Judicial Review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

• Procedure Established by Law:It means that a law enacted by the legislature or the concerned body is valid only if the correct procedure has been followed to the letter.
• Due Process of Law:It is a doctrine that not only checks if there is a law to deprive the life and personal liberty of a person but also ensures that the law is made fair and just.
• India follows Procedure Established by Law.

• It is the power exerted by the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislatures, executive and administrative arms of government and to ensure that such actions conform to the provisions of the nation’s Constitution.
• Judicial review has two important functions, like, of legitimizing government actionand the protection of constitution against any undue encroachment by the gov­ernment.
• Judicial review is considered a basic structure of the constitution(Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case 1975).
• Judicial review is also called the interpretational and observer roles of the Indian judiciary.
• Suo Moto cases and the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), with the discontinuation of the principle of Locus Standi, have allowed the judiciary to intervene in many public issues, even when there is no complaint from the aggrieved party.

Why Judicial Review?.

Judicial review is necessary to align the supremacy of the Constitution in a nation, and to safeguard the Fundamental Rights of the citizens. It is essential to preserve the independence and autonomy of the judiciary in India. This is necessary to maintain a federal balance between the Central Government and the State Governments. It is fundamental to curb the conceivable abuse of power by the legislature and the executive and act as a safeguard for the basic structure of the constitution of India.

 Judicial Review is also known as the role of reviewer, and the role of Eyewitnesses. It invalidates the provisions which are made by the Parliament or State legislature when those are against the provisions of the Constitution. It is a ‘basic feature ‘ of the Constitution of India and cannot be taken away by putting a law under the 9th Schedule which violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. Also, the ‘basic structure ‘ of the Constitution cannot be declared invalid and void.

Limitations of Judicial Review

Any law already exercised by the Constitution can be superseded by the judiciary with the exclusive power of judicial review, but we have to note that the Indian Judiciary does not have unlimited powers like the USA or extremely limited powers like the UK. Judicial review restricts the working of the public authority. It has so far been created only for the Supreme Court and the High Courts, not for any subordinate courts or local courts and these courts have only major interaction with the mass public. The repeated interference by the courts in executive affairs might erode the public confidence in the integrity, quality, competence, and proficiency of the ruling governments.

In the Indian Judiciary, the legal opinions of the Judges of the higher courts, once taken in respect of any case, become the means of standard for judging in other cases, and the judgments of the lower Courts, which limits own their judgment in fresh cases. Judicial review can also cause great detriment to society as the judgment is likely to be affected by the private or egotistical or malevolent thought processes of judges. The judicial review in India looks only into the constitutionality of the laws and regulations concerning the government, not for speedy judgments, effective justice, the reality of society, etc.

Important Judgments on Judicial Review

• The Supreme Court gave a key judgment in the I R Coelho case (2007), ruled that there is no immunity from judicial review for laws included in the 9th Schedule and it also held that Judicial Review is a ‘basic feature ’ of the constitution.
• Supreme Court ruled that which of the laws placed in the Ninth Schedule on or after April 24, 1973, could be challenged in court if they violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
• In the case of Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narayan in 1975, the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment that judicial review should be considered a fundamental structure of the Constitution.
• In 2015, the Supreme Court announced both the 99th Constitutional Amendment, 2014, and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 as unlawful, invalid, and unconstitutional.
• The Supreme Court struck down Section 66(A) of the amended Information Technology Act, 2000 as this section was outside Article 19(2) of the Constitution which deals with freedom of speech.
• The Supreme Court has exercised the power of judicial review in various cases, for example, Golaknath Case (1967), Bank Nationalization Case (1970), Privy Purse Abolition Case (1971), Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973), Minerva Mills Case (1980), and so on.

India’s sovereignty is based on the concept of separation of powers in the Constitution of India and due to this, India is unable to fully utilize the power of judicial review. At the same time from another perspective of view, if the courts assume full and arbitrary judicial review power, it will put a bad performance in all branches of government.

When the judiciary oversteps its bounds and interferes with the executive mandate, it is called Judicial Activism, which further can lead to encouraging judicial overreach. Here, we should understand judicial Activism is particularly not quite the same as Judicial Review. Judicial activism has no constitutional support, whereas judicial review has legal support through established constitutional articles.