What Is Judicial Review in India and Why Does It Matter?

Judicial review in India is one of the strongest pillars of its democratic and constitutional system. It allows the courts to examine government actions, laws, and policies to ensure they follow the Constitution. This power mainly comes from Articles 13, 32, and 226. These three articles work together to protect fundamental rights and maintain the rule of law. Judicial review ensures that no authority becomes too powerful and that every action of the State remains within constitutional limits.

How Does Article 13 Form the Base of Judicial Review?

Article 13 lays the foundation for judicial review in India. It states clearly that any law violating or restricting fundamental rights becomes invalid to the extent of that violation. This gives the courts the power to check both old laws made before the Constitution and new laws made afterward. The simple idea in Article 13 is that fundamental rights are supreme and every law must respect them.

Courts use Article 13 to examine whether a law conflicts with rights such as equality, freedom, protection in criminal matters, and the right to life and personal liberty. If a law fails this test, the court can strike it down. Over time, the Supreme Court has affirmed that judicial review under Article 13 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This means Parliament cannot amend or remove this power. Article 13 ensures that fundamental rights always remain protected and no law can survive if it violates these rights.

Why Is Article 32 Called the Heart and Soul of the Constitution?

Article 32 gives every individual the right to directly approach the Supreme Court when their fundamental rights are violated. Unlike other legal remedies, this remedy is itself a fundamental right. That is why Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called it the “heart and soul” of the Constitution. Under this article, the Supreme Court can issue several writs to protect fundamental rights. These writs include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. Each writ helps protect citizens from unlawful detention, misuse of power, or violations by authorities.

Article 32 is enforceable by right, meaning the Supreme Court cannot refuse to hear a genuine complaint involving fundamental rights. The Court has described Article 32 as essential to democratic functioning because it ensures that rights are not just written promises but enforceable protections. The Parliament cannot amend Article 32 in a way that removes or restricts its core function, because the Court has held it to be part of the basic structure. This article empowers every person, regardless of status or background, to seek justice when their fundamental rights are threatened.

How Does Article 226 Give High Courts Wider Powers?

Article 226 empowers every High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and also for “any other purpose.” This phrase gives High Courts broader powers than the Supreme Court under Article 32. While Article 32 deals only with fundamental rights, Article 226 covers both fundamental rights and ordinary legal rights. This makes High Courts extremely important in the judicial system.

High Courts use Article 226 to check administrative actions, review decisions of public authorities, and offer speedy remedies to aggrieved citizens. Although High Courts have discretion in using this power, they generally encourage people to exhaust other available remedies first. However, when a fundamental right is violated, the High Court can step in without delay. Article 226 strengthens the federal structure by ensuring that citizens do not have to depend only on the Supreme Court for the protection of their rights.

How Do Articles 13, 32, and 226 Work Together in Judicial Review?

These three articles form a powerful framework that supports judicial review in India. Article 13 sets the rule that laws violating fundamental rights are invalid. Article 32 provides a direct path to the Supreme Court for enforcing these rights. Article 226 allows High Courts to act even more widely by protecting both fundamental and legal rights. Together, they ensure that every law and every government action stays within constitutional boundaries.

This system prevents the misuse of power, corrects unfair laws, and protects individual liberties. The courts use these articles to strike down unconstitutional laws, review executive decisions, and check any form of overreach by the government. Because judicial review is part of the Constitution’s basic structure, Parliament cannot remove or limit it through amendments. This protection keeps India’s constitutional democracy strong and stable.

How Have Important Court Cases Strengthened Judicial Review?

Several landmark Supreme Court judgments have shaped the meaning and scope of judicial review in India. In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Court introduced the doctrine of the basic structure. The judgment declared that judicial review is part of this basic structure and cannot be removed by Parliament. This case ensured that courts would always have the power to protect the core principles of the Constitution.

Another important case is L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India. In this case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that both Articles 32 and 226 form essential parts of the basic structure. The Court held that judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court cannot be replaced or taken away, even by creating special tribunals. This decision strengthened the role of High Courts and affirmed their wide writ powers under Article 226.

These cases show that judicial review is not just a constitutional provision but a permanent and essential element of Indian democracy. Through these judgments, the judiciary has ensured that no authority can escape constitutional review.

How Does Judicial Review Protect Citizens and Strengthen Democracy?

Judicial review plays a major role in protecting citizens from arbitrary actions of the government. By reviewing laws and executive decisions, courts ensure that public power is used fairly and responsibly. This process strengthens democracy because it keeps the government accountable to the Constitution. Citizens rely on judicial review when their rights are threatened, when laws appear unfair, or when authorities misuse their powers.

Judicial review also promotes transparency and trust in the legal system. It creates a balance of power between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. When courts check laws and decisions, they reinforce the idea that the Constitution is above all institutions. This is crucial in a diverse and dynamic country like India, where constitutional values guide all public decisions.

What Does Judicial Review Ultimately Achieve for India?

Judicial review keeps the Constitution alive and meaningful. Articles 13, 32, and 226 together guarantee that every action of the State conforms to constitutional principles. They protect fundamental rights, promote justice, and strengthen democratic governance. Without judicial review, rights would remain theoretical, laws could become oppressive, and the government could act without restraint. Because India recognises judicial review as part of its basic structure, it remains a permanent shield for the people.