This article explains Judicial Review in simple terms, compares it with Judicial Activism and Judicial Overreach, and provides key examples and practice MCQs for UPSC and other competitive exams
Judicial Review refers to the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Union and State governments. The idea of judicial review first came from the U.S. case Marbury v. Madison (1803). In India, the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) said that judicial review is part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution. This means Parliament cannot take it away, even by amending the Constitution.
Significance of Judicial Review
· Protects Fundamental Rights – Courts can cancel any law or order that violates citizens’ basic rights.
· Keeps Constitution Supreme – It ensures that all actions of Parliament and government follow the Constitution.
· Maintains Balance of Power – Judicial review checks that the Union and State governments work within their limits.
· Guards the Basic Structure – Features like democracy, secularism, and rule of law cannot be amended by Parliament.
· Prevents Misuse of Power – It stops unfair or arbitrary actions of the legislature and the executive
· Strengthens Democracy – By acting as a watchdog, judicial review ensures accountability and builds trust in the system.
Judicial Review vs Judicial Activism
| Point | Judicial Review | Judicial Activism |
| Meaning | Courts check if laws or government actions follow the Constitution. | Courts take a proactive role to promote justice, even beyond existing laws. |
| Purpose | To protect the Constitution and citizens’ rights. | To fill gaps in law and protect public interest. |
| Nature | Reactive – Courts act when a case is brought before them. | Proactive – Courts sometimes act on their own (suo motu) or give new guidelines. |
| Scope | Limited – Only tests constitutionality of laws or actions. | Broad – May create rules or influence policy for justice. |
| Examples | Kesavananda Bharati (1973) – struck down unconstitutional amendments. | Vishaka case (1997) – laid down rules against workplace harassment. |
Judicial Review vs Judicial Overreach
| Point | Judicial Review | Judicial Overreach |
| Meaning | Courts check whether laws or government actions follow the Constitution. | Courts go beyond their role and interfere too much in government or Parliament functions. |
| Purpose | To protect the Constitution, fundamental rights, and rule of law. | Often involves controlling policy or administration, which is not the court’s job. |
| Limit | Acts within constitutional boundaries. | Exceeds constitutional limits. |
| Nature | Reactive – acts when a case is brought before the court. | Proactive or excessive – may dictate how government works. |
| Example | Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – struck down unconstitutional amendments. | Jolly LLB 2 Movie Censorship (2017) |
Is Money Bill subject to Judicial Review?
A Money Bill deals only with financial matters (Article 110) and is mainly passed by the Lok Sabha. The Speaker’s certification of a bill as a Money Bill is usually final. However, courts can review this if the certification appears to be misused to bypass the Rajya Sabha (Aadhaar case, 2016; Rojer Mathew, 2019).
Imbalance Between Judicial Review and Parliamentary Sovereignty
India’s Parliament makes laws, and the judiciary checks if they follow the Constitution. Sometimes, an imbalance occurs.
- Judicial review limiting Parliament: In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Supreme Court said Parliament cannot change the basic structure. In Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the court canceled the PM’s election.
- Parliament limiting judicial review: The Aadhaar Act (2016) was passed as a Money Bill to avoid Rajya Sabha scrutiny. The 42nd Amendment (1976) tried to reduce judicial power during Emergency.
A proper balance is needed: Parliament represents the people, and courts protect the Constitution.
Important Articles Related to Judicial Review
- Article 13 – Declares that any law inconsistent with or violating Fundamental Rights is void. Forms the basis of judicial review.
- Article 124–147 – Establishes the Supreme Court, its powers, and jurisdiction. Key ones for review:
- Article 137 – Power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgments.
- Article 141 – Supreme Court judgments are binding on all courts.
- Article 142 – Supreme Court can pass any order necessary to do complete justice.
- Article 214–231 – Establishes High Courts and their powers.
- Article 226 – High Courts can issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and other legal rights.
- Article 227 – High Courts have superintendence over all courts and tribunals in the state.
Grounds for Judicial Review
- Violation of the Constitution – Law or action contradicts constitutional provisions.
- Violation of Fundamental Rights – Infringes citizens’ rights under Part III.
- Ultra Vires (Exceeding Authority) – Legislature or executive acts beyond powers granted by the Constitution.
- Procedural Impropriety – Laws or actions not following proper legal procedures.
- Maladministration or Arbitrary Action – Unfair, arbitrary, or discriminatory actions violating natural justice.
Landmark Cases on Judicial Review in India
Judicial review in India has been shaped by several important Supreme Court cases. These cases highlight how courts safeguard the Constitution and fundamental rights.
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803) – USA
- Though not Indian, this established the principle of judicial review globally. Courts can strike down laws that violate the Constitution. India adopted this principle.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
- This case confirmed judicial review as part of the basic structure.
3. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
- Election of the Prime Minister was challenged.
- Court declared election invalid, showing that even Parliament and PM are subject to constitutional limits.
4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
- Court struck down amendments that limited fundamental rights, reinforcing that judicial review cannot be bypassed.
5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Expanded the scope of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
- Showed judicial review protects procedural fairness in addition to rights.
6. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019)
- Discussed judicial review of Money Bill certification, showing limits and scope of review over parliamentary powers.
12 Important MCQs on Judicial Review
- What is the primary purpose of judicial review in India?
A) To make new laws
B) To check constitutionality of laws and government actions ✅
C) To supervise elections
D) To control the media
- Which case established that judicial review is part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution?
A) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
B) Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala ✅
C) Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
D) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
- Judicial review in India applies to:
A) Only laws made by Parliament
B) Only laws made by State Legislatures
C) Both laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures ✅
D) Only executive orders
- Which of the following is NOT a feature of judicial review?
A) Protects fundamental rights
B) Strikes down unconstitutional laws
C) Makes policies for the government ✅
D) Ensures supremacy of the Constitution
- Judicial activism differs from judicial review because it:
A) Only checks constitutionality
B) Goes beyond the law to promote justice ✅
C) Cannot be done by the Supreme Court
D) Is always reactive
- Which Article of the Indian Constitution explicitly deals with the procedure of Money Bills?
A) Article 110 ✅
B) Article 356
C) Article 368
D) Article 226
- Can the Speaker’s certification of a Money Bill be reviewed by the courts?
A) No, it is completely final
B) Yes, if misuse is suspected ✅
C) Only by the Rajya Sabha
D) Only by the President
- Judicial overreach occurs when:
A) Courts strike down unconstitutional laws
B) Courts interfere in policy or administrative matters beyond their role ✅
C) Courts protect fundamental rights
D) Courts interpret constitutional provisions
- Which of the following cases is an example of judicial activism?
A) Kesavananda Bharati v. Kerala
B) Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan ✅
C) Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
D) Aadhaar case (2016)
- Why is judicial review important in India?
A) Ensures Parliament can make any law
B) Protects citizens’ rights and maintains constitutional supremacy ✅
C) Allows courts to run the government
D) Replaces executive power - Judicial Review in the Indian Constitution is based on:
A) Parliamentary sovereignty
B) Rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution ✅
C) Fundamental duties
D) Directive Principles of State Policy - The concept of Judicial Review in India was borrowed from which country?
A) United Kingdom
B) United States of America ✅
C) Canada
D) Australia