Judicial Review in India

Judicial Review in India

Author :- Azhar Ahmad Khan (Law Student at Integral University)

Introduction

Judicial review is recognized as a necessary and a basic requirement for the construction of a novel civilization in order to safeguard the liberty and rights of the individuals. The power of judicial review is significantly vested upon the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India.

Under Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, the compulsion of judicial review was described in fundamental rights in Part III. It is stated that the State or the Union shall not make such rules that take away or abridge the essential rights of the people. If any law made by the Parliament or the State Legislature contravenes the provisions of this Article, shall be void.

Meaning of Judicial Review

Judicial Review can be understood as a form of court proceeding, usually in the Administrative Court where the lawfulness of a decision or action is reviewed by the judge. Where there is no effective means of challenge, judicial review is available. The concern behind Judicial Review is that whether the law has been correctly applied with and right procedures have been followed.

Judicial Review And Constitution of India

In order to scrutinize the legitimacy of administrative action and the statutes, the Constitution of India has given influences to the Higher courts and the Supreme Court of India. To guard the rights of the public and implement the fundamental rights are the main objects of judicial review. If any difficulty arises between State and Center relations, then Article 246 and the Schedule 7 of the Constitution has marked the working zone for the regulation construction between both State and Center.

Judicial Review in India

Judicial review plays an important role as a protector when the executive, judiciary and legislature harm the Constitutional values and deny the rights. The judicial assessment is considered as an indispensable feature in the country. In India, there is a parliamentary form of democracy where every section of people is involved in decision making and policy making. It is true that the primary duty of the court is to apply rule of law and is the groundwork of social equality. By exercising new powers of Parliament, rule of law which is to be applied by the court cannot be modified. All those here, who are doing public duty, are accountable. They have to work within the democratic provisions of the Constitution of India. The concept of separation of power and rule of law is judicial review. The influence of judicial assessment has been so long under Articles 226 and 227 in case of the High Court and Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution of India for the review.

Judicial Pronouncement

1.Shankari Prasad v. Union of India

It was held by a six judge bench, five judges not agreeing to amending the essential rights under the Indian Constitution. However, in case of Keshavanand Bharti v. state of Kerala where six judges out of seven judges held that Parliament modifying influence has and at all portion of the Constitution can be amended and over ruled the Golaknath case. The Supreme Court held that the essential rights cannot be modified in such a method, which will touch the elementary construction of the Constitution.

2.I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu

This case was seen from Keshvanand Bharti case in which the cases like Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others (1997),Waman Rao and others v. Union of India and others (1981), Minerva Mills Ltd. and others v. Union of India (1980), Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narnia (1975), where judicial review was considered as essential and integral Part of the Constitution of India.

3. Mitthu v. State of Punjab

The Supreme Court of India has struck down Section 303 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. This section had made the death sentence mandatory. In case Article twenty-one of the Indian Constitution was illustrated by the S.C.I. complete its frequent pronouncement.