Judicial Review

4.1 Concept and Constitutional Basis

Judicial Review is the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine the constitutional validity of any legislative act or executive action and declare it ultra vires (beyond powers) if it violates the Constitution.

Constitutional Basis:

• Article 13: Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights shall be void; courts enforce this
• Article 32 and 226: Writ jurisdiction implicitly includes power to review constitutionality
• Article 131–136: Appellate jurisdiction includes examining constitutionality

India follows "judicial supremacy" in constitutional interpretation — the SC has the final word on what the Constitution means, unlike the UK model of parliamentary sovereignty.

4.2 Scope: What Can Be Reviewed

Subject to Judicial Review:

• Constitutional validity of Central and State laws
• Constitutional validity of constitutional amendments (post-Kesavananda — basic structure doctrine applies)
• Validity of executive orders and government notifications
• Exercise of discretionary powers on grounds of arbitrariness (Maneka Gandhi principle)

Generally Not Reviewable:

• Matters in the Ninth Schedule — but I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) held even Ninth Schedule laws can be reviewed if they violate basic structure
• President's satisfaction under Articles 356, 352 — but S.R. Bommai v. UoI (1994) brought Presidential rule under review
• Political questions — courts generally abstain from purely political disputes

4.3 Grounds of Judicial Review

1. Lack of legislative competence — Law made on subjects outside Parliament's/State Legislature's List
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights — under Part III
3. Violation of other constitutional provisions — e.g., money bill procedure not followed
4. Manifest arbitrariness — under expanded Article 14 doctrine (post-Shayara Bano 2017)
5. Violation of basic structure — applies to constitutional amendments

---