Supreme Court's power of judicial review

The most common trap is confusing Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies) with Article 226 (High Courts' power to issue writs). While both deal with judicial review, Article 32 directly guarantees access to the Supreme Court for fundamental rights violations, making it a fundamental right itself. Article 226 provides similar power to High Courts, but is not a fundamental right.

Supreme Court's power of judicial review ensures that all laws and executive actions adhere to the Constitution's limits. Without it, the Parliament could potentially pass laws violating fundamental rights or altering the basic structure of the Constitution. No other mechanism provides this level of independent constitutional scrutiny and protection of citizen's rights.

While broad, Supreme Court's power of judicial review isn't absolute. Courts generally avoid interfering in policy matters unless they are manifestly arbitrary or violate constitutional principles, as seen in the 2020 clarification on economic policy. Critics argue that judicial review can lead to judicial overreach, encroaching on the legislative domain. Also, the process can be slow, delaying implementation of important laws.

In 2021, the Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of a state law that violated the principle of secularism, reaffirming the basic structure doctrine. This demonstrates the practical application of judicial review to invalidate laws that contravene the fundamental principles of the Constitution. The case highlighted how the judiciary acts as a check on legislative power, ensuring laws align with constitutional values.

In 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), leading to criticism regarding the scope of the law and its potential for misuse. This decision sparked debate about the balance between preventing financial crimes and protecting individual liberties, highlighting the inherent tensions in judicial review.

Without Supreme Court's power of judicial review, ordinary citizens would have significantly less protection against potentially unjust laws or executive actions. Their fundamental rights could be more easily infringed upon by the government, and there would be a greater risk of arbitrary or discriminatory laws being enforced. The Constitution's supremacy would be weakened, potentially leading to a less democratic society.

Critics often argue that judicial review is 'judicial overreach,' where unelected judges substitute their judgment for that of elected representatives, undermining democratic principles. I would respond by emphasizing that judicial review is a crucial check on legislative and executive power, preventing them from violating the Constitution and fundamental rights. It ensures the government acts within its defined powers and protects minority rights, which are essential for a healthy democracy. The doctrine of basic structure, established in the Kesavananda Bharati case, also limits the scope of judicial review, preventing it from becoming an unbridled power.

One approach could be to establish clearer guidelines for when courts should intervene in policy matters, balancing judicial oversight with respect for the expertise of the executive and legislature. Another reform could focus on improving the efficiency of the judicial review process to reduce delays in resolving constitutional challenges. Furthermore, promoting greater public understanding of judicial review can enhance its legitimacy and foster a more informed debate about its role in Indian democracy.

India's Supreme Court has a relatively broad power of judicial review compared to some other democracies, like the UK, where parliamentary sovereignty is a stronger principle. However, it is more limited than in the US, where judicial review is more frequently exercised. A favorable aspect is the explicit constitutional basis in Articles 13 and 32, providing a clear mandate. A less favorable aspect is the potential for delays in the judicial process, which can hinder the timely resolution of constitutional issues.

Articles 131-136 define the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, including original, appellate, and advisory. These articles are relevant because they empower the Court to hear disputes between the Union and states, or between states, allowing it to review the constitutionality of laws affecting federal relations. UPSC can ask about the types of cases the Supreme Court can hear under its original jurisdiction (Article 131) or the conditions for appealing to the Supreme Court (Articles 132-136).

Article 142 has been used to expand judicial review by allowing the Supreme Court to go beyond the strict letter of the law to ensure justice is served. For example, in environmental cases, the Court has used Article 142 to issue directives for pollution control, even if specific laws were lacking. A potential drawback is that it can lead to judicial overreach, with the Court effectively creating new laws or policies, blurring the lines between the judiciary and the executive/legislature.

A common distractor is that the Supreme Court cannot review constitutional amendments. This is INCORRECT. While Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court, through the doctrine of basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati case), can review amendments to ensure they do not alter the fundamental features of the Constitution. The correct answer would be something related to the court's self-imposed limitations or the principle of deference to policy decisions.