This mind map illustrates the core components, constitutional basis, and significance of Judicial Review in India's governance framework.
Judicial Review
Articles 13, 32, 226
Basic Structure Doctrine
Review of Laws
Review of Executive Actions
Supremacy of Constitution
Guardian of Fundamental Rights
Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
NJAC Case (2015)
Connections
Constitutional Basis→Scope And Power
Scope And Power→Significance
Landmark Judgments→Constitutional Basis
Landmark Judgments→Scope And Power
Evolution of Judicial Review in India
Tracing the historical development and judicial pronouncements that shaped the power of Judicial Review in India.
1951
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India: Supreme Court held Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
1965
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan: Reaffirmed the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
1967
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab: Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament.
1971
Constitution (24th Amendment) Act: Parliament asserted its power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
1973
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: Introduced the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', limiting Parliament's amending power.
1976
Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act: Attempted to give Parliament supremacy over Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
1978
Constitution (44th Amendment) Act: Rolled back some provisions of the 42nd Amendment, restoring balance.
2015
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case: Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, reaffirming judicial independence.
2023
Electoral Bonds Case: Supreme Court used Judicial Review to strike down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional.
Connected to current news
Judicial Review: Pillars and Implications
This mind map illustrates the core components, constitutional basis, and significance of Judicial Review in India's governance framework.
Judicial Review
Articles 13, 32, 226
Basic Structure Doctrine
Review of Laws
Review of Executive Actions
Supremacy of Constitution
Guardian of Fundamental Rights
Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
NJAC Case (2015)
Connections
Constitutional Basis→Scope And Power
Scope And Power→Significance
Landmark Judgments→Constitutional Basis
Landmark Judgments→Scope And Power
Evolution of Judicial Review in India
Tracing the historical development and judicial pronouncements that shaped the power of Judicial Review in India.
1951
Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India: Supreme Court held Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
1965
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan: Reaffirmed the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
1967
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab: Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament.
1971
Constitution (24th Amendment) Act: Parliament asserted its power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
1973
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: Introduced the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', limiting Parliament's amending power.
1976
Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act: Attempted to give Parliament supremacy over Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
1978
Constitution (44th Amendment) Act: Rolled back some provisions of the 42nd Amendment, restoring balance.
2015
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case: Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, reaffirming judicial independence.
2023
Electoral Bonds Case: Supreme Court used Judicial Review to strike down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional.
Connected to current news
Constitutional Provision
Judicial Review
What is Judicial Review?
Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary, primarily the Supreme Court and High Courts, to examine the constitutional validity of legislative laws passed by the Parliament or state legislatures and executive orders actions taken by the government. If a law or order is found to violate the Constitution, it can be declared unconstitutional and thus, invalid. This power ensures that the government acts within the limits of the Constitution and protects the fundamental rights of citizens. It's a crucial aspect of the separation of powers and constitutional supremacy. The purpose is to maintain the rule of law and prevent arbitrary or unjust actions by the government. Without judicial review, the legislature could potentially pass laws that infringe upon citizens' rights or undermine the basic structure of the Constitution.
Historical Background
The concept of judicial review has its roots in the American legal system, notably established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In India, judicial review was implicitly recognized even before the adoption of the Constitution. The Government of India Act, 1935, allowed the Federal Court to interpret the law. After independence, the framers of the Indian Constitution explicitly incorporated judicial review to safeguard fundamental rights and maintain the balance of power. Key milestones include the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which established the doctrine of basic structure, limiting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Over time, judicial review has evolved through various court decisions, expanding its scope to cover administrative actions and policy decisions. The 42nd Amendment Act attempted to curtail judicial review, but it was largely reversed by the 44th Amendment Act.
Key Points
11 points
1.
Judicial review is derived from several articles of the Constitution, most notably Article 13, which declares that any law inconsistent with the fundamental rights shall be void. This means any law passed by Parliament or a state legislature that violates fundamental rights can be struck down by the courts.
2.
Article 32 grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs (like habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, etc.) to enforce fundamental rights. This is a direct mechanism for citizens to approach the Supreme Court if they believe their rights have been violated, triggering judicial review.
3.
Article 226 confers similar powers on the High Courts, allowing them to issue writs within their respective jurisdictions. This provides a wider access point for citizens seeking judicial review of actions violating their fundamental rights.
4.
Visual Insights
Judicial Review: Pillars and Implications
This mind map illustrates the core components, constitutional basis, and significance of Judicial Review in India's governance framework.
Judicial Review
●Constitutional Basis
●Scope and Power
●Significance
●Landmark Judgments
Evolution of Judicial Review in India
Tracing the historical development and judicial pronouncements that shaped the power of Judicial Review in India.
The power of Judicial Review in India evolved through a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments, often in response to parliamentary attempts to amend the Constitution. It moved from initial deference to Parliament's amending power to establishing limits through the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that constitutional amendments do not alter its fundamental character.
1951Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India: Supreme Court held Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
1965Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan: Reaffirmed the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
Recent Real-World Examples
10 examples
Illustrated in 10 real-world examples from Mar 2026 to Mar 2026
Judicial Review is a frequently asked topic in UPSC, particularly in GS-2 (Polity and Governance). Questions can range from the basic definition and scope to more analytical questions about its impact on governance and the separation of powers. In Prelims, expect factual questions about relevant articles, landmark cases, and constitutional amendments. In Mains, be prepared to discuss the evolution of judicial review, its limitations, and its role in protecting fundamental rights and upholding the Constitution. Recent cases and controversies related to judicial review are particularly important. Essay topics related to the judiciary and constitutionalism often require a strong understanding of judicial review. In recent years, questions have focused on the balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint, and the impact of judicial decisions on socio-economic policies.
❓
Frequently Asked Questions
12
1. What's the most common MCQ trap regarding Article 13 and Judicial Review?
Students often incorrectly assume Article 13 *creates* the power of Judicial Review. It doesn't. Article 13 *operationalizes* it by declaring laws violating Fundamental Rights as void. The power itself is derived from the overall constitutional scheme and interpretation, not solely from Article 13.
Exam Tip
Remember: Article 13 = 'operationalizes', not 'creates' Judicial Review.
2. How does 'procedure established by law' limit Judicial Review compared to 'due process of law'?
'Procedure established by law' (initially) meant courts could only check if a law followed the correct *procedure* during enactment, not if the law was *just* or *reasonable*. 'Due process' (as in the US) allows courts to examine the *substance* of the law for fairness. Indian courts have since broadened the interpretation of 'procedure established by law'.
Exam Tip
MCQ trick: 'Procedure established by law' focuses on *how* a law is made; 'due process' focuses on *what* the law says.
Constitutional Provision
Judicial Review
What is Judicial Review?
Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary, primarily the Supreme Court and High Courts, to examine the constitutional validity of legislative laws passed by the Parliament or state legislatures and executive orders actions taken by the government. If a law or order is found to violate the Constitution, it can be declared unconstitutional and thus, invalid. This power ensures that the government acts within the limits of the Constitution and protects the fundamental rights of citizens. It's a crucial aspect of the separation of powers and constitutional supremacy. The purpose is to maintain the rule of law and prevent arbitrary or unjust actions by the government. Without judicial review, the legislature could potentially pass laws that infringe upon citizens' rights or undermine the basic structure of the Constitution.
Historical Background
The concept of judicial review has its roots in the American legal system, notably established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In India, judicial review was implicitly recognized even before the adoption of the Constitution. The Government of India Act, 1935, allowed the Federal Court to interpret the law. After independence, the framers of the Indian Constitution explicitly incorporated judicial review to safeguard fundamental rights and maintain the balance of power. Key milestones include the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which established the doctrine of basic structure, limiting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Over time, judicial review has evolved through various court decisions, expanding its scope to cover administrative actions and policy decisions. The 42nd Amendment Act attempted to curtail judicial review, but it was largely reversed by the 44th Amendment Act.
Key Points
11 points
1.
Judicial review is derived from several articles of the Constitution, most notably Article 13, which declares that any law inconsistent with the fundamental rights shall be void. This means any law passed by Parliament or a state legislature that violates fundamental rights can be struck down by the courts.
2.
Article 32 grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs (like habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, etc.) to enforce fundamental rights. This is a direct mechanism for citizens to approach the Supreme Court if they believe their rights have been violated, triggering judicial review.
3.
Article 226 confers similar powers on the High Courts, allowing them to issue writs within their respective jurisdictions. This provides a wider access point for citizens seeking judicial review of actions violating their fundamental rights.
4.
Visual Insights
Judicial Review: Pillars and Implications
This mind map illustrates the core components, constitutional basis, and significance of Judicial Review in India's governance framework.
Judicial Review
●Constitutional Basis
●Scope and Power
●Significance
●Landmark Judgments
Evolution of Judicial Review in India
Tracing the historical development and judicial pronouncements that shaped the power of Judicial Review in India.
The power of Judicial Review in India evolved through a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments, often in response to parliamentary attempts to amend the Constitution. It moved from initial deference to Parliament's amending power to establishing limits through the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that constitutional amendments do not alter its fundamental character.
1951Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India: Supreme Court held Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
1965Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan: Reaffirmed the power to amend Fundamental Rights.
Recent Real-World Examples
10 examples
Illustrated in 10 real-world examples from Mar 2026 to Mar 2026
Judicial Review is a frequently asked topic in UPSC, particularly in GS-2 (Polity and Governance). Questions can range from the basic definition and scope to more analytical questions about its impact on governance and the separation of powers. In Prelims, expect factual questions about relevant articles, landmark cases, and constitutional amendments. In Mains, be prepared to discuss the evolution of judicial review, its limitations, and its role in protecting fundamental rights and upholding the Constitution. Recent cases and controversies related to judicial review are particularly important. Essay topics related to the judiciary and constitutionalism often require a strong understanding of judicial review. In recent years, questions have focused on the balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint, and the impact of judicial decisions on socio-economic policies.
❓
Frequently Asked Questions
12
1. What's the most common MCQ trap regarding Article 13 and Judicial Review?
Students often incorrectly assume Article 13 *creates* the power of Judicial Review. It doesn't. Article 13 *operationalizes* it by declaring laws violating Fundamental Rights as void. The power itself is derived from the overall constitutional scheme and interpretation, not solely from Article 13.
Exam Tip
Remember: Article 13 = 'operationalizes', not 'creates' Judicial Review.
2. How does 'procedure established by law' limit Judicial Review compared to 'due process of law'?
'Procedure established by law' (initially) meant courts could only check if a law followed the correct *procedure* during enactment, not if the law was *just* or *reasonable*. 'Due process' (as in the US) allows courts to examine the *substance* of the law for fairness. Indian courts have since broadened the interpretation of 'procedure established by law'.
Exam Tip
MCQ trick: 'Procedure established by law' focuses on *how* a law is made; 'due process' focuses on *what* the law says.
The scope of judicial review extends to both legislative actions (laws) and executive actions (government orders and policies). This ensures that all branches of the government are subject to constitutional limits.
5.
The doctrine of basic structure, established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, limits the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Laws that violate the basic structure (like secularism, democracy, federalism) can be struck down, even if they don't directly violate fundamental rights.
6.
Judicial review is not just about striking down laws; it also involves interpreting the Constitution. The courts provide authoritative interpretations of constitutional provisions, which guide future legislation and executive action.
7.
The principle of 'procedure established by law', as opposed to 'due process of law' (used in the US), initially limited the scope of judicial review in India. However, the courts have gradually expanded the interpretation of 'procedure established by law' to include principles of natural justice and fairness.
8.
A key limitation is the principle of locus standi, which traditionally required a person to be directly affected by a law to challenge it. However, the courts have relaxed this rule in cases of public interest litigation (PIL), allowing citizens to challenge laws on behalf of others.
9.
The 9th Schedule of the Constitution was created to protect certain laws from judicial review, particularly land reform laws. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws placed in the 9th Schedule after April 24, 1973, are still subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure.
10.
The power of judicial review is balanced by the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. While the courts can strike down laws, the Parliament can amend the Constitution (subject to the basic structure doctrine) to overcome judicial decisions.
11.
The UPSC specifically tests your understanding of the scope and limitations of judicial review, its evolution, and its role in protecting fundamental rights and upholding the Constitution. Be prepared to analyze landmark cases and constitutional amendments related to judicial review.
1967
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab: Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament.
1971Constitution (24th Amendment) Act: Parliament asserted its power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
1973Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: Introduced the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', limiting Parliament's amending power.
1976Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act: Attempted to give Parliament supremacy over Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
1978Constitution (44th Amendment) Act: Rolled back some provisions of the 42nd Amendment, restoring balance.
2015National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case: Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, reaffirming judicial independence.
2023Electoral Bonds Case: Supreme Court used Judicial Review to strike down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional.
India's Digital Censorship: Government's Blocking Powers Raise Free Speech Concerns
23 Mar 2026
The current news on digital censorship highlights a critical tension where the executive's power to restrict information clashes with constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, making Judicial Review a vital mechanism. This news demonstrates how government actions, particularly those invoking broad powers like emergency blocking orders under IT Rules, can bypass traditional safeguards and potentially undermine free speech and due process. The ability of individuals to challenge such arbitrary censorship through Judicial Review is being tested. The trend towards 'digital exile' and authoritarian governance, as suggested in the news, underscores the importance of an independent judiciary actively exercising its power of review to prevent the erosion of democratic principles and protect citizens' rights against executive overreach in the digital sphere. Understanding Judicial Review is therefore essential for analyzing the constitutional implications of such digital governance policies and their impact on fundamental freedoms.
3. Why does Judicial Review exist – what specific problem does it solve that no other mechanism can?
Judicial Review uniquely ensures *constitutional supremacy*. While Parliament makes laws and the executive implements them, Judicial Review is the final check that these actions don't violate the Constitution's fundamental principles or the rights of citizens. No other body has this specific power of constitutional interpretation and enforcement against the government itself.
4. What are the practical limitations of Judicial Review in India?
answerPoints:
* Judicial delays: Cases can take years, making the remedy ineffective.
* Limited resources: Courts are overburdened, affecting the quality of review.
* Locus standi (relaxed but still relevant): While PILs exist, challenging laws still requires demonstrating a genuine public interest.
* Judicial appointments: Concerns about transparency and potential government influence can affect the judiciary's independence.
* Post-retirement jobs: Judges accepting government positions after retirement raises questions about impartiality.
5. How has the Supreme Court clarified the scope of Judicial Review in economic policy matters?
The Supreme Court has stated that it will generally defer to the government's expertise in economic policy unless the policy is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, or violates constitutional principles. This means the court is less likely to interfere in economic decisions unless there's a clear violation of fundamental rights or the Constitution.
6. What is the strongest argument critics make against Judicial Review, and how would you respond?
Critics argue it leads to 'judicial overreach,' where unelected judges overturn the decisions of democratically elected representatives, undermining parliamentary sovereignty. A response is that Judicial Review *protects* democracy by safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring the government acts within constitutional limits, preventing potential tyranny of the majority. It's a balance between popular will and constitutional principles.
7. How does India's Judicial Review compare to that of the United States?
answerPoints:
* Origin: US Judicial Review evolved through *Marbury v. Madison*; India's is explicitly provided in the Constitution.
* 'Due Process': The US uses 'due process,' allowing courts to assess the fairness of laws. India initially used 'procedure established by law,' a narrower scope, but has expanded its interpretation.
* Amendments: Both countries allow constitutional amendments, but the 'basic structure' doctrine limits Parliament's amending power in India, a concept not present in the US.
8. The NJAC aimed to change judicial appointments. How does its failure relate to Judicial Review?
The NJAC's failure highlights the judiciary's concern about maintaining its independence. The Supreme Court struck it down, fearing that government influence in judicial appointments would compromise the judiciary's ability to impartially exercise Judicial Review, potentially leading to biased rulings favoring the government.
9. What specific articles, besides Article 13 and 32, are crucial for understanding the legal basis of Judicial Review, and why?
answerPoints:
* Article 226: Grants High Courts similar writ jurisdiction as the Supreme Court, expanding access to Judicial Review.
* Articles 131-136: Define the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, including appellate jurisdiction over constitutional matters.
* Article 227: Gives High Courts supervisory power over lower courts, enabling them to review judicial decisions.
Exam Tip
Remember 226 (High Court writs) and 131-136 (SC jurisdiction) for a complete picture.
10. How can Public Interest Litigation (PIL) be both a strength and a weakness of Judicial Review in India?
PIL strengthens Judicial Review by allowing broader access to justice, enabling courts to address systemic issues. However, it can be a weakness if PILs are frivolous or politically motivated, burdening the courts and potentially leading to judicial overreach. The courts must carefully balance access with the need to prevent abuse.
11. What is the 'basic structure' doctrine, and why is it important for Judicial Review?
The 'basic structure' doctrine, established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. It states that certain fundamental features of the Constitution (like secularism, democracy, federalism) cannot be altered. This is crucial for Judicial Review because it allows courts to strike down amendments that violate these basic principles, even if they don't directly infringe on fundamental rights.
Exam Tip
Remember Kesavananda Bharati case = 'basic structure' doctrine.
12. If Judicial Review didn't exist in India, what would fundamentally change for ordinary citizens?
Without Judicial Review, the government and Parliament could potentially pass laws that violate fundamental rights or undermine the Constitution's basic principles without any independent check. Citizens would have significantly less recourse against unjust laws or executive actions, making them more vulnerable to potential abuses of power. The protection of individual liberties would largely depend on the goodwill of the government in power.
The scope of judicial review extends to both legislative actions (laws) and executive actions (government orders and policies). This ensures that all branches of the government are subject to constitutional limits.
5.
The doctrine of basic structure, established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, limits the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Laws that violate the basic structure (like secularism, democracy, federalism) can be struck down, even if they don't directly violate fundamental rights.
6.
Judicial review is not just about striking down laws; it also involves interpreting the Constitution. The courts provide authoritative interpretations of constitutional provisions, which guide future legislation and executive action.
7.
The principle of 'procedure established by law', as opposed to 'due process of law' (used in the US), initially limited the scope of judicial review in India. However, the courts have gradually expanded the interpretation of 'procedure established by law' to include principles of natural justice and fairness.
8.
A key limitation is the principle of locus standi, which traditionally required a person to be directly affected by a law to challenge it. However, the courts have relaxed this rule in cases of public interest litigation (PIL), allowing citizens to challenge laws on behalf of others.
9.
The 9th Schedule of the Constitution was created to protect certain laws from judicial review, particularly land reform laws. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws placed in the 9th Schedule after April 24, 1973, are still subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure.
10.
The power of judicial review is balanced by the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. While the courts can strike down laws, the Parliament can amend the Constitution (subject to the basic structure doctrine) to overcome judicial decisions.
11.
The UPSC specifically tests your understanding of the scope and limitations of judicial review, its evolution, and its role in protecting fundamental rights and upholding the Constitution. Be prepared to analyze landmark cases and constitutional amendments related to judicial review.
1967
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab: Supreme Court ruled that Fundamental Rights cannot be amended by Parliament.
1971Constitution (24th Amendment) Act: Parliament asserted its power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights.
1973Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: Introduced the 'Basic Structure Doctrine', limiting Parliament's amending power.
1976Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act: Attempted to give Parliament supremacy over Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
1978Constitution (44th Amendment) Act: Rolled back some provisions of the 42nd Amendment, restoring balance.
2015National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case: Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act, reaffirming judicial independence.
2023Electoral Bonds Case: Supreme Court used Judicial Review to strike down the electoral bonds scheme as unconstitutional.
India's Digital Censorship: Government's Blocking Powers Raise Free Speech Concerns
23 Mar 2026
The current news on digital censorship highlights a critical tension where the executive's power to restrict information clashes with constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, making Judicial Review a vital mechanism. This news demonstrates how government actions, particularly those invoking broad powers like emergency blocking orders under IT Rules, can bypass traditional safeguards and potentially undermine free speech and due process. The ability of individuals to challenge such arbitrary censorship through Judicial Review is being tested. The trend towards 'digital exile' and authoritarian governance, as suggested in the news, underscores the importance of an independent judiciary actively exercising its power of review to prevent the erosion of democratic principles and protect citizens' rights against executive overreach in the digital sphere. Understanding Judicial Review is therefore essential for analyzing the constitutional implications of such digital governance policies and their impact on fundamental freedoms.
3. Why does Judicial Review exist – what specific problem does it solve that no other mechanism can?
Judicial Review uniquely ensures *constitutional supremacy*. While Parliament makes laws and the executive implements them, Judicial Review is the final check that these actions don't violate the Constitution's fundamental principles or the rights of citizens. No other body has this specific power of constitutional interpretation and enforcement against the government itself.
4. What are the practical limitations of Judicial Review in India?
answerPoints:
* Judicial delays: Cases can take years, making the remedy ineffective.
* Limited resources: Courts are overburdened, affecting the quality of review.
* Locus standi (relaxed but still relevant): While PILs exist, challenging laws still requires demonstrating a genuine public interest.
* Judicial appointments: Concerns about transparency and potential government influence can affect the judiciary's independence.
* Post-retirement jobs: Judges accepting government positions after retirement raises questions about impartiality.
5. How has the Supreme Court clarified the scope of Judicial Review in economic policy matters?
The Supreme Court has stated that it will generally defer to the government's expertise in economic policy unless the policy is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, or violates constitutional principles. This means the court is less likely to interfere in economic decisions unless there's a clear violation of fundamental rights or the Constitution.
6. What is the strongest argument critics make against Judicial Review, and how would you respond?
Critics argue it leads to 'judicial overreach,' where unelected judges overturn the decisions of democratically elected representatives, undermining parliamentary sovereignty. A response is that Judicial Review *protects* democracy by safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring the government acts within constitutional limits, preventing potential tyranny of the majority. It's a balance between popular will and constitutional principles.
7. How does India's Judicial Review compare to that of the United States?
answerPoints:
* Origin: US Judicial Review evolved through *Marbury v. Madison*; India's is explicitly provided in the Constitution.
* 'Due Process': The US uses 'due process,' allowing courts to assess the fairness of laws. India initially used 'procedure established by law,' a narrower scope, but has expanded its interpretation.
* Amendments: Both countries allow constitutional amendments, but the 'basic structure' doctrine limits Parliament's amending power in India, a concept not present in the US.
8. The NJAC aimed to change judicial appointments. How does its failure relate to Judicial Review?
The NJAC's failure highlights the judiciary's concern about maintaining its independence. The Supreme Court struck it down, fearing that government influence in judicial appointments would compromise the judiciary's ability to impartially exercise Judicial Review, potentially leading to biased rulings favoring the government.
9. What specific articles, besides Article 13 and 32, are crucial for understanding the legal basis of Judicial Review, and why?
answerPoints:
* Article 226: Grants High Courts similar writ jurisdiction as the Supreme Court, expanding access to Judicial Review.
* Articles 131-136: Define the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, including appellate jurisdiction over constitutional matters.
* Article 227: Gives High Courts supervisory power over lower courts, enabling them to review judicial decisions.
Exam Tip
Remember 226 (High Court writs) and 131-136 (SC jurisdiction) for a complete picture.
10. How can Public Interest Litigation (PIL) be both a strength and a weakness of Judicial Review in India?
PIL strengthens Judicial Review by allowing broader access to justice, enabling courts to address systemic issues. However, it can be a weakness if PILs are frivolous or politically motivated, burdening the courts and potentially leading to judicial overreach. The courts must carefully balance access with the need to prevent abuse.
11. What is the 'basic structure' doctrine, and why is it important for Judicial Review?
The 'basic structure' doctrine, established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. It states that certain fundamental features of the Constitution (like secularism, democracy, federalism) cannot be altered. This is crucial for Judicial Review because it allows courts to strike down amendments that violate these basic principles, even if they don't directly infringe on fundamental rights.
Exam Tip
Remember Kesavananda Bharati case = 'basic structure' doctrine.
12. If Judicial Review didn't exist in India, what would fundamentally change for ordinary citizens?
Without Judicial Review, the government and Parliament could potentially pass laws that violate fundamental rights or undermine the Constitution's basic principles without any independent check. Citizens would have significantly less recourse against unjust laws or executive actions, making them more vulnerable to potential abuses of power. The protection of individual liberties would largely depend on the goodwill of the government in power.
