Laxmikanth Summary: Judicial Review | Indian Polity for UPSC CSE PDF Download

• Article 13: Declares null and void any laws inconsistent with or derogatory to Fundamental Rights.
• Article 32: Ensures the right to approach the Supreme Court for Fundamental Rights enforcement, granting the power to issue directions, orders, or writs.
• Article 131: Grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in center-state and inter-state disputes.
• Article 132: Provides the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction in constitutional cases.
• Article 133: Outlines the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction in civil cases.
• Article 134: Specifies the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases.
• Article 134-A: Addresses the certification for appeal to the Supreme Court from High Courts.
• Article 135: Empowers the Supreme Court with the jurisdiction and powers of the former Federal Court under pre-constitution laws.
• Article 136: Authorizes the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any court or tribunal, excluding military tribunals.
• Article 143: Allows the President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on legal questions and pre-constitution matters.
• Article 226: Grants High Courts the authority to issue directions, orders, or writs for Fundamental Rights enforcement and other purposes.
• Article 227: Provides High Courts with the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdictions, excluding military courts.
• Article 245: Addresses the territorial extent of laws by Parliament and State Legislatures.
• Article 246: Deals with the subject matter of laws by Parliament and State Legislatures (Union List, State List, and Concurrent List).
• Articles 251 and 254: Resolve conflicts between central and state laws, giving precedence to central laws.
• Article 372: Deals with the continuation of pre-constitution laws.

Scope of Judicial Review

The constitutional validity of a legislative enactment or executive order can be contested in the Supreme Court or High Courts based on three grounds:-

(a) Violation of Fundamental Rights (Part III), 

(b) Exceeding the authority of the framing authority, and

 (c) Conflict with constitutional provisions.

Expanding Judicial Review

Expanding Judicial Review

• The scope of judicial review in India is narrower than in the USA.
• The American Constitution, while not explicitly mentioning judicial review, relies on 'due process of law.'
• The Indian Constitution emphasizes 'procedure established by law' rather than 'due process of law.'
• 'Due process of law' in the USA grants the Supreme Court broad authority, allowing it to declare laws void on both substantive and procedural grounds.
• In India, the Supreme Court focuses solely on the substantive question of whether a law falls within the authority's powers.
• The Indian Supreme Court does not assess the reasonableness, suitability, or policy implications of a law during the judicial review process.

Judicial Review of the Ninth Schedule

The Ninth Schedule comprises a compilation of central and state laws immune to legal challenges, introduced through the enactment of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act in 1951. 

Reviewing Ninth Schedule Judicially

• Article 31-B Protection

  • Shields acts and regulations in the Ninth Schedule from challenges based on Fundamental Rights violations.
  • Added by the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951.

• Ninth Schedule Evolution

  • Originally had 13 items in 1951, now comprises 282.
  • State legislature acts focus on land reforms, while Parliament deals with various matters.

• Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)

  • Ruled that acts in the Ninth Schedule are challengeable if they violate the basic structure of the constitution.

• Waman Rao Case (1989)

  • Clarified that acts added after April 24, 1973, are valid if they don't harm the basic structure.

• I.R. Coelho Case (2007)

  • Reaffirmed that laws in the Ninth Schedule are not immune to judicial review.
  • Emphasized judicial review as a constitutional 'basic feature.'
  • Laws added after April 24, 1973, can be challenged in court if they violate Fundamental Rights or the basic structure of the constitution.