The document discusses judicial review in the Indian Constitution, highlighting its power to assess the constitutionality of governmental actions and legislation. It outlines the judiciary's role as a protector of constitutional values, referencing key articles and case laws that affirm this authority. Additionally, it emphasizes that judicial review is an essential feature of the constitution aimed at preventing arbitrary power and safeguarding individual rights.

1. JUDICIAL REVIEW
IN
INDIAN CONSTITUTION
Author:-RAHUL GAUR
College:- New Law College,pune

2. INTRODUCTION
 Judicial review is the power given to the courts to
determine the constitutionality of actions taken by the
different branches of the government such as
legislature and executive
 The United States Supreme Court in case of Marbury
v. Madison 5 US (1 Cr.) 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)
propounded the concept of Judicial review,.In India,
the Judiciary acts as the silent protector of the
constitutional valuesand also asserts its positions as
the watchdog of the constitution.

3. DEFINITION
 According to Black's Law Dictionary, judicial
review is "a philosophy of judicial decisionmaking
whereby judges allow their personal views about
public policy, among other factors, to guide their
decisions, usually with the suggestion that adherents
of this philosophy tend to find constitutional
violations and are willing to ignore precedent.
 Section 114, CPC, 1908 defines Judicial Review as a
Means to look again main object of granting a
review of judgment in reconsideration of the same
matter by the same judge under certain conditions.

4. JUDICIAL REVIEW IS THE POWER
OF THE JUDICIARY BY WHICH:
(i) The court reviews the laws and rules of
the legislature and executive in cases that
come before them; in litigation cases.
(ii) The court determines the constitutional
validity of the laws and rules of the
government; and
(iii) The court rejects that law or any of its
part which is found to be unconstitutional or
against the Constitution

5. POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
LEGISLATION
 The power of judicial review of legislation is given to the
judiciary both by the political theory and text of the
constitution. There are several specific provisions in the
Indian constitution, judicial review of legislation such as
Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 143, 226, 145, 246, 251, 254 and
372.
 Article 13 in fact provides for the judicial review of all
legislations in india, past as well as future. This power has
been conferred on the High courts and the Supreme court
of India which can declare a law unconstitutional if it is
inconsistent with any of the provisions of part 3rd of the
constitution.

6. JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIAN
CONSTITUTION AND ITS APPLICATION
 Judicial review is an extraordinary power given to the
superior courts to judicially review any decision and also
for assessing the exercise of power of public authorities,
whether they are constitutional, quasi-judicial or
governmental. Judicial Review of legislative acts
indicates review of legislative actions to check its
constitutional validity or its correctness
 Supreme Court has pointed out that judicial review has
expressly been provided in our constitution under Article
13 of the Indian Constitution State of Madras v. Row, AIR
1952 SC 196 (199) according to which it is a duty to
determine the constitutionality of the legislation when
that is challenged on the ground of contravention of the
fundamental rights. DD Basu, Constitution of India, Vol-
1, pg. no. 72

7. IN INDIA, JUDICIAL REVIEW
BROADLY COVERS THREE
ASPECTS;
(1) Judicial review of legislative action
(2) Judicial review for judicial decision,
and
(3) Judicial review of administrative action

8. JUDICIAL REVIEW CASE LAWS
 Justice Bhagwati, in Sampath Kumar v. Union
of India AIR 1987 SC 386 held that, “Judicial
Review is essential feature of the constitution
and no law passed by Parliament in exercise of
its constituent power can abrogate it or take it
away. If the power of judicial review is
abrogated or taken away the constitution will
cease to be what it is”

9.  In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978
SC 597 , it was held that, “Judicial review
acquired the same or even wider dimensions as in
the United States. Now ‘procedure established by
law ‘in Article 21 does not mean any procedure lay
down by the legislature but it means a fair, just and
reasonable procedure.”

10.  ChampakamDorairajan v. State of Madras AIR
1951 SC
 226 , it was held that “The Government of Madras reserved
seats in state medical and engineering colleges for different
communities in certain proportions on the basis of religion,
race and caste. This was challenged as unconstitutional. The
government defended its order on the grounds of Article 46
of the Constitution, which permits the state to promote with
special care the educational and economic interests of the
weaker sections of the people and in particular scheduled
castes and scheduled tribes to secure social justice. But the
Supreme Court struck down the order as it was violative of
Right to equality guaranteed under article 15(1) and observed
that directive principles can't override the guaranteed
fundamental rights. As a result, the Parliament brought the
Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 to Article 15 and
inserted clause (4)”

11.  I. C. GolakNath v. State of PunjabAIR 1967 SC 1643
.
 the petitioner, landowners deprived of their surplus
landholdings under state land reform legislation challenged
the validity of first, fourth, and seventeenth amendments.
The SC constituted an eleven judge bench to examine that
whether a constitutional amendment can be passed which
abridges the fundamental right? The court overruled the
decision of ShankariPrasadv Union of India26 and said that
constitutional amendment comes under the definition of
law under Art. 13(2) hence cannot abridge the fundamental
rights. The SC showed courage but it was of no use as
legislature passed the 24th Constitutional Amendment act
which among the other things included clause 4 in Art 13
stating that this Article expressly exclude constitutional
amendments.

12.  The Supreme Court in Kartar Singh v. State of
Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 (738) , explained
Judicial review as it is not only concerned with
the merits of the decision but also of the decision-
making process. It intends to protect the
individual against the misuse or abuse of the
power by a wide range of authorities. Judicial
review is a protection to the individual and not at
weapon

13. CONCLUSION
The concept of Separation of power so we cannot assume
the power of judicial review in full extended form. If the courts
presume full and arbitrary power of judicial review it will lead
to the poor performance of work by all the organs of
government. So to keep all the functions work properly each
has to work in its provided sphere. 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 in case of Minerva
Mills V. Union of India. 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.