RAS question
The concept of 'Judicial Review' in India is based on which Article?
Correct answer: (B) Article 13.
Judicial review in India is primarily based on Article 13, which makes laws void to the extent that they are inconsistent with Fundamental Rights.
Explanation
Article 13 supplies the constitutional basis for testing laws against Fundamental Rights. The Constitution states that pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with Part III are void to the extent of that inconsistency, and that the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges rights conferred by Part III; any such law is void to the extent of the contravention. Courts can therefore treat rights-inconsistent laws as constitutionally ineffective. Articles 32 and 226 matter because they provide writ-based remedies, but they are mechanisms for enforcement rather than the primary textual basis for the voidness rule.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) Article 136 concerns the Supreme Court's discretionary special leave to appeal from judgments, decrees, determinations, sentences or orders, so it is an appellate power rather than the basis for invalidating laws against Fundamental Rights.
- (C) Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue directions, orders or writs for enforcement of Part III rights and other purposes, but it is a remedy provision, not the primary basis that declares rights-inconsistent laws void.
- (D) Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court and empowers it to issue writs for enforcing Fundamental Rights, but the voidness rule for laws inconsistent with those rights is in Article 13.
Concept
Indian Polity links Fundamental Rights with judicial review through Article 13, which gives the invalidation principle, while Articles 32 and 226 provide enforcement routes. RAS often distinguishes the basis of judicial review from writ remedies.