Sambhav-2025

Approach Introduce Judicial Review as a mechanism ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution. Compare India and the U.S. on the scope and limitations of judicial review. Provide examples, case laws, and constitutional provisions to substantiate the comparison. Conclude by summarizing the significance and differences in both jurisdictions.

Introduction

Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. While both India and the U.S. follow this doctrine, their scope, application, and limitations differ significantly due to their constitutional frameworks.

Body

Judicial Review in the United States:

• Originated from Marbury v. Madison (1803), establishing the Supreme Court's authority to declare laws unconstitutional.
• Based on the principle of "due process of law" under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• The U.S. follows strong judicial review, allowing courts to strike down unconstitutional laws permanently.
• Scope: Applies to both federal and state laws, executive orders, and administrative actions.
• Judicial Supremacy: The judiciary has the final say on constitutional interpretation (e.g., Roe v. Wade, 1973).
• Limitations: No provision for reconsideration by the legislature; judicial decisions can be overridden only by constitutional amendment.

Judicial Review in India:

• Expressly provided under Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, making laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void.
  • Articles 32, 226, 13, 131-136, 143,and 246 empower courts for judicial review, ensuring constitutional supremacy by protecting fundamental rights and maintaining the doctrine of basic structure.
• Based on the principle of "procedure established by law", which allows more deference to legislative intent.
• Follows limited judicial review, allowing Parliament to re-enact laws with modifications after judicial invalidation.
• Scope: Covers legislative, executive, and administrative actions, but constitutional amendments (Article 368) are subject to the ‘Basic Structure Doctrine’ (Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973).
• Judicial Self-restraint: Courts avoid interfering in matters of policy and governance unless fundamental rights are violated.
• Limitations: No direct power to review constitutional amendments unless they violate the Basic Structure (e.g., Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1980).

Conclusion

While both India and the U.S. empower their judiciary with judicial review, the U.S. follows a more absolute model, whereas India maintains a balance between legislative supremacy and judicial oversight. India's Basic Structure Doctrine acts as a safeguard, ensuring that judicial review is used judiciously without undermining parliamentary sovereignty