Judicial Review is one of the cornerstone principles of India’s constitutional framework, empowering the judiciary to review laws and executive actions to ensure they conform to the Constitution. While its importance cannot be overstated, the concept of Judicial Review can often leave UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE) aspirants puzzled. The scope, limitations, and practical application of Judicial Review can be complex, especially when considering how it intersects with legislative and executive powers.
In this blog post, we will explore the Top 30 Confusing Facts about Judicial Review in India, addressing the key aspects that often lead to confusion among UPSC candidates. From the nature of judicial review in India’s federal structure to the landmark cases that have defined its scope, we will break down the important yet often misunderstood elements of this topic. This guide will help you clear up the confusion surrounding Judicial Review and equip you with the knowledge necessary to handle related questions with confidence in your UPSC preparation. Let’s delve into the complexities of Judicial Review and simplify these critical concepts!
Facts About Judicial Review
- Concept of Judicial Review: Judicial review refers to the power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. While not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it was established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and applied to Indian law in Kesavananda Bharati (1973).
- Origins in Indian Law: Judicial review is an inherent feature of the Indian Constitution, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980), despite not being explicitly mentioned in the text.
- Scope of Judicial Review: Judicial review in India extends to laws, executive actions, and constitutional amendments, but it does not apply to constitutional amendments that do not violate the basic structure, as per Kesavananda Bharati.
- Role of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court has the ultimate authority in matters of judicial review, but this power can sometimes be seen as conflicting with the principle of separation of powers, especially when the judiciary strikes down laws made by Parliament.
- Limitations on Judicial Review: While the judiciary has the power to review laws, it cannot strike down provisions of the Constitution unless they violate the basic structure, creating confusion about the extent of its powers.
- Basic Structure Doctrine: Judicial review is governed by the concept of the “basic structure,” but the exact components of this basic structure remain undefined, leading to uncertainty in its application.
- Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments: Courts can review constitutional amendments if they violate the basic structure, but this concept remains ambiguous, as seen in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
- Judicial Review of Executive Actions: Judicial review applies not only to legislative actions but also to executive decisions and orders, creating tension between judicial and executive powers, especially when decisions are made on the grounds of public policy.
- Public Interest Litigation (PIL): PILs have expanded the scope of judicial review in India, allowing citizens to challenge the legality of government actions, but critics argue this can lead to judicial activism and overreach.
- Standing Requirement: To challenge the validity of laws or executive actions in courts, a party must have standing. However, PIL has relaxed this requirement, leading to debates about the overuse of judicial review in unrelated matters.
- Judicial Review of Administrative Actions: The judiciary has the authority to review administrative actions, but the scope of this review is often debated, especially when it concerns discretionary powers exercised by public officials.
- Constitutional Supremacy: Judicial review ensures the supremacy of the Constitution, but it sometimes conflicts with the legislative intent of laws passed by Parliament, causing tensions in the separation of powers.
- Doctrine of Severability: If part of a law is found unconstitutional, the rest may remain valid. This is known as the doctrine of severability, but its application is often debated when determining whether parts of a law can be severed without altering the entire statute.
- Doctrine of Pith and Substance: Judicial review often involves the application of the doctrine of pith and substance, which determines whether a law falls within the constitutional powers of the legislature, but this can be complex in cases involving competing legislative fields.
- Impact of Judicial Review on Law-making: Judicial review can alter the legislative landscape by striking down laws, leading to debates about whether it encourages or stifles the law-making process.
- Judicial Review and Federalism: Judicial review has a role in maintaining federalism in India by adjudicating disputes between the Centre and the States, but the balance of power between them is frequently contested.
- Review of Emergency Provisions: Judicial review can be suspended during a national emergency under Article 359, but the scope of review for preventive detention laws remains ambiguous during this period.
- Precedents in Judicial Review: The principle of stare decisis ensures that judicial review follows established precedents, but courts may depart from past judgments, leading to confusion about the consistency of judicial review.
- Judicial Review and Secularism: Judicial review has been used to protect the secular nature of the state, but in some instances, the extent to which it can intervene in religious practices or laws remains controversial.
- Judicial Review in Matters of Policy: Courts often refrain from reviewing executive decisions based on public policy under the doctrine of “non-justiciability,” but determining what constitutes non-justiciable policy remains contentious.
- Non-Justiciable Issues: Not all actions or decisions are subject to judicial review. Matters related to national security, foreign policy, or political questions are considered non-justiciable, but the line between justiciable and non-justiciable matters is often unclear.
- Judicial Review and Parliamentary Sovereignty: Judicial review can be seen as conflicting with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, as Parliament can make laws, but the judiciary has the power to invalidate those laws, leading to debates about the limits of judicial power.
- Review of Financial Legislation: Financial legislation passed by Parliament can be subject to judicial review, but courts typically refrain from intervening in matters of taxation and budgeting, citing the “financial independence” of Parliament.
- Doctrine of Judicial Restraint: Judicial review is often conducted with a principle of judicial restraint, especially in matters of social policy or legislative action, but determining when to apply restraint is subjective.
- Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights: Judicial review is essential for the protection of fundamental rights, but courts sometimes face criticism for overstepping their boundaries, especially when balancing individual rights against public interest.
- Judicial Review and Administrative Tribunals: Some administrative actions are challenged in specialized tribunals rather than courts, but this does not absolve the tribunals from judicial review by higher courts, adding complexity to the process.
- Expansion of Judicial Review Post-PIL: Judicial review has expanded significantly with the advent of PIL, allowing the judiciary to entertain cases even in public interest, but this expansion has raised concerns about judicial activism.
- Effect of Judicial Review on Public Policy: Judicial review may affect the implementation of public policy decisions made by the executive, particularly in areas of socio-economic development, leading to questions about judicial overreach.
- Judicial Review in State vs. Centre Disputes: The judiciary’s role in resolving disputes between the Centre and states is complex, as it involves balancing national interests with state autonomy, creating challenges in the application of judicial review.
- Judicial Review and Democracy: While judicial review ensures the Constitution’s supremacy and protects individual rights, it also raises questions about the unelected judiciary intervening in matters typically within the domain of elected representatives, leading to ongoing debates about its democratic legitimacy.
These facts underline the complex nature of judicial review in India, touching on its origins, scope, limitations, and its ongoing impact on constitutional law, governance, and public policy. Understanding these complexities is crucial for UPSC aspirants preparing for both the General Studies and the Law paper.