Discuss the scope of judicial review in reviewing administrative action, legislative enactments, and judicial decisions.

by

The Scope of Judicial Review in India

Introduction:

Judicial review, a cornerstone of any robust democracy, is the power of the judiciary to scrutinize the actions of other branches of government – the executive and the legislature – and to declare them void if they are found to be inconsistent with the Constitution or the law. In India, this power is implicitly derived from the Constitution’s basic structure doctrine, although not explicitly mentioned. The Supreme Court, as the apex court, plays a pivotal role in exercising this power, ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution and upholding the rule of law. The scope of judicial review, however, varies depending on the nature of the action being reviewed: administrative action, legislative enactments, and even other judicial decisions. This discussion will analyze the scope of judicial review in each of these areas.

Body:

1. Judicial Review of Administrative Action:

This is the most common form of judicial review. It involves examining the legality, propriety, and reasonableness of actions taken by administrative bodies (government departments, agencies, tribunals, etc.). The courts primarily focus on whether the administrative action was:

  • Ultra vires: Did the administrative body exceed its powers granted by law? This includes actions taken without jurisdiction, exceeding delegated powers, or violating procedural fairness (principles of natural justice). The landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) significantly expanded the scope of judicial review in this area, emphasizing the importance of due process.
  • Unreasonable: Was the decision so unreasonable that no reasonable body could have arrived at it? This involves a high threshold, requiring a demonstrable lack of rationality.
  • Malafide: Was the decision motivated by malice or improper purpose? Evidence of bias or corruption is crucial here.
  • Violation of fundamental rights: Did the administrative action infringe upon any fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution?

2. Judicial Review of Legislative Enactments:

The scope of judicial review over legislative enactments is more limited than that over administrative actions. Courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of the legislature on matters of policy. However, they can review legislation to determine whether it:

  • Violates the Constitution: This is the primary ground for judicial review of legislation. The court can strike down laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights, violate the basic structure of the Constitution, or infringe upon the federal structure. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) established the basic structure doctrine, limiting the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.
  • Is ultra vires: A law can be struck down if it exceeds the legislative competence of the legislature that enacted it.
  • Is procedurally flawed: If the law was passed in violation of established legislative procedures, it can be challenged.

3. Judicial Review of Judicial Decisions:

Judicial review also extends to the decisions of lower courts. Higher courts can review the decisions of lower courts to correct errors of law or fact. This is primarily done through appeals and revisions. The Supreme Court, as the final arbiter, can review decisions of all other courts. However, the scope of this review is generally limited to questions of law and not to re-examination of facts unless there is a substantial error. The Supreme Court can also review its own decisions, though this is done sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.

Conclusion:

Judicial review is a crucial mechanism for safeguarding constitutional values and ensuring the rule of law. While the scope of review varies depending on the nature of the action being reviewed, the courts play a vital role in maintaining a balance of power among the different branches of government. A robust judicial review system, while essential, must be exercised judiciously, respecting the legislative and executive domains while upholding the supremacy of the Constitution. Moving forward, it is crucial to maintain a delicate balance between judicial activism and restraint, ensuring that judicial review remains a powerful tool for upholding constitutionalism and promoting good governance, while also respecting the democratic process and the separation of powers. This requires a continuous dialogue between the judiciary and other branches of government, fostering mutual respect and a shared commitment to upholding the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution.

APPSC GROUP 1 Notes brings Prelims and Mains programs for APPSC GROUP 1 Prelims and APPSC GROUP 1 Mains Exam preparation. Various Programs initiated by APPSC GROUP 1 Notes are as follows:- For any doubt, Just leave us a Chat or Fill us a querry––