Judicial Review and Its Limits: An Analysis of Recent Supreme Court Judgments

Author- Harsh Vardhan Singh, B.A.LLB(Hons), University of Allahabad, Prayagraj

Abstract

 

Judicial review is the cornerstone of constitutional governance and the protector of fundamental rights in India. It allows courts to examine the legality of legislative and executive actions. However, its exercise is neither unbounded nor absolute. This article explores the evolving scope and boundaries of judicial review with reference to recent landmark judgments of the Supreme Court, analyzing the judiciary's interpretative approach, democratic accountability, and instances of judicial overreach.

 

 

---

 

 

Introduction

 

The doctrine of judicial review, originally propounded in the U.S. case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), has become an essential feature of constitutional democracies. In India, Article 13 of the Constitution empowers the judiciary to strike down laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights. Moreover, Article 32 and Article 226 vest the Supreme Court and High Courts with writ jurisdiction to enforce these rights.

 

Justice Khanna aptly stated in the Kesavananda Bharati case, “The power of judicial review is an integral part of our Constitution.”^[1]Yet, the power must be exercised judiciously to maintain the constitutional balance among the three organs of government.

 

Judicial Review: Constitutional Basis and Scope

 

The Indian Constitution explicitly provides for judicial review. Article 13(2) reads: “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part [Part III] and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.” This provision enshrines the power of courts to nullify laws violating Fundamental Rights.

 

Furthermore, judicial review extends beyond Fundamental Rights and includes:

 

Review of Constitutional Amendments (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461)

 

Administrative Actions (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597)

 

Executive Discretion and Orders

 

Despite its vast scope, judicial review is subject to the principles of separation of powers and constitutional propriety.

 

 

 

---

 

 

Evolution of Judicial Review in India

 

The trajectory of judicial review has developed through landmark judgments:

 

1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (AIR 1950 SC 27): A narrow view of Fundamental Rights and limited judicial intervention.

 

 

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597): Broadened the scope of Article 21 and introduced the “due process” doctrine.

 

 

3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (AIR 1973 SC 1461): Propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, limiting Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

 

 

4. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2007 SC 861): Reiterated that laws placed under the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure.

 

The judiciary's role in these decisions affirms its duty as the guardian of the Constitution. However, recent verdicts highlight new dimensions and limits of this power.

 

 

 

---

 

 

Judicial Review in Recent Supreme Court Judgments

 

1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

 

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court used judicial review to assess the Aadhaar scheme and later upheld parts of it in Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) case (2018) 1 SCC 809.

Quoting Justice Chandrachud, “The constitutional guarantees cannot be subject to the vicissitudes of technology. Liberty must be preserved from the tyranny of the State.”^[2]

This case reflects how judicial review protects civil liberties in the face of evolving governance mechanisms like surveillance and digital identity systems.

 

 

2. Indian Medical Association v. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1197)

 

In this judgment, the Court examined the constitutionality of integrating AYUSH practitioners into modern medical systems. The Court ruled in favor of public interest and healthcare rights while maintaining professional standards.

Here, the judiciary balanced individual rights with state obligations and upheld legislative wisdom unless proven arbitrary or discriminatory.

 

 

3. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine SC 229)

 

This decision is crucial in preserving the autonomy of the Election Commission of India. The Court held that appointments to the Election Commission must be made by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacts a law under Article 324(2).

It reemphasized that “free and fair elections” are part of the basic structure and cannot be compromised by arbitrary executive action.^[3]

This case reasserted the Court’s supervisory authority in maintaining democratic institutions, showing the nuanced boundaries of judicial review.

 

 

4. Gyanvapi Mosque Case (2024)

 

In the recent Gyanvapi Mosque case, the Supreme Court examined the lower court's direction allowing archaeological surveys. The Court carefully weighed religious sentiments, evidentiary procedures, and secular constitutional values.

This case illustrates judicial restraint in religiously sensitive matters, where excessive intervention could ignite communal tensions. The judiciary’s role was to ensure procedural fairness without validating historical or religious claims.

 

 

 

---

 

 

Limits of Judicial Review: Doctrine and Concerns

 

Although judicial review is integral, it is not unfettered. The following doctrines and concerns delineate its limits:

 

1. Political Questions Doctrine

 

Certain issues are non-justiciable as they pertain to political wisdom or legislative policy. In Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha (AIR 2007 SC 803), the Court held that parliamentary proceedings are generally outside judicial purview unless there’s a constitutional violation.

 

2. Separation of Powers

 

Courts must not transgress into the domain of the legislature or executive. Judicial overreach, often criticized in media and academic discourse, occurs when courts impose their own policy preferences instead of interpreting law.

 

3. Self-Imposed Judicial Restraint

 

The judiciary has often reiterated its commitment to institutional restraint. Justice R.F. Nariman remarked in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) 3 SCC 1: “Courts must not venture into domains where Parliament has exclusive legislative competence unless constitutional limits are breached.”

 

Balancing Accountability and Restraint

 

Judicial review is a double-edged sword. While it ensures accountability and checks arbitrariness, excessive intervention can undermine democratic legitimacy. Recent judgments show a mix of activism and restraint, illustrating the Court's efforts to strike a balance.

In Sabarimala Temple Entry Case (2018) 10 SCC 689, the Court upheld gender equality over religious custom, invoking judicial review of religious practices under Article 25.

Yet, in Ayodhya Verdict (2020), the Court relied on historical evidence and a delicate equilibrium to maintain public order and faith in the judicial system.

 

This balance is vital in a pluralistic society like India, where legal and cultural sensibilities intersect.

 

 

---

 

 

International Perspectives and Indian Context

 

While the Indian judiciary often borrows principles from comparative constitutional law, it tailors them to suit Indian socio-political realities. For instance:

The U.S. Supreme Court often avoids socio-economic issues, but Indian courts actively enforce Directive Principles of State Policy through judicial review.

The South African Constitutional Court provides a model for dialogic judicial review, where courts and legislatures collaborate on rights-based policies.These examples suggest that Indian judicial review must remain adaptive, culturally sensitive, and constitutionally anchored.

 

 

 

---

 

 

Conclusion

 

Judicial review is an indispensable mechanism to uphold constitutional supremacy, protect fundamental rights, and ensure democratic functioning. However, its application must reflect the delicate balance of powers, institutional limits, and public interest.

As observed in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) 3 SCC 625: “Limited amending power itself is a basic feature of the Constitution.” The same logic applies to judicial review — it is powerful, but not absolute.In the wake of recent Supreme Court judgments, we see a judiciary that is aware of its role not just as an interpreter, but also as a constitutional conscience-keeper. Nonetheless, with great power comes greater responsibility, and the judiciary must constantly tread the fine line between activism and restraint.

 

 

 

---

 

 

References

 

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.

 

 

2. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

 

 

3. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 229.

 

 

4. Indian Medical Association v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1197.

 

 

5. Raja Ram Pal v. Lok Sabha, AIR 2007 SC 803.

 

 

6. Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2017) 3 SCC 1.

 

 

7. Minerva Mills v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625.

 

 

8. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

 

9. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861.

 

---

^{[1] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461}

 

^{[2] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.}

 

^{[3] Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 229.}

• Judicial review in India
• Limits of judicial review
• Supreme Court judgments on judicial review
• Judicial review constitutional law
• Indian judiciary review powers

• Recent Supreme Court cases
• Article 13 and judicial review
• Basic structure doctrine
• Judicial activism vs restraint
• Separation of powers in India
• Constitution of India judicial review

• Recent Supreme Court decisions on judicial review in India
• How judicial review is limited under Indian Constitution
• Analysis of Supreme Court judgments on judicial powers
• Role of judiciary in constitutional interpretation India
• Landmark cases on judicial review in India