Judicial Review in India

1. Judicial Review in India A court invalidates or nullifies unconstitutional laws through judicial scrutiny. Judicial review gives the judiciary the ability to uphold the system of checks and balances between the judiciary, government, and legislature by examining legislation passed by parliament and declaring it illegal if it violates the Constitution's tenets. The Indian Constitution and Judicial Review The constitutional amendments, legislative actions, and legislation made by the legislature and implemented by the executive branch may be the subject of judicial reviews. The judiciary's independence from the other two institutions ensures that no Indian Constitutional provisions are violated by laws made and upheld by these institutions. Read: Supreme Court Judgements Online The Indian Constitution's Articles 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) and 136 (Original Jurisdiction) give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to conduct judicial review, while Articles 226 and 227 give the High Court the same power. Critical Role of Judicial Review ● ● ● It makes sure that the Constitution's fundamental rights are protected, It upholds the Constitution's primacy, By providing the three constitutional lists, it also governs Center-State issues and their connections under Article 246 of the Constitution. It protects the judiciary's independence, It guarantees that the legislative and executive branches will operate impartially and fairly. Additionally, it safeguards the constitution's fundamental design. ● ● ● Read: Legal News Judicial Review's Restrictions: The government is constrained by judicial review since it is only allowed to check the legitimacy of the processes followed to arrive at a certain legal judgment.

2. ● The judges' rulings in one case serve as the foundation for decisions in other instances as well. People's faith, belief, and support in the honesty, efficacy, and efficiency of government can be damaged by repeated judicial involvement. The judiciary is prohibited from meddling in political issues, policies, or matters unless it is absolutely necessary. Such decisions are harmful to the general public because assessments might be swayed by personal or selfish intentions. Government agencies will function poorly if the courts exercise complete and arbitrary control over judicial review. Instead of concentrating on the division of powers, India pays attention to the separation of functions. The judicial review does not adhere fully to the notion of separation of powers. A system of checks and balances has been put in place to ensure this, giving the judiciary the authority to invalidate or reverse any laws or directives made by the legislature that are unlawful. ● ● ● ● ● ● Judicial Review's Purpose; The reach of judicial review is constrained by its functionality and accessibility. In this case, the court's function is to analyze the procedure that led to the judgment rather than to replicate the contested decision or to evaluate its merits. The courts must determine if the decision was incorrect and needs to be overturned. In this context, judicial review refers to the court's power to examine the constitutionality of the policies and practices of government departments and agencies and declare them invalid or unconstitutional if they are in conflict with or in violation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution. The first of these three new developments in judicial administration is to guarantee the independence of the legislative and executive branches. The protection of individuals' fundamental rights, which are protected by the constitution, is the second consideration. The third consideration is how to resolve disputes over the federal government's and the states' respective legislative capacities. Grouping of Judicial Review:

3. Examining Court Decisions: Reviewing or scrutinizing a court's ruling essentially means examining it to see if the Supreme Court's ruling was accurate or not. In plain terms, it also refers to the court's power to judge whether actions enacted by the state, federal, and court legislatures and courts are valid. Legislative Actions Review: According to Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, the High Courts and Supreme Court of India have the ability to issue unconstitutional laws, regulations, statutes, ordinances, rules, and ordinances. This authority may also review all issued laws and order their repeal. All acts that contravene the Fundamental Rights or other significant articles of the Constitution are deemed invalid and illegal. In eminent examples like I, we can see the effects of judicial review of legislative measures. Golaknath, C., et al. Punjab State and Others v. Kesavananda Bharti and Others in 1967. Kerala State and Another, 1973. Examining administrative actions Administrative actions are those that are carried out by authorities as defined by administrative law. It is a legitimate action that has to do with how the public administrative authorities are acting. A test created by Lord Diplock, which was used in the case of Council of Civil Services Union v. Minister of Civil Services 1984, is used to determine whether the administrative action is lawful. Illegality: If the decision-makers violate the law or go beyond the scope of their authority, their actions and judgments may be deemed illegal. Irrationality: The courts may also intervene to overturn any decision if they believe it to be arbitrary, describing the decision-maker's action as "perverse" or "unreasonable." Procedural Incorrectness:

4. Any public body must not act unethically because doing so amounts to an abuse of power, hence it is up to the authority to act impartially before considering and making any decisions. Conclusion: The supremacy of the Constitution must be upheld through judicial review, which also ensures that the government and its agencies don't misuse their authority. It keeps the central and state balances in check, ensuring the federal balance. The judicial review provisions also safeguard citizens' fundamental rights. This clause upholds the fundamental value of judicial independence. Due to the significance of the idea of judicial review, it is a fundamental component of the Indian Constitution, as demonstrated in the 1980 case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Indian Union and Others. In conclusion, it is true to argue that judicial review has developed to safeguard people's rights to stop the exercise of arbitrary authority and stop false allegations.