Judicial review in India

Last updated

Judicial review in India is a process by which the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India examine, determine and invalidate the Executive or Legislative actions inconsistent with the Constitution of India. [1] The word judicial review finds no mention in the Constitution of India but The Constitution of India implicitly provides for judicial review through Articles 13, 32 and through 136, 142 and 226. [2]

Contents

Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers, the power of the judiciary to supervise the legislative and executive branches and ensure constitutional supremacy. [3] The Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to invalidate any law, ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage that has the force of law and is incompatible with the terms of the Constitution of India. [1] Since Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1970), the courts can invalidate any constitutional amendments if they infringe on the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India. [1] [3]

Frequently, judicial review is used to protect and enforce the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in the Constitution. To a lesser extent, judicial review is used in matters concerning legislative competence concerning the centre-state relations.

History

Constituent Assembly

Article 13

Article 13 deals with the Laws inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights. The Constituent Assembly debated the Draft Article on the 25th, 26 and 29 November 1948 and adopted the amended Draft Article on 29 November 1948. [4] [5]

The executive and legislative bodies cannot take any actions that infringe on the Rights conferred by Part 3 of the Constitution. If they do, the Courts can void part of the legislative or executive action that infringes on the Rights. [4]

Article 32

Article 32 guarantees the right to approach the Supreme Court for Constitutional Remedies when their Fundamental Rights are violated. The Constituent Assembly debated and adopted the Draft Article with some amendments on 9 December 1948. [6]

The Constituent Assembly was unanimous about the importance of the Article. Gammiḍidala Durgabai, the only woman in the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, said [5] [7]

This is a right which is fundamental to all the fundamental rights guaranteed under this Constitution.

Madabhushi Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, Member of the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities and Tribal and Excluded Areas, said [5] [7]

The Supreme Court according to me is the Supreme guardian of the citizen’s rights in any democracy. I would even go further and say that it is the soul of democracy. The executive which comes into being for the time being is apt to abuse its powers, and therefore the Supreme Court must be there, strong and un-trammelled by the day to day passions.

B. R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, noting the majority of those who spoke on this article have realised the importance and significance, said, [5] [7]

If I was asked to name any particular article in this Constitution as the most important—an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity—I could not refer to any other article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it and I am glad that the House has realised its importance.

While the members have recognised the importance of Constitutional Remedies, B. R. Ambedkar noted that despite the discussions on writs, members have not realised the importance of including the writs in this Article. After the adoption of the Constitution, a simple majority would not be able to take away the power to issue writs. [5] [7]

Article 141

Article 141 stated that the decisions of the Supreme Court were binding on all other courts in India. The Constituent Assembly debated and adopted the Draft Article on 27 May 1949. [8]

During the debate, B. R. Ambedkar clarified that though the Article reads all courts in India, it does not include the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would be free to change its decision and take a different view from the one it had taken before. Following the clarification, the Draft Article was adopted without any amendment. [8] [9]

Article 142

Article 142 stated that any decree or order passed by the Supreme Court to do complete justice was enforceable throughout the territory of India. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Draft Article on 27 May 1949. [9] [10]

Parliamentary Supremacy

The Parliament enacted the First Amendment to the Constitution on 18 June 1951, adding the Ninth Schedule to Constitution to protect specific laws from judicial review. [1] [3] When the constitutionality of the amendment was challenged, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that Article 368 grants the Parliament the power to amend the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights and Article 368 in Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951) andSajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965). The Bench held that the term law in Article 13(2) does not include the Constitutional Amendments. [1] [3] [11] [12]

Judicial Supremacy

An eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court overruled the previous ruling on judicial review of the Constitutional Amendments in Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967) . Since the amendment of the Constitution is a legislative process, an amendment under Article 368 is law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution. Therefore, an amendment that "takes away or abridges" a Fundamental Right is void. [1] [3] [13]

Basic Structure Doctrine

In response to the Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967) ruling, the Parliament passed amendments restricting the power of judicial review. The Twenty-fourth Amendment excluded the Constitutional Amendment passed under Article 368 from the term law in Article 13(2). As a result, the Courts cannot invalidate the Constitutional Amendment for infringing the Fundamental Rights. Twenty-fifth Amendment added Article 31C that the Supreme Court cannot invalidate any law related to Directive Principles in Article 39 (b) and (c) for infringing the Fundamental Rights. [1] [3] [14]

When the Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-ninth Constitutional Amendments were challenged, a thirteen-judge Bench of the Supreme Court overruled the Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967) in the verdict of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). The Bench held that Article 368 contained both power and procedure to amend the Constitution, and the term law in Article 13(2) does not include Constitutional Amendments but Article 368 does not empower the Parliament to alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution, thus establishing the Basic Structure Doctrine. The Bench upheld the Twenty-fourth and Twenty-ninth Constitutional Amendments. However, it struck down the third clause in the Twenty-fifth Amendment that restricted the power of judicial review of laws for infringing Fundamental Rights. The Bench held that the separation of powers is an element of the Constitution protected by the Basic Structure Doctrine, where judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers. [1] [3] [15] A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court affirmed and further clarified the Basic Structure Doctrine in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) . The Bench identified the rule of law, which relies on effective judicial review, as an element of the basic structure of the Constitution. [1] [3] [16] [17]

Constitutional Supremacy

In response to the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) , the Parliament passed the Forty-second Amendment to [1] [3] [14] A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court applied and clarified the Basic Structure Doctrine in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1977) . The Bench struck down sections of the Amendment that removed the power of the Courts to review the Constitutional Amendments and accorded precedence to the Directive Principles of State Policy over Fundamental Rights. The Bench clarified that the Constitution grants the Parliament the power to amend, not destroy. While ruling this case, the Bench explicitly held that judicial Review is an element of the Constitution protected by the Basic Structure Doctrine. [1] [3] [18]

A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the laws under the Ninth Schedule, before the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, cannot be challenged in the Court for violating Fundamental Rights in Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981). In doing so, the Bench established the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling, which dictates that a decision in a particular case would have an operation in the future and will not carry any retrospective effect on the past judgments. [3] [19] Later, a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court clarified that any law placed in the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1963) case is subject to judicial review on infringement of the Fundamental Rights in IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007). [3] [20]

When the constitutionality of the Tenth Schedule was challenged in Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu (1992), a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the power of the Speaker to decide on questions of disqualification but voided the provision excluding the decision from judicial review. The Bench noted that the power of the Speaker is judicial power, which is required to adhere to the rule of law and cannot be outside the purview of judicial review. The Bench limited the scope of judicial review to claims of bias and other principles of natural justice. [21] [22]

While dealing with the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in service affairs, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court declared that Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution, which grants the power of judicial review over legislative action to the Supreme Court and the High Courts, is an integral and essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997). The Bench held that if a law excluded the jurisdiction of the High Court without setting up an alternative arrangement for judicial review, it would be violation of the basic structure and hence outside the constituent power of the Parliament. [21] [23]

Provisions of the Constitution

The following is a list of Articles of the Constitution of India related to the judicial review: [2]

Part NoPartArticle NoArticle
3 Fundamental Rights 13Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights
32Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part 3 of Constitution of India
5The Union131Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
132Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases
133Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil matters
134Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters
135Jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court of India under existing law to be exercisable by the Supreme Court
136 Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
141Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts
142Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court
143Power of President to consult Supreme Court
6The State226Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
227Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court
11Relations between the Union and the States245Extent of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States
246Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States
251Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament under articles 249 and 250 and laws made by the Legislatures of States
252Power of Parliament to legislate for two or more States by consent and adoption of such legislation by any other State
253Legislation for giving effect to international agreements
254Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States
21Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions372Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation

Comparison

According to the comparative constitutional analysis by Dr Arne Mavčič, judicial review in India follows the American Method, where the judicial review is exercised only in concrete cases or controversies and only in laws that are in effect or actions. This method differs from French Model, where judicial review is required before the law takes effect and in the abstract, without an actual case or controversy. In the European Model, the Courts can review after the law has taken effect, though either on concrete or abstract claims. [24] [25]

According to classification based on the organisational structure by Dr Arne Mavčič, India follows the High Court model, where only the Supreme Court and High Courts possess the power of judicial review. [24]

Standard of Review

Judicial self-restraint concerning legislative power manifests in the form of the presumption of constitutionality of the challenged statutes. While ruling in the Charanjit Lal v. Union of India (1950), Justice Fazl Ali held [26]

The presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment, and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles. [26]

Chief Justice S H Kapadia urged the judiciary to maintain self-restraint, respect the separation of power and not overtake the legislative function in the fifth M C Setalvad Memorial Lecture on Judicial Ethics at New Delhi on 16 April 2011. [27]

Judicial activism, which is not grounded on a textual commitment to the Constitution or the statute, raises questions of accountability of the judiciary whose members are not chosen by any democratic process and whose members are not answerable to the electorate or the legislature or the executive. [27]

Role of Judicial Review

Federalism

While dealing with the blatant misuse of Article 356, a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated that judicial review is a basic structure of the Constitution and held that the proclamation of the imposing President's Rule in the State is subject to judicial review in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) . [3] [28]

Fundamental Rights

A six-judge Bench of the Supreme Court implied that various Fundamental Rights in different Articles were mutually exclusive in the verdict of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950). [29] This judgment influenced the judicial interpretation of Fundamental rights for 20 years, until R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970), where an eleven-judge Bench overruled it and held that Fundamental Rights are not mutually exclusive. [30]

Expansion

The verdict of R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) significantly changed the way the Courts interpreted Fundamental Rights. While ruling in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty except for procedure established by law. Reading Article 21 with Articles 14 and 19, the Bench concluded that the "law" has to be reasonable and the "procedure" should be just, fair and reasonable. Essentially, the Bench read Articles 14 and 19 into Article 21. [31]

While deciding the Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the despite the lack of the Due Process Clause in the Constitution of India same consequence ensued after the decisions in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). [32] While ruling in Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab (1980), a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that following Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Article 21 will read to say, "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to fair, just and reasonable procedure established by valid law." [33] A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court relying on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) and Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab (1980) held that substantive due process is now to be applied to the Fundamental Right to life and liberty in Mohd Arif v. The Registrar (2014). [34]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of India</span> Supreme law of India

The Constitution of India is the supreme legal document of India. The document lays down the framework that demarcates fundamental political code, structure, procedures, powers, and duties of government institutions and sets out fundamental rights, directive principles, and the duties of citizens. It is the longest written national constitution in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of India</span> Highest court of jurisdiction in India

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Russia</span> Principles, institutions and law of political governance in Russia

The Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted by national referendum on 12 December 1993. The last reform was in 2020, see 2020 amendments to the Constitution of Russia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India</span> Rights provided to Indian citizens

The Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties are sections of the Constitution of India that prescribe the fundamental obligations of the states to its citizens and the duties and the rights of the citizens to the State. These sections are considered vital elements of the constitution, which was developed between 1949 by the Constituent Assembly of India.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Singapore</span> Supreme law of Singapore

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore. A written constitution, the text which took effect on 9 August 1965 is derived from the Constitution of the State of Singapore 1963, provisions of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia made applicable to Singapore by the Republic of Singapore Independence Act 1965, and the Republic of Singapore Independence Act itself. The text of the Constitution is one of the legally binding sources of constitutional law in Singapore, the others being judicial interpretations of the Constitution, and certain other statutes. Non-binding sources are influences on constitutional law such as soft law, constitutional conventions, and public international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nani Palkhivala</span> Great Indian jurist and economist

Nanabhoy "Nani" Ardeshir Palkhivala was an Indian lawyer and jurist. Being lead counsel in cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala, I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs., Minerva Mills v. Union of India garnered him international recognition and cemented his reputation as one of India’s most eminent advocates.

The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.

The Fundamental Rights in India enshrined in part III of the Constitution of India guarantee civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as citizens of India. These rights are known as "fundamental" as they are the most essential for all-round development i.e., material, intellectual, moral and spiritual and protected by fundamental law of the land i.e. constitution. If the rights provided by Constitution especially the Fundamental rights are violated the Supreme Court and the High Courts can issue writs under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, respectively, directing the State Machinery for enforcement of the fundamental rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hans Raj Khanna</span> Indian judge (1912–2008)

Hans Raj Khanna was an Indian judge, jurist and advocate who propounded the basic structure doctrine in 1973 and attempted to uphold civil liberties during the time of Emergency in India in a lone dissenting judgement in 1976. He entered the Indian judiciary in 1952 as an Additional District and Sessions Judge and subsequently was elevated as a judge to the Supreme Court of India in 1971 where he continued till his resignation in 1977.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Amendment to the Indian Constitution

The 42nd amendment, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1976, was enacted during the Emergency by the Indian National Congress government headed by Indira Gandhi.

<i>Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala</i> 1970 decision of the Supreme Court of India

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., also known as the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution. The case is also known as the Fundamental Rights Case. The court in a 7-6 decision asserted its right to strike down amendments to the constitution that were in violation of the fundamental architecture of the constitution.

The Preamble to the Constitution of India is based on the Objectives Resolution, which was moved in the Constituent Assembly by Jawaharlal Nehru on 13 December 1946 accepted on 22 January 1947 and adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949, coming into force on 26 January 1950, celebrated as the Republic Day of India, and was initially drafted by Jawaharlal Nehru. The words "socialist", "secular" and "integrity" were later added during the Indian emergency by Indira Gandhi.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Permits eminent domain

The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1971, curtailed the fundamental right to property, and permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use, on the payment of compensation which would be determined by the Parliament and not the courts. The amendment also exempted any law giving effect to the article 39(b) and (c) of Directive Principles of State Policy from judicial review, even if it violated the Fundamental Rights.

Amending the Constitution of India is the process of making changes to the nation's fundamental law or supreme law. The procedure of amendment in the constitution is laid down in Part XX of the Constitution of India. This procedure ensures the sanctity of the Constitution of India and keeps a check on arbitrary power of the Parliament of India.

<i>Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs</i>

Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs is the name of two cases of the Singapore courts, a High Court decision delivered in 1989 and the 1990 judgment in the appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal. The cases were concerned with the constitutionality of amendments made to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and the Internal Security Act ("ISA") in 1989. The latter statute authorizes detention without trial on security grounds. These amendments had the effect of changing the law on judicial review of executive discretion under the ISA by re-establishing the subjective test enunciated in the 1971 High Court decision Lee Mau Seng v Minister for Home Affairs which had been overruled in 1988 by Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs, and limiting the right of judicial review to ensuring compliance with procedures specified in the ISA. In other words, the amendments were intended to render the exercise of power by the President and the Minister for Home Affairs under the ISA to detain persons without trial not justiciable by the courts. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found that these amendments were constitutional because Parliament had done nothing more than enact the rule of law relating to the law applicable to judicial review. Thus, the amendments validly operated to deprive the applicant Teo Soh Lung of the ability to apply to the courts for judicial review.

<i>I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs.</i> 1967 Supreme Court of India case

Golaknath v. State Of Punjab, or simply the Golaknath case, was a 1967 Indian Supreme Court case, in which the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kesavananda Bharati</span> Indian Shankaracharya (1940–2020)

Kesavananda Bharati was an Indian Hindu monk who served as the Shankaracharya (head) of Edneer Mutt, a Hindu monastery in Kasaragod district, Kerala, India from 1961 until his death. He was the petitioner in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, a landmark case that helped establish the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution which guarantees that the fundamental or 'basic structure' of the Indian Constitution can not be altered by parliamentary amendment. He was a follower of Smartha Bhagawatha tradition and the Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy.

The Indian Judicial Collegium system, where existing judges appoint judges to the nation's constitutional courts, has its genesis in, and continued basis resting on, three of its own judgments made by Supreme Court judges, which are collectively known as the Three Judges Cases. The collegium system has often been alleged to have caste bias due to the lack of representation of marginalised communities, i.e., OBCs, SCs and STs, in the Supreme Court and high courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Constitutional amendment

The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India, officially known as The Constitution Act, 1971, enables Parliament to dilute Fundamental Rights through Amendments of the Constitution. It also amended article 368 to provide expressly that Parliament has power to amend any provision of the Constitution. The amendment further made it obligatory for the President to give his assent, when a Constitution Amendment Bill was presented to him.

<i>Puttaswamy v. Union of India</i> Indian Fundamental Rights Case Law

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. (2017), commonly known as the Right to Privacy verdict, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, which held that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The original petitioner Justice K.S. Puttaswamy was former judge of the Karnataka High Court

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Austin, Granville (1999). Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience. Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780195648881.
  2. 1 2 Shekhawat, Vibhuti Singh (1994). "Judicial Review in India : Maxims And Limitations". The Indian Journal of Political Science. 55 (2): 177–182 – via JSTOR.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Chauhan, D. C. (2013). "Parliamentary Sovereignty vs. Judicial Supremacy In India". The Indian Journal of Political Science. 74 (1): 99–106 – via JSTOR.
  4. 1 2 "Article 13: Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights". www.constitutionofindia.net. Archived from the original on 3 April 2023. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Constituent Assembly of India, Constituent Assembly Debates: 4th November 1948 to 8th January 1949 (PDF), vol. 7, archived from the original (PDF) on 29 November 2020
  6. ↑ "Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part". www.constitutionofindia.net. Archived from the original on 3 April 2023. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
  7. 1 2 3 4 "Constituent Assembly Debates: 09 Dec 1948". www.constitutionofindia.net. Archived from the original on 3 April 2023. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
  8. 1 2 "Article 141: Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts". www.constitutionofindia.net. Archived from the original on 3 April 2023. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
  9. 1 2 "Constituent Assembly Debates: 27 May 1949". www.constitutionofindia.net. Archived from the original on 3 April 2023. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
  10. ↑ "Article 142: Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery, etc". www.constitutionofindia.net. Archived from the original on 3 April 2023. Retrieved 3 April 2023.
  11. ↑ Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, 1951 AIR 458 ( Supreme Court of India 5 October 1951).
  12. ↑ Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1965 AIR 845 ( Supreme Court of India 30 October 1964).
  13. ↑ I.C. Golaknath & Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs, 1967 AIR 1643 ( Supreme Court of India 27 February 1967).
  14. 1 2 Raj, Kaleeswaram (17 February 2023). "Basic Structure as democratic defence". The New Indian Express . Archived from the original on 17 February 2023.
  15. ↑ Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala , AIR 1973 SC 1461 ( Supreme Court of India 24 April 1973).
  16. ↑ Gupta, Balram K. (11 June 2020). "Judicial Review: A Tool to Shape Constitutional Jurisprudence". In Malik, Lokendra; Khurshid, Salman; Bedi, Shruti; Luthra, Sidharth (eds.). Judicial Review: Process, Powers, and Problems. Cambridge University Press. pp. 127–144. ISBN   9781108836036.
  17. ↑ Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 AIR 2299 ( Supreme Court of India 7 November 1975).
  18. ↑ Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. vs Union Of India and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1789 ( Supreme Court of India 31 July 1980).
  19. ↑ Waman Rao & Ors v. Union of India, 1981 2 SCR 1 ( Supreme Court of India 13 November 1980).
  20. ↑ IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861 ( Supreme Court of India 11 January 2007).
  21. 1 2 Rao, Gurram Ramachandra (10 April 2003). "India: Judicial Review in India". Mondaq . Archived from the original on 19 February 2023.
  22. ↑ Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu, 1992 SCR (1) 68 ( Supreme Court of India 18 February 1992).
  23. ↑ L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1995 AIR 1151 ( Supreme Court of India 2 December 1994).
  24. 1 2 Mavčič, Arne (2007). "A Tabular Presentation of Constitutional/Judicial Review Around the World". www.concourts.net. Archived from the original on 8 July 2007.
  25. ↑ Tate, C. Neal. "Judicial review: Definition, Forms, & Facts". Britannica . Retrieved 1 April 2023.
  26. 1 2 Charanjit Lal v. Union of India, 1951 AIR 41 ( Supreme Court of India 4 December 1950).
  27. 1 2 Sharma, Tanu (17 April 2011). "CJI sounds warning bells on judiciary & activism link". The Indian Express . Archived from the original on 1 April 2023.
  28. ↑ S. R. Bommai v. Union of India , 1994 AIR 1918 ( Supreme Court of India 11 March 1994).
  29. ↑ A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras , 1950 AIR 27 ( Supreme Court of India 19 May 1950).
  30. ↑ R.C. Cooper (Bank Nationalisation) v. Union of India, 1970 AIR 564 ( Supreme Court of India 10 February 1970).
  31. ↑ Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India , 1978 AIR 597 ( Supreme Court of India 25 January 1978).
  32. ↑ Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1978 AIR 1675 ( Supreme Court of India 30 August 1978).
  33. ↑ Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab, 1982 AIR 1325 ( Supreme Court of India 16 August 1982).
  34. ↑ Mohd Arif v. The Registrar, the Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 77 of 2014 ( Supreme Court of India 2 September 2014).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.