Judicial Review in India: Balancing Constitutional Supremacy and Parliamentary Sovereignty : Author: Subashree M
Judicial review is one of the important features of the Indian Constitution. It gives the judiciary the power to examine whether legislative and executive actions are consistent with the Constitution. At the same time, Parliament has an important role in making laws and amending the Constitution according to changing social and political needs. This creates a constitutional balance between judicial review and parliamentary power. Unlike the traditional concept of absolute Parliamentary sovereignty followed in the United Kingdom, India follows the principle of constitutional supremacy, where all organs of the State are subject to the Constitution.
Abstract
Judicial review is one of the important features of the Indian Constitution. It gives the judiciary the power to examine whether legislative and executive actions are consistent with the Constitution. At the same time, Parliament has an important role in making laws and amending the Constitution according to changing social and political needs. This creates a constitutional balance between judicial review and parliamentary power. Unlike the traditional concept of absolute Parliamentary sovereignty followed in the United Kingdom, India follows the principle of constitutional supremacy, where all organs of the State are subject to the Constitution. This article examines the meaning and constitutional basis of judicial review, the scope of Parliamentary power and the role of the judiciary in protecting the basic structure of the Constitution.
Keywords
Judicial Review, Constitutional Supremacy, Parliamentary Sovereignty, Basic Structure, Constitution of India, Fundamental Rights.
Introduction
The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the country. Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary derive their powers from the Constitution and are expected to function within its limits. Judicial review is not intended to place the judiciary above Parliament. Its main purpose is to ensure that the Constitution remains the controlling legal document and that legislative and executive authorities do not exercise their powers beyond constitutional limits. Article 368 gives Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. The difficulty arises when a constitutional amendment attempts to change fundamental principles of the Constitution itself. The development of the Basic Structure Doctrine provides the answer to this problem. Through this doctrine, the Supreme Court has attempted to maintain a balance between the amending power of Parliament and the supremacy of the Constitution.
Meaning and Concept of Judicial Review
Judicial review means the power of the courts to examine the constitutional validity of laws and governmental actions. If a law or action is inconsistent with the Constitution, the court can declare it invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.
In India, judicial review is connected with several constitutional provisions. Article 13 provides an important basis by declaring that laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of such inconsistency. Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights, while Articles 226 and 227 give important constitutional powers to the High Courts.
Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review in India
The Constitution does not use the expression “judicial review” as a single, separate power. Instead, the power arises from different constitutional provisions. Article 13 is particularly important because it places a limitation on laws which violate Fundamental Rights.
Article 32 gives individuals the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The Court may issue writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto.
Evolution of Judicial Review in India
The relationship between Parliament and the judiciary developed through a series of important constitutional cases. In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the Supreme Court upheld Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights.
The same approach was followed in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965). However, the position changed considerably in I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967). The Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights in a manner that took away or abridged them.
Judgments
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati is the most significant decision in the development of the Basic Structure Doctrine. The case was decided by a 13-judge Bench on 24 April 1973. The Supreme Court held that Parliament has wide power to amend the Constitution, but it cannot destroy or alter its basic structure. This judgment established the main constitutional limitation on Parliament's amending power.
2. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
The Basic Structure Doctrine was applied soon after Kesavananda Bharati. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, the Supreme Court examined provisions introduced through the 39th Constitutional Amendment. The Court held that certain constitutional changes affecting the adjudication of elections violated the basic structure.
3. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)
Minerva Mills further clarified the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary. The case involved challenges to provisions of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court held that Parliament's amending power under Article 368 could not be used to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution.
Basic Structure Doctrine and Judicial Review
The Basic Structure Doctrine is the main constitutional mechanism through which judicial review and Parliamentary power are balanced. Parliament has the authority to respond to changing circumstances through constitutional amendments. However, the amendment power cannot be used to destroy the essential principles which give the Constitution its identity.
Judicial review itself has been recognised as an essential constitutional feature. In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 forms part of the basic structure and cannot be completely excluded.
Balancing Judicial Review and Parliamentary Sovereignty
The Indian constitutional system does not require Parliament and the judiciary to compete for supremacy. Their functions are different. Parliament needs sufficient freedom to make laws and amend the Constitution. At the same time, unlimited Parliamentary power could result in the weakening of Fundamental Rights, judicial independence or other constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court's approach in Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills shows this balance clearly: Parliament has the power to amend, but that power has constitutional limits.
Conclusion
Judicial review and Parliamentary sovereignty are not necessarily opposing principles in the Indian constitutional system. Parliament has an important role in law-making and constitutional amendment, but its powers are derived from and limited by the Constitution. The judiciary, through judicial review, ensures that these constitutional limits are respected.
The decisions in Kesavananda Bharati, Indira Nehru Gandhi, Minerva Mills have gradually developed a system in which Parliament retains substantial power while the basic identity of the Constitution remains protected.