Open Access Research Article
CONSTITUTIONAL GROWTH IN INDIA UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ITS IMPACT BY: ADV JACINTH KAMBLE
Published Paper
Article Details
CONSTITUTIONAL
GROWTH IN INDIA UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ITS IMPACT
AUTHORED BY:
ADV JACINTH KAMBLE
Student
LLM, Modern Law College | Pune University
Abstract
India's journey since independence has been marked by important developments in the legal system, especially in the field of judiciary. This article examines the evolution of the judiciary in India and its profound impact on the legal field. This article traces the evolution of judicial review through key events and legal reforms, starting from the founding years after independence. It explores how the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, can expand its role as guardian of the constitution and preserve its authority to interpret and enforce fundamental rights.
Likewise, this article makes sense of the consequences of legal and lawful assurance. The three branches of government are balanced by a disciplined structure like Indian democracy. Kesavananda Bharati v. He talked about important cases like. This principle was bolstered by the Indira Gandhi v. Kerala case. Raj Narain discussed the judiciary's resolve to uphold the rule of law in the face of political turmoil.
Likewise, this article makes sense of the consequences of legal and lawful assurance. The three branches of government are balanced by a disciplined structure like Indian democracy. Kesavananda Bharati v. He talked about important cases like. This principle was bolstered by the Indira Gandhi v. Kerala case. Raj Narain discussed the judiciary's resolve to uphold the rule of law in the face of political turmoil.
This article
also looks at the political influence of the judiciary, looking at its role in
promoting accountability in government, protecting the nation, and promoting
justice. Additionally, it identifies challenges to judicial review, such as
concerns regarding judicial interference in the legislative and executive
branches. This article argues that the establishment of a judicial-based legal
system in India can contribute to the advancement of the rule of law,
socioeconomic development, and democratic standards. Nonetheless, it likewise
underlines that the effect of the request should be obviously perceived to keep
up with the overall influence and answer arising issues in the public arena
.Keywords: Constitutional Growth, Judicial
Review, India, Supreme Court, Fundamental Rights, Social Justice, Minority
Rights, Judicial Activism, Separation of Powers, Democratic Governance.
Judicial Review
Judicial Review is the power of the
Courts to determine the constitutionality of Legislative act in a case instituted
by aggrieved person. It is the power of the Court to declare a legislative Act
void on the grounds of unconstitutionality. It has been defined by Smith &
Zurcher, “The examination or review by the Courts, in cases actually before
them, of legislative statutes and executive or administrative acts to determine
whether or not they are prohibited by a written Constitution or are in excess
of powers granted by it, and if so, to declare them void and of no effect”[1].
Edward S. Corwin also says that Judicial Review is the power and duty of the
courts to disallow all legislative or executive acts of either the central or
the State governments, which in the Court’s opinion transgresses the
Constitution.[2]
In this regard, India's constitution
is more comparable to the United States. Constitution than the English. In
England, the principle of parliamentary matchless quality actually holds
products. A parliamentary act cannot be invalidated by a court there. Going
against the norm each court is obliged to authorize each arrangement" of
the law of parliament. India's constitution does not make parliament the
supreme body. Two ways limit its capabilities. The division of powers between
the union and the states is the first issue. Only those subjects in which citizens
are protected from any form of legislative encroachment are subject to
Parliament's authority to pass laws.
The Supreme Court is in a unique position in
which it is competent to exercise the power of reviewing legislative enactments
from both parliament and state legislatures because it is the guardian of
Fundamental Rights and the arbiter of constitutional conflicts between the
union and the states regarding the division of powers.This is what makes the
court a powerful instrument of judicial review under the constitution. As Dr.
M.P. Jain has rightly observed: "The doctrine of judicial review is thus
firmly rooted in India, and has the explicit sanction of the
constitution."
In the framework of a constitution
which guarantees individual Fundamental Rights, divides power between the union
and the states and clearly defines and delimits the powers and functions of
every organ of the state including the parliament, judiciary plays a very
important role under their powers of judicial review.
Significance of Judicial Review
Judicial review holds immense
significance in the Constitution of India, playing a pivotal role in upholding
the rule of law, protecting fundamental rights, ensuring the supremacy of the
Constitution, and maintaining the balance of power among the different organs
of the state. The following points elucidate the significance of judicial
review in the Constitution of India
Judicial review serves as a safeguard
for fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. The judiciary has
the authority to review laws and government actions, ensuring that they do not
violate the fundamental rights of citizens. This has been instrumental in
protecting individual liberties and promoting social justice.[3]
Upholding the Supremacy of the
Constitution
Under our Constitution, judicial
review can conveniently be classified under three heads[4] :
(1) Judicial
review of Constitutional amendments.-This has been the subject-matter of
consideration in various cases by the Supreme Court; of them worth mentioning
are: Shankari Prasad case , Sajjan Singh case , Golak Nath case , Kesavananda
Bharati case6 , Minerva Mills case ,
Sanjeev Coke case8 and Indira Gandhi case9 . The test of validity of
Constitutional amendments is conforming to the basic features of the
Constitution.
(2) Judicial
review of legislation of Parliament, State Legislatures as well as subordinate
legislation.-Judicial review in this category is in respect of legislative
competence and violation of fundamental rights or any other Constitutional or
legislative limitations;
(3) Judicial review of administrative action of the Union of India as well
as the State Governments and authorities falling within the meaning of State.
The researcher’s emphasis is in this direction.
The supremacy of the Constitution as
the supreme law of the land is bolstered by judicial review. The judiciary
ensures that all laws and decisions made by the government are in accordance
with the Constitution by deciding whether or not they are constitutional. In
India, judicial review aids in the upholding of the rule of law. It ensures
that the government is held accountable for its actions and operates within the
bounds of its authority. Through judicial review, the judiciary maintains the
delicate balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
This prevents the arbitrary exercise of power and encourages accountability in
governance. It prevents any one branch from becoming supreme by acting as a
check on the legislative and executive branches' potential for overreach..
Judicial review provides a mechanism to challenge arbitrary and
unconstitutional actions of the government. It acts as a shield against abuse
of power, ensuring that government actions are reasonable, fair, and in
accordance with constitutional provisions.[5]
Judicial review has led to the
evolution of constitutional principles in India. Landmark judgments have
expanded the interpretation of constitutional provisions, adapting them to
contemporary societal needs and ensuring the progressive realization of rights
It is an essential mechanism for upholding the rule of law, protecting
fundamental rights, and ensuring that the Constitution remains the supreme law
of the land. Judicial review serves as a cornerstone of India's democratic framework,
fostering accountability, transparency, and the protection of individual
liberties.[6]
Landmark cases on Judicial Review
The concept of judicial review in
India can be traced back to the landmark case of Keshavananda Bharati v. State
of Kerala in 1973, where the Supreme Court asserted its power to review
amendments to the Constitution.
This case established the doctrine of
Basic Structure, which holds that while the Parliament has the power to amend
the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure
The Indian judiciary has played a
crucial role in upholding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution. Landmark cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
expanded the scope of personal liberty under Article 21.[7]
The legal executive has additionally
mediated to safeguard the privileges of minimized networks through cases like
Indra Sawhney v. Reservations in public employment were addressed by the Union
of India in 1992.
In Shankari Prasad versus The Union of India
First Amendment Act of 1951 was challenged before the Supreme Court on the
grounds that it restricted the right to property and that this could not be
done because Article 13(2) prohibited amendments to fundamental rights. The
argument was rejected by the Supreme Court and upheld unanimously. "The
provisions of Article 368 are extremely broad and grant parliament the
authority to amend the constitution without reservation." With regards to
Article 13 regulation should be interpreted as meaning guidelines or guidelines
made in exercise of standard administrative power and changes to the
constitution made in exercise of constituent power, with the outcome that
Article 13 (2) doesn't influence revisions made under Article 368.
In the case of Sajjan Singh, the legitimacy of
parliament's decision to enact the 17th amendment was challenged in front of
the constitution. a bench of five judges on the grounds that it violated
Article 31 (A)'s Fundamental Rights. High court emphasized its previous stand
taken in Shankari miserable's case and held, "when article 368 presents on
parliament the option to revise the constitution the power being referred to
can be practiced over every one of the arrangements of the constitution, it
would be hysteria going to hold that the word regulation' in article 13 (2)
takes in alteration Acts passed under article 368.Thus, until 1967 the Supreme
Court held that the Amendment Acts were not ordinary laws, and could not be
struck down by the application of article 13 (2).
The historic case of Golak Nath vs. The state
of Punjab24 was heard by a special bench of 11 judges as the validity of three
constitutional amendments (1st, 4th and 17th) was challenged.
Impact of Judicial Review
·
Governance
The judicial review's scope,
application, and effectiveness are significantly influenced by governance,
which has a profound impact on the relationship between governance and judicial
review. This effect is obvious in more ways than one, impacting the idea of
regulations, the working of government establishments, and the generally just
structure of a country Legislative and executive actions subject to judicial
review are directly influenced by governance. The constitutionality of laws and
government is influenced by the quality of governance, which includes respect
for the rule of law, openness, and accountability of decisions.[8]
Good governance practices, such as
participatory decision-making, respect for human rights, and adherence to legal
procedures, can lead to the enactment of laws and policies that are less susceptible
to judicial review. Effective governance plays a crucial role in upholding the
rule of law, which forms the basis for meaningful judicial review. Sound
governance practices, including an independent judiciary, transparent legal
processes, and respect for judicial decisions, create an environment conducive
to robust judicial review.[9]
Conversely, weak governance,
political interference in the judiciary, or inadequate legal infrastructure can
undermine the independence and effectiveness of judicial review, limiting its
ability to check the constitutionality of government actions
The governance framework
significantly influences public policy formulation and implementation. Judicial
review often intersects with public policies, especially those related to
socio-economic rights, environmental protection, and equitable development.[10]
Viable administration, portrayed by
comprehensive arrangement making, proof based direction, and responsiveness to
cultural requirements, can add to the formation of strategies more averse to be
tested effectively through legal audit The effect of legal survey on
administration is appeared in the domain of resident admittance to equity.
Citizens now have the ability to challenge government actions that violate
their rights thanks to judicial review. This has cultivated a culture of
legitimate responsibility and has guaranteed that residents have an instrument
to consider the public authority responsible for its choices, consequently
adding to good governance practices.[11]
·
Protection of Fundamental Rights
One of the primary functions of
judicial review is to safeguard fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution. Through its scrutiny of laws and governmental actions, the
judiciary ensures that individual liberties such as the right to freedom of
speech, equality before the law, and protection against discrimination are
upheld. By striking down laws that infringe upon these rights and providing
remedies to aggrieved individuals, judicial review reinforces the foundational
principle of protecting human dignity and individual autonomy.[12]
·
Rule of Law
Judicial review acts as a bulwark in
upholding the rule of law within the constitutional framework. By subjecting
legislative and executive actions to legal scrutiny, the judiciary ensures that
governmental powers are exercised within the bounds of the Constitution and
legal norms. This promotes accountability, transparency, and adherence to legal
principles, thereby reinforcing the principle that no one is above the law,
including the government.
·
Constitutional Democracy
Judicial review contributes to the
preservation of constitutional democracy by checking the abuse of power and
preventing unconstitutional actions. Through its oversight role, the judiciary
ensures that governmental actions are consistent with democratic principles
such as popular sovereignty, separation of powers, and respect for minority
rights. By upholding democratic norms and institutions, judicial review fosters
a political system based on the consent of the governed and the protection of
individual liberties.[13]
·
Promotion of Social Justice:
Judicial review serves as a mechanism
for promoting social justice and equality within society. By adjudicating cases
involving socio-economic rights, access to resources, and affirmative action
policies, the judiciary addresses systemic inequalities and ensures equitable
outcomes for all citizens. Through its interventions, the judiciary seeks to
rectify historical injustices, empower marginalized communities, and promote
inclusivity and social cohesion.[14]
·
Interpretation and Development of
Constitutional Law:
Legal survey adds to the translation and
advancement of protected regulation, in this way forming the development of
established values over the long run. The judiciary clarifies the meaning and
scope of constitutional provisions, establishes legal precedents, and adapts
constitutional principles to contemporary societal realities through its
judgments and rulings. This powerful course of translation guarantees that
protected qualities stay important and receptive to evolving social, political,
and legitimate settings.
A Comparative Analysis of India's and the United States' Judicial Reviews
Compared to the United States,
Compared to the United States,
India has a fairly more modest degree for
legal review.Limitations on key freedoms are not as broad in India as they are
in the US of America. It is stated in the constitution itself that this duty is
not the responsibility of the courts. This strategy was employed by the framers
of the constitution because they believed that the courts could challenge
restrictions on fundamental rights that ought to be outlined in the
constitution itself. In addition, the drafters of the constitution believed
that the judiciary should not be elevated to the status of a "Super
legislature." Regardless of the rationale for the methods they used, this
has unavoidably limited the scope of judicial review in India. It must,
notwithstanding, be surrendered that the American High Court has consumed its
ability to decipher the constitution generously and has made so intensive a
utilization of the fair treatment of regulation statement that it has become in
excess of a more translator of regulation. Indeed, it has assumed the role of a
lawmaker and has been appropriately referred to as a "super
legislature," or "third chamber of the legislature." Naturally,
the United States High Court has accepted this position; it has not been
explicitly presented upon it by the constitution. Like the American High Court,
the High Court of India partakes in the force of Legal Audit' and this power
has been explicitly perceived by the constitution. However, compared to the
American Supreme Court, its authority regarding "judicial review of legislation"
is more limited. The Indian constitution's drafters took great care not to
include a clause about due process of law. In contrast, it is referred to as
"procedure established by law" in the Indian constitution. It may
invalidate laws if they violate constitutional provisions, but not because they
are bad laws. To put it another way, the Indian judiciary, which includes the
Supreme Court, does not claim to be a Third Chamber with the authority to rule
on the policy embodied in the legislation passed by the legislature.[15]
Conclusion
All in all, the excursion of
established development in India under legal audit has been extraordinary,
molding the country's lawful, political, and social texture in significant
ways. Through landmark decisions and judicial activism, the judiciary has
expanded the scope of fundamental rights, established the doctrine of basic
structure, and asserted its authority as the guardian of the Constitution from
the foundational years post-independence to the present day. The judiciary, particularly
the Supreme Court, has played a pivotal role in interpreting, protecting, and
advancing the principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. This has
prompted the security of individual freedoms, advancement of civil rights, and
safeguarding of majority rule values within the country.[16]
Moreover, judicial review has served
as a check on the powers of the legislature and the executive, ensuring that
governmental actions remain within the confines of the Constitution and the
rule of law. By upholding constitutional principles and holding the government
accountable, the judiciary has fostered a culture of transparency,
accountability, and respect for the rule of law within the country's governance
framework.Despite its achievements, challenges remain, including concerns about
judicial overreach, delays in justice delivery, and the need for judicial
reforms to enhance efficiency and accessibility. However, the overarching
impact of judicial review on constitutional growth in India cannot be overstated.
It has contributed to the consolidation of democratic governance, protection of
fundamental rights, promotion of social justice, and preservation of
constitutional values, thus ensuring that India continues to march forward as a
vibrant democracy guided by the principles of justice, equality, and liberty.
[1] Smith, Edward Conard and Zurcher,
Arnold Jhon, Dictionary of America Politics , Barnes and Noble, New York, 1959,
p. 212
[2] Corwin, Edward S., A Constitution
of Powers in a Secular State , The Michie Company, USA, 1951, p. 3-4
[3] M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain, Principles
of Administrative Law: An Exhaustive Commentary on the Subject containing
case-law reference (Indian & Foreign), 6th Ed., Wadhwa and Company Nagpur,
New Delhi, 2007, p. 1779.
[4] Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri,
Judicial Review of Adminstrative Action, (2001) 6 SCC (Jour) 1.
[5] . Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain,
1975 Supp SCC 1.
[6]Kesavananda Bharti v Union of India
AIR 1973 SC 1461
[7] Minerva Mills v. Union of India,
AIR 1980 SC 1789; Waman Rao v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 781
[8] Venkatesh Nayak, The Basic
Structure of the Indian Constitution ,2006, available at
http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/const/the_basic_structure
of_the_indian_constitution.pdf
[9] Wade, Administrative Law, (1994),
pp. 39-41.
[10] AIR 1973 SC 1461
[11] Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union
of India, AIR 1951 SC 458.
[12] Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, Supra
n.29.
[13] Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri,
Judicial Review of Adminstrative Action, (2001) 6 SCC (Jour) 1.
[14] Sajjan Singh v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845.
[15] M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain,
Principles of Administrative Law: An Exhaustive Commentary on the Subject
containing case-law reference (Indian & Foreign), 6th Ed., Wadhwa and
Company Nagpur, New Delhi, 2007, p. 1779
[16] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)
& Another v Union of India & Others (2018) SC.
Article Information
CONSTITUTIONAL GROWTH IN INDIA UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ITS IMPACT BY: ADV JACINTH KAMBLE
Authors: ADV JACINTH KAMBLE
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/26
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.