Judicial Review: Concept and Origin
Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts and executive orders. If found inconsistent with the Constitution, such laws or actions can be declared null and void. The concept originates from Marbury v. Madison (1803) in the U.S. and has been deeply embedded into Indian constitutional practice.
In India, Judicial Review is an integral part of the Basic Structure Doctrine, making it immune to constitutional amendment. It is exercised under:
- Article 13 (Pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws)
- Article 32 (Supreme Court’s power to enforce Fundamental Rights)
- Article 226 (Writ jurisdiction of High Courts)
Significance of Judicial Review
Judicial Review plays a crucial role in maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution and ensuring checks and balances. It safeguards Fundamental Rights and prevents the abuse of power by the legislature or executive.
Landmark Cases
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Established the Basic Structure Doctrine and affirmed judicial review as a part of it.
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
- Reinforced the limits on Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
- Affirmed that power of judicial review vested in High Courts and the Supreme Court is a part of the basic structure.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Meaning and Evolution
PIL is a form of litigation that allows the courts to hear matters of public interest initiated by individuals or groups, even if they are not directly affected. It aims to provide access to justice for the marginalized and uphold constitutional rights.
PIL was judicially innovated during the post-Emergency era when the Supreme Court relaxed traditional locus standi norms, making justice more accessible.
Constitutional Basis
Although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, PIL is enabled through:
- Article 32 – For Supreme Court intervention
- Article 226 – For High Court intervention
Judicial Activism through PIL
The judiciary has used PILs to address a wide range of issues:
- Environmental protection (MC Mehta v. Union of India)
- Custodial violence (Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra)
- Prisoner rights (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar)
- Food security and corruption in PDS (PUCL v. Union of India)
For reliable legal news updates and in-depth case reports, visit legallypresent.in.
Criticism and Misuse
Despite its importance, PIL has been criticized for:
- Judicial overreach into executive and legislative domains.
- Frivolous petitions wasting court time.
- Being used for personal or political agendas.
The Supreme Court, in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), laid down guidelines to prevent the misuse of PIL and ensure its authenticity.
Conclusion
Judicial Review and PIL serve as vital tools in upholding the Constitution, ensuring governance accountability, and providing voice to the voiceless. While judicial review preserves constitutional supremacy, PIL enables social justice through judicial innovation.
For opportunities like internships, fellowships, and legal events, head to lawfer.in.
