July 25, 2025

Introduction

India follows the rule of law which means that the Indian Constitution is the supreme law and any law which goes against shall not be applied. The Supreme Court has the power to strike down any law which goes against the Indian Constitution. This power is known as judicial review. This powerful tool helps the Supreme Court to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution of India. Judicial review originated with Marbury vs. Madison (1803) case in the United States. The US Supreme Court held that it was the duty of the court to interpret the constitution and revoke any law which violates it.

In this blog we will discuss what judicial review is and its judicial precedents which have taken place over the time. We will also take a look at the constitutional provisions for judicial review along with the limitations and criticisms.

What is judicial review?

Judicial review is the power of the court to evaluate the other branches or level of government’s activities. The judiciary has the power to examine the decisions made by the legislative and executive branches in the country using judicial review and nullify them as unconstitutional if they are against the constitution.

There are different fundamental ideas under the judicial review such as separation of power, doctrine of basic structure, proportionality. These serve as the foundation of the judicial review in India.

Judicial review of legislative actions

This refers to the power of the courts to check whether a law made by the legislature follows the Constitution. If the court finds that a law goes against the Constitution, it can strike it down and declare it invalid.

Judicial review of administrative actions

This means the courts can review the actions or decisions made by government authorities or officials. The purpose is to make sure these actions are fair, follow proper procedures, and respect the basic principles of justice.

Judicial review of judicial decisions

Sometimes, higher courts may re-examine decisions made by lower courts. This is done to ensure that the judgements are legally correct, fair, and in line with earlier court rulings or legal principles.

Constitutional provisions for judicial review

Article	Explanation
Article 13	This article states that all the laws which are not consistent with fundamental rights or are derogatory they shall be null and void.
Article 32	This article gives the right to move to the Supreme Court in order to protect the fundamental rights. The Supreme Court is empowered to issue orders, directions and writs related to this.
Article 131	It gives the Supreme Court the power to directly handle disputes between the central government and states, or between different states.
Article 132	It gives the Supreme Court the power to hear appeals in cases that involve questions about the Constitution.
Article 133	It allows the Supreme Court to hear appeals in civil cases that come from lower courts.
Article 134A	This article is related to certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court from the HC.
Article 135	With this article the Supreme Court is empowered to exercise the jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court in case of any pre-constitutional law.
Article 136	A special leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court from any tribunal, or court (except court martial and military tribunal).
Article 143	The President can ask for the Supreme Court’s opinion in relation to any law of law or fact and any legal matters which are pre-constitutional.
Article 226	The High Courts have the power to issue writs or directions in order to enforce fundamental rights.
Article 227	The High Court of the state is considered supreme and has control over all the tribunals and courts in the state except military tribunals and courts.
Article 245	The Constitution defines where the laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures apply.
Article 246	The constitutions define where the laws will apply which are made by the Parliament and the State Legislatures.
Article 251 & 254	If there is any dispute between the state and central law, then central law shall prevail and the state law will be considered void.
Article 372	It deals with how the laws which were made before the Constitution came into force can still be used.

Landmark cases on judicial review

Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs. Union Of India & Ors (1980)

In this landmark case, the power of judicial review was reemphasized and the court established that judicial review is a significant feature of the Indian Constitution. This case further also stated that if there is any law which is not consistent with the basic structure of the Constitution then it shall be declared void.

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. vs. State Of Kerala And Anr (1973)

This was the first landmark ruling wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Parliament cannot amend the Constitution’s basic structure in any way. With this case the concept of judicial review was expanded and it included the protection of basic structure of the Constitution.

Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs. Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. (1992)

In this case the Supreme Court exercised its power of judicial review in order to examine the constitutional validity of Mandal Commissions recommendations along with the government’s implementation of 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs.

Waman Rao And Ors vs. Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. (1980)

The Supreme Court in this case held that the several regulations and acts which are included in 9th Schedule of the Constitution after the ruling of Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. vs State Of Kerala And Anr (1973) will be valid only if there is no damage to the Constitution’s basic structure.

I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs vs. State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors (2007)

The Apex Court reaffirmed the landmark judgement of Waman Rao And Ors vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. (1980) in this case. The court said that just because a law is placed in the 9th Schedule, it doesn’t mean it is safe from being checked by the courts. Judicial Review is the power of the court to check if a law follows the Constitution and is a core part of the Constitution and cannot be removed.

Maneka Gandhi vs. Union Of India (1978)

In this crucial ruling the Supreme Court had expanded the scope of Article 21. Article 21 deals with right to life and personal liberty. The power of judicial review was shown by protecting the fundamental right which also includes the right to travel abroad. The law which violated this right was struck down.

Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union Of India And State Of Bihar (1951)

In the present case, the First Amendment Act, 1951 was challenged. The Apex Court in this case upheld the First Amendment’s constitutional validity. The court ruled that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution which also included fundamental rights. In the case of Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1965) the same decision was upheld again.

I. C. Golaknath & Ors vs. State Of Punjab & Anrs. (1967)

The Supreme Court in this case, said that Parliament cannot make changes to the Constitution that take away or reduce people’s Fundamental Rights. In the Golaknath case, the court clearly stated that even constitutional amendments cannot be used to limit these rights.

Vishaka & Ors vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors (1997)

In this case, sexual harassment at the workplace was recognised as a violation of fundamental rights by the Supreme Court. The court had also laid down guidelines for the employers to prevent this and to also redress such cases at the workplace.

Limitations of judicial review

The judicial review is very vast in nature, but it is not absolute. There are some limitations of the judicial review. The court does not have power to review constitutional amendments if they do not violate the basic structure of the constitution. There are some matters which include the issues involving policy decisions of executive and legislature. Here the Supreme Court exercises judicial restraint.

The Court usually avoids getting involved in issues like economic and social policies because they need expert knowledge and careful decision-making, which are better handled by the government or experts in those fields. The courts also do not interfere in the work of government and legislation unless there is violation of the Constitution. The judiciary has to respect the division of powers between the three parts of the government.

Criticisms of judicial review

Judicial review has always played a vital role when it comes to protecting the constitution. Judicial review is practised to ensure that fundamental rights of the people are not violated due to newly introduced laws or existing laws. However, there are a few criticisms of judicial review. One of the first criticisms is that it allows the judges who are not elected by the people to overturn laws which are made by the authorities which are elected by the people. Some believe that this weakens the democracy in the country.

There are too many cases and the judiciary is overloaded with work. It may happen that the judges will not have time to take a look at the cases in very much detail. All the judges have different ways of interpreting the laws. This often leads to confusion and can also be unfair.

It is often feared that judicial review may turn into judicial overreach, where the court acts beyond the limits and interferes in the issues which are meant for executive and legislature. This can lead to disorientation in the balance of power among the three branches of the government.

It is also observed that judicial review can be time consuming and very costly in nature. It can cause delay in justice and slow the urgent decisions related to policies. It is also argued that judges might lack expertise in some areas like economics, science, or public policy which can affect the decision making power.

Conclusion

A crucial component of every constitutional democracy is judicial review. It ensures that legislation adheres to the Constitution and helps hold the government accountable. However, courts must strike the correct balance between being vigilant enough to defend people’s rights and being cautious not to go beyond their permitted limits. Judicial review may require some revisions as times change in order to function more effectively and uphold democratic principles. It is crucial, after all, that the judiciary refrain from assuming duties that are the province of elected officials.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

What are the different types of writs which can be issued under judicial review?

The different types of writs which are issued under judicial review are Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto. All these writs protect the rights of the people and maintain judicial oversight.

Is judicial review only followed in India?

The concept of judicial review is followed not only in India but also in countries like Australia, United States, and Canada.

Does judicial review affect democracy?

Judicial review helps in maintaining the balance of powers and strengthens the country’s constitutional democracy by ensuring that the rights of the people are protected.

What is the primary consideration when exercising judicial review in India?

In India, ensuring that government actions including legislatively approved legislation and executive orders align with the Constitution’s provisions is the main factor taken into account during judicial review.

Judicial review power of Supreme Court