Position of Minor's Agreement

 

The concept of judicial review is fundamental to constitutional law, allowing the judiciary to assess the validity of actions by the executive and legislative branches. In India, judicial review is rooted in the Constitution and serves as a safeguard to ensure that executive actions remain within the bounds of legality, constitutionality, and fairness. This power, although implicit in various provisions of the Constitution, has been elaborated through landmark judgments and forms an essential feature of the rule of law in India.

Constitutional Basis for Judicial Review

The Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention "judicial review", yet it implicitly endorses the principle through provisions like Articles 13, 32, 226, and 136. Article 13 explicitly declares any law that contravenes the Constitution as void, thus granting courts the power to review and nullify such legislation. Articles 32 and 226 provide citizens the right to approach the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to enforce their fundamental rights. The power conferred upon the judiciary through these articles allows it to scrutinize executive actions if they infringe upon rights or violate constitutional provisions. Article 136 gives the Supreme Court the power to entertain appeals against judgments from lower courts, including matters involving executive actions.

The judiciary’s power of review is especially pronounced in the domain of fundamental rights. Article 32, referred to as the "heart and soul of the Constitution" by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, establishes the right to constitutional remedies, empowering the Supreme Court to enforce these rights and scrutinize any infringement by the executive. High Courts also wield similar authority under Article 226, allowing individuals to seek remedies against executive actions at the state level. Together, these provisions provide the constitutional framework for judicial review in India, facilitating a check on executive actions that may exceed legal boundaries.

Evolution of Judicial Review in India

The scope of judicial review has evolved significantly over the years, with landmark cases shaping its contours. The case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) marked an early instance where the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of executive actions. While the court upheld the preventive detention laws in this instance, it highlighted the role of the judiciary in evaluating executive powers. This case laid the groundwork for subsequent decisions where the judiciary would assert a more proactive stance in safeguarding individual rights.

A pivotal moment in the expansion of judicial review came with the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). Here, the Supreme Court introduced the doctrine of the "basic structure" of the Constitution, ruling that Parliament could not alter the Constitution’s fundamental principles, such as democracy, the rule of law, and judicial review itself. This case established judicial review as an essential part of the Constitution’s basic structure, thus protecting it from being diluted by legislative or executive actions.

In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the court further strengthened this doctrine by reaffirming the judiciary's power to review executive actions. The court held that any law that impinges upon the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles or undermines the basic structure is subject to review. These cases collectively underscore the judiciary's role as the guardian of the Constitution and affirm that judicial review of executive actions is a vital aspect of India’s democratic framework.

Scope and Grounds of Judicial Review of Executive Actions

Judicial review of executive actions in India primarily operates on three broad grounds: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. These principles guide courts in determining the legality and constitutionality of executive decisions.

• Illegality: This ground entails the judiciary’s scrutiny of executive actions to ensure they are lawful and within the scope of authority granted by law. If an executive action contravenes statutory or constitutional provisions, it is deemed illegal and liable to be struck down. In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the Supreme Court invalidated an executive action that violated the principle of equality under Article 14. This case exemplifies the judiciary’s role in ensuring that executive actions comply with constitutional mandates and statutory limitations.
• Irrationality: Under this ground, courts assess whether an executive action is unreasonable or arbitrary to the extent that it defies logic or rationality. The landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) established that arbitrary executive actions infringing upon personal liberty are unconstitutional, thereby expanding the scope of Article 21. The court emphasized that the concept of "reasonableness" is intrinsic to the right to life and liberty, marking a significant expansion of judicial review over arbitrary executive actions.
• Procedural Impropriety: This ground requires that executive actions follow the correct procedures as prescribed by law. Failure to adhere to due process renders an action procedurally improper and liable to be quashed. In R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody (1993), the UK court held that fairness in procedure is an indispensable element in decision-making processes, a principle that Indian courts have also embraced. Procedural impropriety remains a critical criterion in reviewing executive actions, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.

Judicial Review in the Context of Administrative Actions

In addition to its constitutional mandate, judicial review also applies to the actions of administrative bodies. The judiciary reviews administrative actions to ensure they align with principles of fairness, accountability, and transparency. Courts have consistently held that administrative actions must not violate fundamental rights or statutory provisions. In Indian Council of Medical Research v. Janhit Manch (2004), the Supreme Court invalidated an administrative decision that compromised public health, emphasizing that administrative bodies must act in the public interest and avoid arbitrariness.

Judicial review of administrative actions is essential, particularly in cases where administrative discretion is exercised. In Barium Chemicals v. Company Law Board (1967), the Supreme Court set a precedent by ruling that discretionary powers must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The judiciary’s role in scrutinizing administrative discretion underscores the principle that power must be exercised within the bounds of law and not at the whims of the executive.

Judicial Review in Matters of National Security and Emergency

While the judiciary exercises robust review over most executive actions, the scope is often limited in matters concerning national security and emergency situations. The Constitution grants the executive certain powers under Article 352 (proclamation of emergency) and Article 356 (President’s Rule in states), which can temporarily limit judicial review. However, the judiciary has asserted its right to review even in these situations to prevent misuse of power. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. This decision marked a significant step in ensuring that emergency powers are not used arbitrarily.

Similarly, in cases concerning national security, courts have been cautious yet assertive in reviewing executive actions. The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) case, often referred to as the Habeas Corpus case, saw the Supreme Court upholding executive actions during the Emergency. This decision faced criticism for limiting judicial review, and in later years, the court took a more protective stance toward individual rights. This shift reflects a growing recognition of the judiciary’s role in balancing national security interests with constitutional safeguards.

Limitations and Challenges in Judicial Review

Despite its extensive scope, judicial review faces limitations and challenges. The judiciary is often cautious in intervening in matters of policy, especially economic and foreign policy decisions. Courts generally avoid reviewing the merits of policy choices, focusing instead on procedural and constitutional compliance. This restraint aligns with the principle of separation of powers, ensuring that the judiciary does not encroach upon the functions of the executive.

Moreover, judicial review may be constrained by procedural complexities and limitations in the judicial process. Excessive judicial intervention can sometimes lead to judicial overreach, where courts are seen as assuming the functions of the executive. This concern underscores the importance of judicial self-restraint and highlights the need for the judiciary to act as a constitutional check rather than an alternate policymaking body.

Conclusion

Judicial review of executive actions is a cornerstone of India’s constitutional framework, ensuring that executive decisions adhere to principles of legality, reasonableness, and fairness. Rooted in the Constitution and expanded through landmark judgments, judicial review serves as a vital check on executive power, preserving the balance of power within the government. While limitations exist, especially in matters of policy and national security, judicial review remains an essential mechanism for safeguarding constitutional values and protecting individual rights. Through a balanced approach, the judiciary continues to uphold the rule of law, reinforcing its role as the guardian of constitutional principles in India.