Laxmikanth Test: Judicial Review & Judicial Activism-1 - UPSC MCQ

The scope of Judicial review in India is narrower than what exists in USA. American constitution does not explicitly mention the concept of Judicial review in its provisions.

Let's analyze the given statements in the context of the Indian Constitution and judicial review.

1. The 'Procedure established by law' gives wide scope to the Supreme Court to grant protection to the rights of its citizens.

   This statement is incorrect. The concept of "procedure established by law" is narrower than the "due process of law" found in the U.S. Constitution. Under "procedure established by law," the Supreme Court of India is primarily concerned with whether a law has been enacted following the correct procedure laid down by the legislature. It does not provide the same broad scope for judicial review of the law's reasonableness or fairness as "due process of law" would.

2. It can declare laws violative of these rights void not only on substantive grounds of being unlawful but also on procedural grounds of being unreasonable.

   This statement is incorrect. The Indian judiciary, under the "procedure established by law," can declare laws void if they do not follow the proper procedure or violate fundamental rights. However, it cannot declare a law void purely on the grounds of it being unreasonable or unfair in substance unless it violates a specific fundamental right.

Therefore, both statements are not correct.

The correct answer is: 

    2. Both 1 and 2

Understanding the Supreme Court's Role in Examining Constitutionality:

1. The Supreme Court of India, when assessing the constitutionality of a law, examines more than just the substantive aspect, or whether the law is within the jurisdiction of the authority that enacted it.

• This means the Court’s examination is not confined solely to determining if the law is within the powers of the concerned authority. - The Court's review encompasses both procedural and substantive dimensions.
• This involves ensuring that the law not only falls within the scope of the legislative authority but also adheres to the principles of justice, fairness, and reasonableness as mandated by the Constitution.

Hence, the statement that the Supreme Court examines only the substantive question is not correct.

2.The Supreme Court does consider the reasonableness, suitability, or policy implications of a law.

• This is particularly true when it comes to laws affecting fundamental rights.
• The Court assesses whether a law is reasonable or arbitrary, whether it serves a legitimate governmental purpose, and whether it does so in a fair and equitable manner.

The notion that the Supreme Court is not expected to delve into these aspects is incorrect.

 Conclusion: Given the above explanations, both statements provided are not correct. The Supreme Court's review of the constitutionality of a law is comprehensive, considering both the power to enact the law and the law's compliance with constitutional principles, including reasonableness and fairness.

Thus, the correct answer to the question is d) Both 1 and 2.

The correct answer is:

3. Both 1 and 2

Explanation:

1. The term "Judicial review" was not first coined by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Judicial review is a concept that has been attributed to the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803) in the United States, and while the term itself may not have been coined in that case, the practice and principle were firmly established there by Chief Justice John Marshall. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. is known more for his work on the term "imperial presidency," not judicial review.

2. The term "judicial activism" was not first coined by John Marshall. John Marshall was a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court who played a pivotal role in the establishment of judicial review, but he did not coin the term "judicial activism." The term "judicial activism" was actually first used by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in a 1947 Fortune magazine article to describe the tendencies of certain Supreme Court justices.

Therefore, both statements are incorrect.