Practice Question:
Q 5. Discuss the doctrine of Judicial Review in India. How has it evolved over time, and what impact does it have on the balance of power among the principal organs of government?
Theme:
Judicial Review in India: Evolution and Impact
Where in Syllabus:
(Indian Polity and Governance.)
Practice Question:
Q 5. Discuss the doctrine of Judicial Review in India. How has it evolved over time, and what impact does it have on the balance of power among the principal organs of government?
Theme:
Judicial Review in India: Evolution and Impact
Where in Syllabus:
(Indian Polity and Governance.)
Introduction
The doctrine of Judicial Review in India, rooted in Article 13 of the Constitution, empowers the judiciary to assess the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. Influenced by Marbury v. Madison, it evolved through landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati (1973), affirming the Basic Structure Doctrine. This doctrine ensures a check on legislative and executive powers, maintaining a balance among government organs, as emphasized by thinkers like Granville Austin.
Judicial Review in India: Evolution and Impact
The doctrine of Judicial Review in India is a fundamental aspect of the country's constitutional framework, allowing the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. This doctrine ensures that all laws and actions of the government are in compliance with the Constitution of India, thereby safeguarding the rights of citizens and maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution.
Evolution Over Time:
1. Early Developments:
○ The concept of judicial review in India was influenced by the American model, but it was adapted to fit the Indian context. The roots of judicial review can be traced back to the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided a limited scope for judicial intervention.
○ Post-independence, the Constitution of India (1950) explicitly provided for judicial review under Articles 13, 32, and 226. Article 13 declares that any law inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights shall be void, while Articles 32 and 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
2. Landmark Cases:
● A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Initially, the Supreme Court adopted a narrow interpretation of Fundamental Rights, focusing on the procedure established by law.
● Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Court ruled that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, emphasizing the inviolability of these rights.
● Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark judgment introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that Parliament could amend the Constitution but not alter its basic structure. This case significantly expanded the scope of judicial review.
3. Expansion and Consolidation:
● Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Court invalidated the 39th Amendment, reinforcing the principle that the judiciary could review constitutional amendments.
● Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, reiterating the importance of the basic structure doctrine.
● S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Court emphasized the federal structure and limited the misuse of Article 356, which deals with President's Rule in states.
Impact on Balance of Power:
1. Judiciary vs. Legislature:
○ Judicial review acts as a check on legislative power, ensuring that laws passed by Parliament do not violate constitutional provisions. This has sometimes led to tensions between the judiciary and the legislature, especially when the judiciary strikes down laws or amendments.
○ For instance, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, asserting the independence of the judiciary in appointing judges.
2. Judiciary vs. Executive:
○ The judiciary also reviews executive actions to ensure they are within the bounds of the Constitution. This has led to significant rulings, such as the Vineet Narain case (1997), which laid down guidelines for the functioning of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure its independence from political influence.
3. Judicial Activism:
○ Over time, the Indian judiciary has been accused of judicial activism, where it is perceived to overstep its boundaries and encroach upon the functions of the legislature and executive. This activism is often justified as necessary to protect the rights of citizens and uphold constitutional values.
○ The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) mechanism has been a tool for judicial activism, allowing the courts to address issues of public concern, such as environmental protection and human rights.
4. Thinkers and Critics:
○ Legal scholars like Granville Austin have praised the judiciary for its role in upholding constitutional morality, while critics argue that excessive judicial intervention can disrupt the balance of power.
● Upendra Baxi has highlighted the transformative role of the judiciary in expanding the scope of rights and justice in India.
In summary, the doctrine of judicial review in India has evolved significantly, shaping the relationship between the judiciary, legislature, and executive. It serves as a crucial mechanism for maintaining constitutional governance, though it continues to be a subject of debate regarding its impact on the balance of power among the principal organs of government.
Evolution Over Time:
1. Early Developments:
○ The concept of judicial review in India was influenced by the American model, but it was adapted to fit the Indian context. The roots of judicial review can be traced back to the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided a limited scope for judicial intervention.
○ Post-independence, the Constitution of India (1950) explicitly provided for judicial review under Articles 13, 32, and 226. Article 13 declares that any law inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights shall be void, while Articles 32 and 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
2. Landmark Cases:
● A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Initially, the Supreme Court adopted a narrow interpretation of Fundamental Rights, focusing on the procedure established by law.
● Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Court ruled that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, emphasizing the inviolability of these rights.
● Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark judgment introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, asserting that Parliament could amend the Constitution but not alter its basic structure. This case significantly expanded the scope of judicial review.
3. Expansion and Consolidation:
● Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): The Court invalidated the 39th Amendment, reinforcing the principle that the judiciary could review constitutional amendments.
● Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, reiterating the importance of the basic structure doctrine.
● S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Court emphasized the federal structure and limited the misuse of Article 356, which deals with President's Rule in states.
Impact on Balance of Power:
1. Judiciary vs. Legislature:
○ Judicial review acts as a check on legislative power, ensuring that laws passed by Parliament do not violate constitutional provisions. This has sometimes led to tensions between the judiciary and the legislature, especially when the judiciary strikes down laws or amendments.
○ For instance, the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015, asserting the independence of the judiciary in appointing judges.
2. Judiciary vs. Executive:
○ The judiciary also reviews executive actions to ensure they are within the bounds of the Constitution. This has led to significant rulings, such as the Vineet Narain case (1997), which laid down guidelines for the functioning of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to ensure its independence from political influence.
3. Judicial Activism:
○ Over time, the Indian judiciary has been accused of judicial activism, where it is perceived to overstep its boundaries and encroach upon the functions of the legislature and executive. This activism is often justified as necessary to protect the rights of citizens and uphold constitutional values.
○ The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) mechanism has been a tool for judicial activism, allowing the courts to address issues of public concern, such as environmental protection and human rights.
4. Thinkers and Critics:
○ Legal scholars like Granville Austin have praised the judiciary for its role in upholding constitutional morality, while critics argue that excessive judicial intervention can disrupt the balance of power.
● Upendra Baxi has highlighted the transformative role of the judiciary in expanding the scope of rights and justice in India.
In summary, the doctrine of judicial review in India has evolved significantly, shaping the relationship between the judiciary, legislature, and executive. It serves as a crucial mechanism for maintaining constitutional governance, though it continues to be a subject of debate regarding its impact on the balance of power among the principal organs of government.
Conclusion
The doctrine of Judicial Review in India, rooted in Article 13 of the Constitution, empowers the judiciary to invalidate unconstitutional laws. Evolving through landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati (1973), it upholds the Basic Structure Doctrine. This ensures a check on legislative and executive powers, maintaining a balance among government organs. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized its role as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution. Moving forward, it must adapt to contemporary challenges while safeguarding democratic principles.