention risks undermining the efficiency of government functions. Therefore, a balance between judicial activism and judicial self-restraint is crucial to ensure that the judiciary exercises its powers effectively without overstepping its mandate. The doctrine continues to evolve, reinforcing the foundational principles of democracy and constitutional governance.

REFERENCES

SCC Online
Constitution of India

[1] I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1

[2] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.

[3] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

[4] Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643.

[5] Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.