Grounds for Challenging the Constitutional Validity of Laws in India

The constitutional validity of a legislative enactment or an executive order can be challenged in the Supreme Court or in the High Courts on the following three grounds. 

• If it infringes the Fundamental Rights (Part III) of the Constitution,
• If it is outside the competence of the authority which has framed it, and 
• If it is repugnant to the constitutional provisions. 

Judicial Review of Laws Under the Ninth Schedule

Article 31B saves the acts and regulations included in the Ninth Schedule from being challenged and invalidated on the ground of contravention of any of the Fundamental Rights.  Article 31B along with the Ninth Schedule was added by the 1st Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951. 

• Originally (in 1951), the Ninth Schedule contained only 13 acts and regulations but at present, their number is 284.

I.R. Coelho case (2007)

In a landmark judgement delivered in the I.R. Coelho case (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that there could not be any blanket immunity from judicial review to laws included in the Ninth Schedule. In this case, the court held that judicial review is a ‘basic feature’ of the constitution and it could not be taken away by putting a law under the Ninth Schedule.  It said that the laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are open to challenge in court if they violated Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 or the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.

Significance of Judicial Review in Protecting Rights and Accountability

Judicial review is an important aspect of the Indian Constitution, as it provides a system of checks and balances to ensure that the powers of the government are not abused and that individual rights are protected. The Indian Constitution provides for judicial review by the Supreme Court and High Courts, which can declare any law or executive action that is in violation of the Constitution as null and void.

Here are some specific reasons why judicial review is important in India:

• Protecting individual rights: Judicial review ensures that the fundamental rights of citizens are not violated by the government or other authorities. It provides a mechanism for citizens to challenge any unconstitutional or illegal actions taken by the government, which helps to safeguard individual liberties.
• Checks and Balances: Judicial review also helps in maintaining a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government – the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The judiciary acts as an independent authority and can strike down any actions taken by the other two branches that are unconstitutional. This ensures that no single branch of government becomes too powerful and helps to maintain a balance of power.
• Ensuring accountability: Judicial review holds the government accountable for its actions, ensuring that it operates within the boundaries set by the Constitution. It also ensures that the government is responsive to the needs of citizens and is held responsible for any violations of their rights.
• Promoting consistency: Judicial review provides a mechanism for maintaining consistency and uniformity in the interpretation and application of laws. It ensures that the law is applied in a uniform manner across the country, which helps to prevent confusion and uncertainty.
• Promoting Good Governance: Judicial review promotes good governance by ensuring that government actions are transparent, accountable, and in the public interest. By striking down unconstitutional or illegal actions, the judiciary helps to maintain the integrity of government institutions and to promote the rule of law.
• Upholding the Constitution: The Indian Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and judicial review is an important mechanism for ensuring that all laws and actions of the government are in accordance with the Constitution. The judiciary has the power to strike down any law or executive action that is found to be unconstitutional, thus upholding the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Protecting the Federal Structure: India has a federal structure, where power is divided between the central government and the state governments. Judicial review helps to maintain this federal structure by ensuring that the central government does not encroach upon the powers of the state governments. The judiciary can strike down any laws or actions by the central government that violate the division of powers between the centre and the states.

Limitations of Judicial Review in the Indian Legal System

While judicial review is a crucial mechanism for upholding the principles of the Indian Constitution and maintaining federal equilibrium, there are some limitations to its scope and effectiveness. These limitations include:

1. Separation of Powers: India follows a doctrine of separation of powers, where each branch of government has distinct responsibilities and powers. While judicial review is necessary to check the actions of the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary must also respect the limits of its power and not encroach upon the functions of the other branches. If the judiciary oversteps its boundaries, it could lead to a constitutional crisis.
2. Public interest: Judicial review can harm the public at large as the judgement may be influenced by personal or selfish motives. Repeated interventions by courts in the executive or administrative matters can diminish the faith of the people in the integrity, quality, and efficiency of the government.
3. Delay in the Judicial Process: The Indian judiciary is notorious for long delays in the resolution of cases. This delay can limit the effectiveness of judicial review, as it can take years for a court to rule on the constitutionality of a particular law or executive action. In the meantime, the law may continue to be enforced or the action may have already had significant consequences.
4. Limited Resources: The Indian judiciary is also limited by a lack of resources. There are far too few judges to handle the large number of cases that are filed every year. This leads to a backlog of cases and further delays in the judicial process. This limitation can make it difficult for the judiciary to adequately review and address all cases that require attention.
5. Political Pressures: The judiciary may also face political pressures that can limit the scope of its review. The appointment of judges and other matters are often influenced by political considerations. This can impact the independence of the judiciary and its ability to impartially review executive and legislative actions.
6. Interpretation of the Constitution: One of the limitations of judicial review is that the interpretation of the Constitution can be subjective. The Supreme Court of India has been criticised for rendering judgments that have been perceived as contradictory, inconsistent, or politically motivated.

The power of judicial review of the Supreme Court in India is a crucial feature of the country’s constitutional framework. The Court’s ability to interpret and apply the Constitution to cases before it has played a significant role in protecting individual rights and ensuring the accountability of the government. The Supreme Court’s role as the final arbiter of constitutional disputes has helped to maintain the rule of law and strengthen India’s democratic institutions. However, the exercise of this power is not without criticism, and the Court’s decisions have sometimes been controversial. Nonetheless, the judicial review power remains a vital element of India’s legal and political system, and its proper use is essential for the continued success and stability of the country.