All You Need To Know About Judicial Review
Introduction
In a court proceeding called judicial review, a judge looks at the legitimacy of a decision or action made by an authority. This system has been governed in India by the idea of "procedure established by law." The High Courts and the Indian Supreme Court have extensive authority over judicial review. They have the power to declare a statute or ordinance unconstitutional if it is found to be against the Indian Constitution. Part III of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution referred to the requirement of judicial review as a Fundamental right.
Historical Background of Judicial Review
• The American Supreme Court invented the judicial review doctrine. It was proposed by Chief Justice Marshall in the crucial 1803 case Marbury v. Madison.
• Judicial review is a term used to describe the Court's authority to invalidate any presidential order or piece of legislation that it deems to be at odds with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
• In India: Judicial review was seen as a fundamental aspect of the constitution in the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain case of 1975.
Review By The Courts - Concept
• A judge reviews the legitimacy of a decision or action during judicial review, a form of court procedure that happens in the administrative court.
• In other words, court reviews the method used to make a decision rather than the correctness or incorrectness of the outcome.
• If the law has been appropriately implemented and the right procedures have been followed, that is what judicial review examines.
• According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the notion of "Procedure established by law" serves as the foundation for judicial review in India.
• A law is regarded as legislation if it satisfies the constitutionality requirement. In contrast, the court has the power to deem a statute unconstitutional.
• The constitution is the country's highest law, and if any law is passed that violates the constitution's fundamental principles, an Indian court has the power to invalidate it.
• Even though the term "judicial review" is not used specifically in the Indian Constitution, several Articles do explain it in explicit terms.
Who Is Able To Carry Out Judicial Review?
• Both the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India have the authority to conduct judicial reviews.
• The Indian Constitution's Articles 226 and 227 for High Courts and Articles 32 and 136 for the Supreme Court give the courts the authority to conduct judicial reviews.
• Even though the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government in India are all subject to the principle of the separation of powers, the judiciary has the capacity to examine the activities of the other two branches.
Provisions
• The Higher Courts and the Supreme Court of India have the authority under the Indian Constitution to review whether laws and administrative actions are constitutional.
• The protection of public rights and the implementation of fundamental rights are the main objectives of judicial review.
• Article 246 and Schedule 7 of the Constitution have provided a working area for the creation of rules between the State and the Centre in the event of a conflict.
• Numerous judicial review system elements are granted by the Constitution under various provisions. The articles are listed:
|
Articles |
Provisions |
|
Article 13 |
Declares that laws that are contradictory with or violate Fundamental Rights are null and invalid. |
|
Article 32 |
The right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights is guaranteed, and the Apex Court is given the authority to issue directions, orders, or writs. |
|
Article 131 |
Establishes the Apex Court's original jurisdiction in inter- and intra-state issues. |
|
Article 132 |
Establishes the Supreme Court's appellate authority in constitutional matters. |
|
Article 133 |
Establishes the Supreme Court's appellate authority in civil cases. |
|
Article 134 |
Establishes the Supreme Court's appeal authority in criminal cases. |
|
Article 134-A |
Deals with the certificate for a high court appeal to the Supreme Court. |
|
Article 135 |
Empowers the Apex Court to execute federal court jurisdiction and powers under any pre-constitutional law. |
|
Article 226 |
Empowers the high courts to conduct judicial reviews and issue directives, orders, or writs to enforce basic rights or other goals. |
|
Article 227 |
It vests in the high courts the ability to supervise all courts within their respective territorial jurisdiction (except military courts and tribunals). |
|
Article 245 |
It addresses the territorial extent established by Parliament and state legislatures. |
|
Article 246 |
It discusses the subject matter on which Parliament and state legislatures can pass laws (i.e., the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List). |
|
Articles 251 and 254 |
It deduces the hegemony of the central laws in cases when the central and state laws conflict. As a result, the central law will take precedence over the state law, and the state statute will be deemed null and void. |
|
Article 372 |
Addresses the continuation of pre-constitutional legislation in effect. |
When Does The Court Use Judicial Review?
A court's exercise of its judicial review authority is subject to the following rule:
• If there are two alternative interpretations of a state-enacted law, and the first interpretation brings the statute into compliance with the constitution while the second interpretation puts the law in violation of the constitution, the court will favor the first interpretation and uphold the law.
• Normally, the court won't conduct judicial review of a statute that hasn't been made legally enforceable.
• Suo Moto, normally the court won't use judicial review. Before using judicial review, it will wait until a petition is filed to contest the constitutionality of a statute.
How Judicial Review Relates To Constitutional Amendment?
• The Supreme Court is able to evaluate constitutional amendments in court. On the other hand, the judiciary's assessment of the Constitutional Amendment in relation to Fundamental Rights and its legality has been a contentious political issue.
• The concept of the Basic Structure has made it possible to use judicial review for constitutional amendments involving Fundamental Rights as well. This theory was developed in the Keshavanand Bharati case in 1973.
• In the Minerva Mill case, which was decided in 1980, the Supreme Court upheld the judicial review principle, which had already been mentioned in several of the court's earlier rulings. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1876 included wording to Article 368 that, among other things, exempted constitutional amendments from judicial scrutiny.
Regulations For Judicial Review
In order to provide direction during the judicial review process, some doctrines have arisen in the courts.
The Severability Doctrine
• The court must decide whether the entire statute being challenged is unconstitutional or just certain parts of it. The court has the power to rule that the challenged law is unconstitutional in whole or in part, depending on the circumstances.
The doctrine of progressive interpretation
• The idea of progressive interpretation, which states that the courts have interpreted the Constitution's provisions in light of the social, economic, and legal realities in effect at the time, has served as a guide for the Indian judiciary.
The doctrine of prospective overruling
• It is founded on the notion that judicial invalidation or a new interpretation of the law will only apply to future transactions and have no bearing on previous transactions or vested rights.
The doctrine of Empirical Adjudication
• When using the judicial review authority, Courts are not set up to handle hypothetical situations, the issue that is brought before them must be "Concrete." The Court makes an effort to maintain its judgments as close as feasible to the initial parameters of the disagreement.
The assumption that constitutional law will prevail
• Because there is always a presumption in favor of a law's constitutionality, the court will not declare it ultra vires when a law's constitutionality is contested unless the invalidity is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court makes the supposition that the legislature doesn't go beyond its bounds or pass laws that go against the letter of the Constitution.
Review of The Law - Features
• Not Absolute - Judicial review is not absolute since specific requirements must be met in order to register an objection against any law in the Supreme Court or the subordinate courts. For example, a law can only be contested if:
• It infringes fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.
• The Constitution's mandates are broken by the law.
• The official(s) in charge who passed the law acted outside of their scope of knowledge or authority.
• Judicial review cannot be pursued alone by the Supreme Court. It can only be used when a legal or administrative issue is presented before the honorable court.
• Judicial review authority - Judicial reviews are under the purview of both the Supreme Court and the lower courts.
• Under Article 226, a person may file a petition with the Supreme Court alleging that a fundamental or legal right has been violated. Additionally, a person may file a petition with the Supreme Court under Article 32 for any violation of a Fundamental right exclusively.
• The Supreme Court, however, has the final say in how the constitution should be interpreted.
• The Supreme Court is the nation's highest court, and its decisions have an impact on the entire country.
• Laws that are susceptible to judicial review - Both federal and state laws are open to judicial scrutiny.
• According to Article 13(3) of the Indian Constitution, all laws, orders, bye-laws, ordinances, constitutional amendments, and other notifications are subject to judicial review.
• The Supreme Court, or any other court, for that matter, does not utilize its authority to conduct a judicial review on its own initiative. Judicial review is not a suo motu.
• However, when a legal issue is brought up in court or when certain circumstances that relate to the law at hand arise during court proceedings, such power is used.
Judiciary Review: Importance
• The Supreme Court and High Courts' judicial review has been essential in maintaining India's constitutional governance by ensuring that the Union and State governments stay within their respective spheres of competence.
• Liberal interpretation holds that the adaptability of new circumstances gave the constitutional provisions fresh significance and depth.
• Most importantly, it has protected citizens' fundamental rights from unwarranted legislative and executive interference, ensuring their true freedom.
• Executive tyranny is prevented by judicial review.
• It protects basic rights.
• It is essential for maintaining the judiciary's independence.
• It is a must in order to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution.
• Additionally, it helps in the detection of legislative and executive abuses of authority.
• The balance between the federal government and the states is preserved as a result.
Judicial Review - Significant Decisions
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
• In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, the first amendment act of 1951 was contested before the Supreme Court on the basis that it restricted the "Right to Property," however it was argued that this could not be done since the fundamental rights under article 13(2) could not be restricted.
• The Supreme Court rejected the claim, finding that Article 368's phrasing is entirely general and that the legislature is entitled to change the constitution in all cases.
Golaknath v.State of Punjab
• The first, fourth, and seventeenth constitutional amendments were contested in the illustrious case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab.
• The Supreme Court overruled its conclusion that parliament lacks the authority to amend the constitution in order to eliminate or restrict the fundamental rights it protects under Article 368.
• The Supreme Court ruled that Article 368 does not confer the power to rewrite the constitution rather, it just prescribes the procedure to be followed when doing so.
• The Union List's Articles 245, 246, and 248 grant the right to amend the constitution.
Minerva Mills Case
• The Supreme Court unanimously decided in the Minerva Mills case to strike down Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act, which gave the directive principles control over Articles 24, 19, and 31 of our Constitution.
• Declaring that Parts III and IV of our constitution are equally important and that there cannot be any absolute supremacy of one over the other will undermine the unity of the Indian Constitution.
Limitations of Judicial Review
• There are some restrictions on the exercise of power with regard to judicial review by the high courts and the Supreme Court.
• Limitations on the government Functionality - Judicial review has limited availability as well as functionality.
• The court's task in this case is to evaluate the process by which a result was arrived at in order to decide whether such a finding is flawed and has to be overturned rather than remaking the decision at question or assessing the merits of the conclusion reached.
• Influence from personal motives - Judicial review may be detrimental to the local community since the verdict may be swayed by selfish or personal motives. The broader population could be harmed by this.
• Repeated interventions - People's faith in the government's integrity, competence, and effectiveness may be damaged by repeated court interventions.
• The strict necessity doctrine: The theory of stringent necessity states that the court may only address constitutional matters if strict necessity compels it to do so.
• As a result, constitutional questions won't be resolved in a more comprehensive way than is required.
Exclusion of Judicial Review
• Exclusion of judicial review refers to the circumstances in which the Supreme Court's and high courts' ability to issue writs is constrained.
• It might be described as the limitations/restrictions imposed on the courts' power to assess the actions of a public entity, such as the executive and legislative branches.
• The Indian Constitution's Article 74(2) excludes judicial review and includes a provision for removal of officials.
• According to Article 74(2), no court shall inquire into the subject of whether any, and if so, what kind of advice, was given to the President by Ministers.
• No appeals or changes are permitted under the ouster clause's criteria.
• It renders the authority's action or decision final and binding. As a result, the court may have no jurisdiction whatsoever.
• Other constitutional provisions, Articles 77 and 78 limit judicial review in order to provide the government substantial latitude in the use of power.
• According to Article 80, the President alone has the right to determine the membership of the Council of States.
• The President has the authority to disqualify members in accordance with Article 103, and this decision is final and conclusive.
Conclusion
One of the Indian Constitution's most potent mechanisms is judicial review. Its roots are in India, and the Indian Constitution expressly endorses this ideology. The judicial review process safeguards the fundamental rights set forth in the Constitution by acting as its custodian. We introduced the idea of judicial review in the case of Minerva Mills v. Union of India, which later became a part of the fundamental framework. Finally, it is accurate to say that the use of judicial review has expanded to safeguard individual rights, forbid the exercise of arbitrary authority, and avert injustice.