Judicial Review Cases of India

Introduction

Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine the constitutionality of the laws passed by the legislature and the actions of the executive. It is an essential feature of the Indian Constitution that ensures the supremacy of the Constitution and the protection of the fundamental rights of the citizens.

In this article, we will discuss the concept, scope, grounds, types, and limitations of judicial review in India. We will also look at some of the landmark cases where the Indian judiciary has exercised its power of judicial review.

Concept of Judicial Review

The concept of judicial review originated in the United States, where the Supreme Court established its authority to strike down laws that were in violation of the US Constitution in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In India, the concept of judicial review was borrowed from the US Constitution, but it was adapted to suit the Indian context.

The Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the term “judicial review”, but it implies it in various provisions. For example, Article 13 states that any law that is inconsistent with fundamental rights shall be void. Articles 32 and 226 empower the Supreme Court and the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Article 131 gives the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction to decide disputes involving questions of law or fact arising out of any provision of the Constitution. Article 136 gives the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in India. Article 141 states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within India. Article 142 gives the Supreme Court power to pass such decree or order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

Scope of Judicial Review

The scope of judicial review in India is quite broad, and it covers not only the laws passed by the legislature but also the actions of the executive. The courts have the power to strike down any law that is in violation of the Constitution, and they can also issue writs to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens.

The Constitution provides for five types of writs, which are:

• Habeas Corpus – a writ that is issued to produce a person who has been detained unlawfully.
• Mandamus – a writ that is issued to compel a public official to perform a duty that they are required to perform by law.
• Prohibition – a writ that is issued to prevent a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction.
• Certiorari – a writ that is issued to quash the order of a lower court or tribunal.
• Quo Warranto – a writ that is issued to inquire into the legality of a person holding a public office.

The courts can also review constitutional amendments, ordinances, money bills, administrative actions, and judicial decisions for their constitutionality.

Grounds for Judicial Review

The grounds for judicial review are based on various principles and doctrines that have been developed by the courts over time. Some of these grounds are:

• Constitutional Amendment: The courts can review constitutional amendments for their validity and compatibility with the basic structure of the Constitution. The basic structure doctrine was propounded by the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where it held that there were limitations on the amending power of Parliament and that it could not alter the basic features of the Constitution such as democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial independence, rule of law, etc.

• Illegality: The courts can strike down any law or action that is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution or any other law.

• Lack of jurisdiction: The courts can quash any order or decision that is made by an authority that has no power or competence to do so.

• Excess of jurisdiction: The courts can annul any order or decision that is made by an authority that has exceeded its power or competence.

• Abuse of jurisdiction: The courts can invalidate any order or decision that is made by an authority that has misused its power or competence for an improper purpose.

• Malfeasance in office/improper purpose: The courts can nullify any order or decision that is made by an authority that has acted dishonestly, corruptly, or maliciously.

• A mistake is apparent on the face of the record: The courts can set aside any order or decision that is based on an obvious error of fact or law.

• Consideration of extraneous material: The courts can cancel any order or decision that is influenced by irrelevant or inadmissible factors.

• Mala fide exercise of power: The courts can revoke any order or decision that is made by an authority that has acted in bad faith or with ulterior motives.

• Fettering discretion: The courts can overturn any order or decision that is made by an authority that has imposed a rigid rule or policy on itself and has not considered the merits of each case.

• Failure to exercise discretion: The courts can intervene in any order or decision that is made by an authority that has abdicated its power or competence and has not applied its mind to the case.

• Irrationality (Wednesbury test): The courts can review any order or decision that is made by an authority that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have made it. This test was laid down by the English Court of Appeal in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948).

• Procedural impropriety: The courts can examine any order or decision that is made by an authority that has violated the rules of natural justice or fair procedure. The rules of natural justice include two main principles:

  • The rule against bias: The courts can scrutinize any order or decision that is made by an authority that has a personal interest or prejudice in the case, or has shown favouritism or hostility towards any party.

  • Rule of fair hearing: The courts can inspect any order or decision that is made by an authority that has not given a fair opportunity to the parties to present their case, or has not given reasons for its decision.

• Proportionality: The courts can check any order or decision that is made by an authority that has imposed a penalty or restriction that is disproportionate to the offence or violation. This principle involves three steps:

  • Examining the means: The courts can assess whether the means adopted by the authority are suitable and necessary to achieve the objective.

  • Examining the end: The courts can evaluate whether the objective pursued by the authority is legitimate and lawful.

  • Examining the balance between means and end: The courts can weigh whether the means adopted by the authority are proportionate to the end pursued and whether there are any less restrictive alternatives available.

Types of Judicial Review

The types of judicial review depend on the nature and source of the law or action that is being challenged. Some of the types of judicial review are:

• Review of legislative actions: The courts can review the laws passed by Parliament and state legislatures for their constitutionality. The courts can also review constitutional amendments, ordinances, and money bills for their validity.

• Review of administrative actions: The courts can review the actions of the executive and its agencies for their legality and rationality. The courts can also review administrative orders, notifications, circulars, rules, regulations, etc. for their constitutionality.

• Review of judicial decisions: The courts can review the decisions of lower courts and tribunals for their correctness and fairness. The courts can also review their own decisions for rectifying errors or preventing injustice.

Landmark Cases of Judicial Review

Over the years, there have been several landmark cases where the Indian judiciary has exercised its power of judicial review to strike down laws that were in violation of the Constitution. Some of these cases are:

• Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): In this case, the Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution and that any amendment made after 1950 would be void.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): In this case, the Supreme Court overruled Golaknath and held that Parliament had the power to amend any part of the Constitution, including the fundamental rights, but it could not alter the basic structure of the Constitution.

• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): In this case, the Supreme Court struck down a constitutional amendment that sought to validate Indira Gandhi’s election as Prime Minister after it was challenged on grounds of electoral malpractice. The court held that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution by affecting the rule of law and democracy.

• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): In this case, the Supreme Court invalidated two constitutional amendments that gave primacy to the directive principles over the fundamental rights and conferred unlimited amending power on Parliament. The court held that these amendments destroyed the harmony and balance between Part III and Part IV of the Constitution and violated the basic structure doctrine.

  • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): In this case, the Supreme Court laid down the guidelines for the exercise of the President’s power to impose the President’s rule under Article 356 in the states. The court held that this power could only be used in case of a breakdown of constitutional machinery and not for political reasons. The court also held that the validity of the President’s proclamation was subject to judicial review.

  • I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution were not immune from judicial review and could be challenged if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution.

  Limitations of Judicial Review

  While judicial review is a vital tool for upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of the citizens, it also has certain limitations and challenges. Some of these are:

  • General limitations: Judicial review may restrict the functioning of the government by delaying or obstructing its policies and decisions. It may also violate the limits set by the Constitution by encroaching upon the powers of other organs of the state. It may also undermine the concept of separation of powers by interfering with the legislative and executive functions.

  • Constitutional limits and limitations: Judicial review is subject to certain constitutional provisions that grant immunity or privilege to certain individuals or institutions such as the President, Governors, Judges, etc. Judicial review is also subject to certain implied limitations such as locus standi, res judicata, unreasonable delay, exhaustion of alternative remedies, etc.

  • Exclusion of judicial review: Judicial review may be excluded by express or implied provisions of law that oust or limit the jurisdiction of the courts to review certain matters or decisions. For example, Article 363 bars any interference by courts in matters relating to treaties or agreements between India and other countries.

  • Judicial activism and judicial self-restraint: Judicial review may involve a degree of judicial activism or judicial self-restraint by the courts depending on their interpretation and application of the Constitution and other laws. Judicial activism refers to a proactive approach by the courts to expand their role and intervene in matters of public interest or policy. Judicial self-restraint refers to a conservative approach by the courts to limit their role and defer to other organs of the state in matters of policy or discretion.

  Conclusion

  Judicial review is an important feature of the Indian Constitution that empowers the courts to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and protect the rights of the citizens. It also enables the courts to check and balance the powers of other organs of the state and ensure accountability and transparency in governance. However, judicial review also has certain limitations and challenges that require caution and prudence by both the judiciary and other stakeholders.