Judicial review is the power of the courts to determine the constitutionality Of legislative acts in a case instituted by aggrieved person. It is the power of the court to declare a legislative act on the grounds of Unconstitutionality. People and entities seek judicial review to obtain remedy from an agency decision if they feel they have been injured. Judicial review is an example of separation of powers in a modern government system( where judiciary is one of the branches of government).

3.  Judicial review is the power of the courts to determine the
constitutionality
Of legislative acts in a case instituted by aggrieved person.
 It is the power of the court to declare a legislative act on the
grounds
of Unconstitutionality.
 People and entities seek judicial review to obtain remedy from an
agency decision if they feel they have been injured.
 Judicial review is an example of separation of powers in a modern
government system( where judiciary is one of the branches of
government).

4.  The doctrine of judicial review is one of the invaluable contributions of the
U.S.A. to the political theory. Its origin has been the result of a judicial decision
and its continuance has been possible due to some conventions.
 The concept of judicial review was developed by Chief Justice Marshall of the
American Supreme Court in the famous Marbury v. Madison case (1803). In this
case Chief Justice Marshall laid down that the judiciary has the power to examine
the laws made by the legislature.
 It was also declared that if any such law is found to be in violation of the
constitution, then such a law would be declared by the court as ultra-vires of the
constitution. While doing so the Supreme Court referred to Article VI, Section 2 of
the Constitution.

5. Justice Marshall derived this power of the court from the famous ‘Due
Process of Law’ clause of the American Constitution. One of the Bill of Rights
in the American Constitution is that ‘No person shall be deprived of his life,
liberty and property without due process of law’.
 Delivering the judgement, Justice Marshall observed that the
‘Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and the judges are bound by
oath to give effect to a statute passed by the Congress, which is clearly in
conflict with the supreme law of the Constitution, it must give preference to
the latter and hold the former void and of no effect’.
 In this way, the court
plays a very important role not only in protecting the rights of the people, but
also in making the law which is usually known as ‘judge made law’. They
create law by trying to determine the exact meaning of law, expanding its
details and applying the general principles of justice, equity and morality.

6. 1. Under Article 13 , any law made by parliament that abridges the right conferred to
the people under Part III of the constitution is void-ab-initio.
2. The Supreme Court and High Court are guarantors of fundamental given by the
constitution. If any persons Fundamental Right is violated , he/she can approach the
court under Article 32 and Article 226 of the constitution.
3. Judicial Review is governed by the principal of “Procedure established by law” as
given in article 21 of Indian Constitution. The law has to pass the test of
constitutionality if it qualifies it can be made a law. On the contrary, the court can
declare it null and void.
4. A decision can be overturned on the ground of illegality if the decision maker did
not have the legal power to make that decision , for instance because parliament
gave them less discretion than they thought.

7. 5. A decision can be overturned on the ground of procedural unfairness if the
process leading up to the decision was improper.
6. A decision of judicial review can also be overturned if a public authority has
acted in a way which is incompatible with Human Rights Act 1998. But , if
the public authority is merely doing what parliament it to do, then it is not
acting unlawfully even if it does act incompatibly with one of those rights.
7. The courts cannot overturn or quash primary legislation passed by
parliament. This is because in UK Constitution, parliament is sovereign.
Secondary legislation made by ministers can be overturned by court on
the grounds of judicial review.

8.  A.k.Gopalan Vs. State of Madras (1950): Scope and
meaning of life and personal liberty under Article 21.
 Golaknath Vs. State of Punjab (1967): Parliament is a
constituted body and not a constituent body ; fundamental
rights are immune from amendment by Parliament.
 Kesavananda Vs. State of Kerala (1973): An amendment to
the Constitution is not "law", and to the extent that it does not
violate the basic structure of the Constitution, it is valid.

9. It means that a law that is duly enacted
by the legislature or the concerned body
is valid if it has followed the correct
procedure. Following this doctrine means
that, a person can be deprived of his life
or personal liberty according to
the procedure established by law.
It does not seek whether the laws made
by Parliament is fair, just and not
arbitrary.
Article 21 in The Constitution Of India
says, No person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to
the procedure established by law.
Due process of law doctrine not
only checks if there is a law to
deprive the life and personal liberty
of a person but also see if the law
made is fair, just and not arbitrary.
Under due process, it is the legal
requirement that the state must
respect all of the legal rights that
are owed to a person and laws
that states enact must conform to
the laws of the land like – fairness,
fundamental rights, liberty etc.

10. The Supreme Court held that – ‘procedure established by law’ within the
meaning of Article 21 must be ‘right and just and fair’ and ‘not arbitrary,
fanciful or oppressive’ otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the
requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Thus, the ‘procedure
established by law’ has acquired the same significance in India as the
‘due process of law’ clause in America.
Procedure
established by
law
Due process of law

11.  The Supreme Court is to examine the cases on the basis of
‘Procedure established by Law’ and not ‘Due Process of Law’.
 It cannot pronounce a judgment on the legality of a declaration of
Emergency by the President.
 The ‘aid and advice’ given by the Council of Ministers to the President
is not subject to judicial enquiry.
 The Speaker’s decisions are final and are not under the purview of the
Court.
 Due process of law has wider concept on judicial review whereas
Procedure established by law narrow concept (till Law established by
state ) on judicial review.

12.  In India, we have the concept of judicial review embedded in the basic
structure of the constitution. It helps the courts to keep a check and
balance upon the other two organs of government so that they don’t
misuse their power and work in accordance with the constitution. Finally,
we have developed the concept of judicial review and it has become the
part of basic structure. So, at last, it is correct to say that judicial review
has grown to safeguard the individual right, to stop the use of arbitrary
power and to prevent the miscarriage of justice.