Judicial review is a fundamental aspect of constitutional governance in India. It empowers the judiciary to ensure that the legislature and executive operate within the bounds of the Constitution. By enabling courts to invalidate actions that contravene constitutional provisions, judicial review safeguards fundamental rights and upholds the rule of law. This doctrine, deeply entrenched in Indian jurisprudence, serves as a check against the arbitrary use of power and maintains the balance of power among the different branches of government.

Historical Context
The concept of judicial review has its roots in common law traditions and has been significantly influenced by judicial practices in Britain and the United States. In England, the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy precluded judicial review of legislative actions, focusing instead on the review of executive actions. This principle was challenged and refined over centuries, culminating in a more robust system of checks and balances in the United States. The landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) firmly established the principle of judicial review in the United States, asserting the judiciary's role in reviewing legislative acts for constitutionality.

India, inheriting the common law tradition from Britain, integrated judicial review into its constitutional framework. The framers of the Indian Constitution were acutely aware of the potential for legislative and executive overreach. Therefore, they embedded judicial review into the constitutional design to act as a safeguard against such overreach. This foresight has enabled the Indian judiciary to play a pivotal role in maintaining constitutional order and protecting individual rights.

Constitutional Provisions and Judicial Review

The Indian Constitution explicitly enshrines the principle of judicial review. Articles 13, 32, and 226 are pivotal in this regard. Article 13(2) categorically states that the State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution, and any law made in contravention of this clause shall be void. This provision lays the foundation for judicial review by declaring any law inconsistent with fundamental rights as null and void.

Article 32, known as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution, grants individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Similarly, Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. These provisions ensure that individuals have direct access to the judiciary for the protection of their constitutional rights.

Furthermore, Articles 131-136, 143, 145, 246, and 372 provide additional grounds for judicial review. These articles collectively establish a comprehensive framework for the judiciary to interpret and protect constitutional principles. For instance, Article 131 grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in disputes between the government of India and one or more states, highlighting the court's role in resolving federal conflicts. Article 143 empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on any question of law or fact of public importance, underscoring the consultative role of the judiciary.

Judicial Review of Legislative Actions

Judicial review in India encompasses the scrutiny of constitutional amendments, parliamentary legislation, and subordinate legislation. The Supreme Court and High Courts have delineated the scope and limitations of this power through various landmark judgments.

Constitutional Amendments

The validity of constitutional amendments has been a subject of intense judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of the basic structure, established in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, asserts that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. This doctrine serves as a bulwark against attempts to undermine the core principles of the Constitution

"The power of judicial review is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and no law passed by Parliament in its constituent capacity can abrogate it or take it away." - Justice M. Hidayatullah

The journey towards the basic structure doctrine began with cases like Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), where the Supreme Court upheld Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights. However, in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Court reversed its earlier stance, holding that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights. This decision led to significant constitutional amendments and political debates, ultimately culminating in the historic Kesavananda Bharati judgment.

In Kesavananda Bharati, the Supreme Court introduced the basic structure doctrine, stating that Parliament could amend any part of the Constitution as long as it did not alter its essential features. The court identified features such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, the principle of separation of powers, and the protection of fundamental rights as part of this basic structure. This landmark judgment has since protected the Constitution from amendments that could potentially distort its core principles.

Subsequent cases like Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) and Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) further reinforced the basic structure doctrine, ensuring that constitutional amendments do not undermine the foundational principles of the Constitution. In Minerva Mills, the Supreme Court struck down sections of the 42nd Amendment, which sought to limit judicial review and give primacy to Directive Principles over Fundamental Rights. The court held that the amendment violated the basic structure by destroying the balance between Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles) of the Constitution.

"Judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution, which is to be exercised with due care and caution, and must never be abdicated." - Justice P.N. Bhagwati

Judicial Review of Executive Actions

The judiciary also exercises control over executive actions to ensure they do not exceed the boundaries set by law. This aspect of judicial review ensures that executive decisions are made within the framework of legality and reasonableness.

The judiciary reviews administrative actions for legality, procedural propriety, and reasonableness. The principles laid down in the Wednesbury case (1947) and subsequent judgments, such as the CCSU case (1984), have guided the Indian judiciary in assessing the reasonableness of administrative decisions.

The Wednesbury principle, established in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948), states that a decision is unreasonable if it is so irrational that no reasonable person could have made it. This principle has been adopted by Indian courts to review administrative decisions for arbitrariness and unreasonableness.

In Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997), the Supreme Court reiterated the principles established in the Wednesbury and CCSU cases, emphasizing that the courts can review executive actions for irrationality, illegality, and procedural impropriety. The court held that administrative decisions must be reasonable and based on relevant considerations, and any decision that fails to meet this standard can be struck down.

Judicial Review of Policy Decisions

The judiciary generally refrains from interfering with policy decisions unless they are arbitrary, unreasonable, or violate constitutional provisions. This deference to executive wisdom acknowledges the expertise and discretionary power of administrative authorities, provided their actions are in good faith and serve public interest.

In Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation (2000), the Supreme Court held that policy decisions should not be subject to judicial review unless they are arbitrary or discriminatory. The court emphasized that policy decisions involve complex considerations and expertise, and the judiciary should respect the discretion of the executive in such matters.

Judicial Review in Specific Contexts

The scope of judicial review extends to various specific areas, including economic policies, price fixation, decisions based on expert opinion, subordinate legislation, contractual matters, disciplinary proceedings, and the quantum of punishment.

Economic Policies
In matters relating to economic policies, the judiciary maintains a cautious approach, recognizing the complexity and expertise involved. Courts have consistently upheld the principle that economic legislation should be viewed with greater latitude, as highlighted in R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981).

In BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002), the Supreme Court emphasized that courts should not interfere with economic policies unless they are arbitrary or unreasonable. The court recognized that economic policies involve complex assessments and expertise, and judicial intervention should be minimal in such matters.

Price Fixation

Price fixation by authorities is subject to judicial review to ensure there is a rational basis for such decisions. However, the judiciary does not delve into the merits of the pricing itself but focuses on the legality and reasonableness of the process.

In Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1990), the Supreme Court held that price fixation is not within the purview of the courts unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides. The court stated that price fixation involves complex economic factors and the expertise of the concerned authorities, and judicial intervention should be limited to ensuring that the process is fair and reasonable.

Expert Opinions
When decisions are based on expert opinions, the judiciary exercises restraint, acknowledging the specialized knowledge and judgment involved. Courts typically refrain from substituting their views for those of experts unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.

In Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India (2003), the Supreme Court held that courts should defer to the expertise of administrative authorities in technical matters. The court recognized that experts possess specialized knowledge and their decisions should not be lightly interfered with by the judiciary.

Subordinate Legislation

Subordinate legislation, such as rules and regulations framed by authorities, is subject to judicial review for conformity with the parent statute and constitutional provisions. The judiciary can invalidate subordinate legislation that is manifestly arbitrary or exceeds the delegated authority.

In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1985), the Supreme Court held that subordinate legislation must conform to the parent statute and not be manifestly arbitrary. The court emphasized that subordinate legislation, although having the force of law, is subject to judicial review to ensure it complies with statutory and constitutional mandates.

Contractual Matters

In matters involving government contracts, judicial review focuses on the decision-making process rather than the terms of the contract itself. The judiciary intervenes to rectify procedural infirmities and ensure that decisions are made fairly and without arbitrariness.

In Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court held that courts should not interfere with government contracts unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides. The court stated that the decision-making process in awarding contracts must be transparent, fair, and free from bias, and any deviation from these principles can be challenged through judicial review.

Disciplinary Proceedings and Punishment

The judiciary reviews disciplinary proceedings to ensure fair treatment of the delinquent and adherence to procedural requirements. However, the courts do not act as appellate bodies to re-evaluate evidence but intervene when decisions are perverse or based on extraneous considerations. The quantum of punishment can also be reviewed if it is shockingly disproportionate to the offence committed.

In V. Ramana v. APSRTC (2005), the Supreme Court held that disproportionate punishment is a valid ground for judicial review. The court emphasized that disciplinary authorities must exercise their discretion reasonably and proportionately, and any punishment that shocks the conscience of the court can be set aside.

Comparative Analysis
Judicial review practices in India share similarities with those in other common law jurisdictions, but there are also notable differences. Comparing India's judicial review with practices in countries like the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia can provide deeper insights into its unique features and challenges.

In the United States, judicial review was established early on through the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. The U.S. Supreme Court has a well-defined role in interpreting the Constitution and reviewing the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. The principle of judicial review in the U.S. is broad, allowing the judiciary to invalidate both federal and state laws that violate the Constitution.

In the United Kingdom, judicial review primarily focuses on the legality of executive actions rather than legislative actions, due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. However, with the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, courts in the UK have gained the power to review legislation for compatibility with human rights standards.

Canada has a robust system of judicial review, particularly after the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. The Supreme Court of Canada has the authority to review and strike down federal and provincial laws that violate the Charter, ensuring that individual rights and freedoms are protected.

Australia's system of judicial review is similar to that of the UK, with courts primarily reviewing the legality of executive actions. However, the High Court of Australia also has the power to interpret the Constitution and invalidate laws that are found to be unconstitutional.

Impact on Governance
Judicial review has a profound impact on governance and policy-making in India. By ensuring that legislative and executive actions comply with constitutional provisions, judicial review acts as a check on the powers of the other branches of government. This helps to maintain the rule of law and protect individual rights.

However, judicial review also presents challenges to governance. The judiciary must balance its role in protecting constitutional principles with the need to respect the functions and expertise of the legislative and executive branches. Overstepping this balance can lead to accusations of judicial overreach or judicial activism, where courts are perceived to be encroaching on the domain of policy-making.

Criticisms and Challenges
Judicial review in India faces several criticisms and challenges. One common criticism is that the judiciary may overstep its boundaries and interfere with the functions of the legislature and executive. This can lead to accusations of judicial activism, where courts are perceived to be making policy decisions rather than merely interpreting the law.

Another challenge is maintaining judicial independence in the face of political pressures. The judiciary must remain impartial and free from external influences to effectively perform its role in upholding the Constitution. Ensuring transparency and accountability within the judiciary itself is also crucial to maintaining public trust and confidence.

Recent Developments
Recent developments in judicial review have seen the judiciary addressing contemporary issues and evolving challenges. Notable judgments in areas such as environmental protection, data privacy, and socio-economic rights demonstrate the judiciary's active role in responding to the changing needs of society.

For instance, the Supreme Court's judgment in the Right to Privacy case (2017) recognized privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution, significantly impacting laws and policies related to data protection and surveillance. Similarly, the Court's intervention in cases related to environmental conservation and climate change reflects its commitment to addressing urgent global challenges.

Conclusion
Judicial review in India serves as a vital mechanism for upholding the Constitution and ensuring that legislative and executive actions do not transgress constitutional boundaries. It embodies the principle of constitutional supremacy, providing a robust framework for the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law. Through its judicious exercise, the judiciary not only preserves the integrity of the Constitution but also reinforces the democratic values upon which the nation is built. The doctrine of judicial review continues to evolve, adapting to new challenges and ensuring that the principles of justice, fairness, and reasonableness prevail in the governance of the country.

References:

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
2. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951)
3. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
4. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967)
5. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
6. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981)
7. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
8. Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997)
9. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation (2000)
10. R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981)
11. BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002)
12. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1990)
13. Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India (2003)
14. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1985)

Written By: Gurjot Singh