The Ultimate power of Judiciary to review and determine validity of a law or an
order may be described as the power of "Judicial Review. Judicial review is the
power of the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislative,
executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether
such actions are consistent with the constitution. Actions judged inconsistent
are declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
plays a very important role as a protector of the constitutional values that the
founding fathers have given us. They try to undo the harm that is being done by
the legislature and the executive and also they try to provide every citizen
what has been promised by the Constitution under the Directive Principles of
All this is possible because of the power of judicial review.
The principle of judicial review became an essential feature of written
Constitutions of many countries. SEERVIE in his book Constitutional Law of
India noted that the principle of judicial review is a familiar feature of the
Constitutions of Canada, Australia and India, though the doctrine of Separation
of Powers has no place in strict sense in Indian Constitution, but the functions
of different organs of the Government have been sufficiently differentiated, so
that one organ of the Government could not usurp the functions of another. 
Judicial review plays an important role as a protector when the executive,
judiciary and legislature harm the Constitutional values and deny the rights.
The judicial assessment is considered as an indispensable feature in the
country. In India, there is parliamentary form of democracy where every section
of people is involved in decision making and policy making process. It is true
that the primary duty of the court to apply rule of law and is the groundwork of
social equality. By exercising new powers of Parliament, rule of law which is to
be applied by the court cannot be modified.
All those here, who are doing public
duty, are accountable. They have to work within the democratic provisions of the
Constitution of India. The concept of separation of power and rule of law is
judicial review. The influence of judicial assessment has been so long under
Articles 226 and 227 in case of High Court and Articles 32 and 136 of the
Constitution of India for the review.
Judicial Review can be understood as a
form of court proceeding, usually in the Administrative Court where the
lawfulness of a decision or action is reviewed by the judge. Where there is no
effective means of challenge, judicial review is available. The concern behind
Judicial Review is that whether the law has been correctly applied with and
right procedures have been followed.
History of Judicial Review
Constitutional judicial review is usually considered to have begun with the
assertion by John Marshall ,fourth chief justice of the United
States (1801-35),in Marbury v. Madison
(1803) that the Supreme Court of the
United States had the power to invalidate legislation enacted by Congress. There
was, however, no express warrant for Marshall's assertion of the power of
judicial review in the actual text of the Constitution of the United States; its
success rested ultimately on the Supreme Court's own ruling, plus the absence of
effective political challenge to it.
Constitutional judicial review exists in several forms. In countries that follow
U.S. practice (e.g., Kenya and New Zealand), judicial review can be exercised
only in concrete cases or controversies and only after the fact-i.e., only laws
that are in effect or actions that have already occurred can be found to be
unconstitutional, and then only when they involve a specific dispute between
In France judicial review must take place in the abstract (i.e., in
the absence of an actual case or controversy) and before promulgation (i.e.,
before a challenged law has taken effect). In other countries (e.g., Austria,
Germany, South Korea, and Spain) courts can exercise judicial review only after
a law has taken effect, though they can do so either in the abstract or in
concrete cases. Systems of constitutional judicial review also differ in the
extent to which they allow courts to exercise it.
For example, in the United
States all courts have the power to entertain claims of unconstitutionality, but
in some countries (e.g., France, Germany, New Zealand, and South Africa) only
specialized constitutional courts can hear such claims.
A number of the constitutions drafted in Europe and Asia after World War
II incorporated judicial review in various forms. For example, in France, where
the Cour de Cassation (the highest court of criminal and civil appeal) has no
power of judicial review, a constitutional council (Conseil Constitutionnel) of
mixed judicial-legislative character was established; Germany, Italy, and South
Korea created special constitutional courts; and India, Japan, and Pakistan set
up supreme courts to exercise judicial review in the manner generally used in
the United States and in the British Commonwealth.
After World War II many countries felt strong pressure to adopt judicial review,
a result of the influence of U.S. constitutional ideas-particularly the idea
that a system of constitutional checks and balances is an essential element
of democratic government. Some observers concluded that the concentration of
government power in the executive, substantially unchecked by other agencies of
government, contributed to the rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany and Japan
in the era between World War I and World War II.
Although judicial review had
been relatively uncommon before World War II, by the early 21st century more
than 100 countries had specifically incorporated judicial review into their
constitutions. (This number does not include the United States, whose
constitution still includes no mention of the practice.) 
History of Judicial Review in India
In India we are following the rule of Law it means that the constitution is the
Supreme law of the land and any law in consistent there with is void. The term
The power of a court to inquire whether a law executive order or
other official action conflicts with the written constitution and if the court
concludes that it does, to declare it unconstitutional and void.
In India the power of judicial review was exercised by the courts prior to the
commencement of the Constitution of India.
The matter of Judicial Review of
India was discussed for the first time in Emperor v. Burah
 where the
Calcutta High Court, as well as the Privy Council, adopted the view that the
Indian courts had power of Judicial Review subject to certain limitations. The
British Parliament introduced Federal System in India by enacting the Government
of India Act 1935. Under this act both the Central and State legislatures were
given plenary powers in their respective spheres.
They were supreme in their
allotted subjects like British Parliament. The Act of 1935 established the
Federal Court so as to function as an arbiter in central and state relationship.
The Federal Court was also empowered to scrutinize the violation of the
constitutional directions regarding the distribution of powers on introduction
of federalism in India.
The power of judicial review was not specifically
provided in the constitution but the constitution being federal, the Federal
court was entrusted impliedly with the function of interpreting the constitution
and determines the constitutionality of legislative acts. Mauriee Gwyer, Chief
Justice of Federal Court of India in Bhola Prasad v The King Emperor
AIR 1942 F.C.R 17 P20, observed that:
We must again refer to the fundamental
proposition enumerated in 1878 3 AC 889 (Reg v Borah
) that Indian legislatures
within their own spheres have plenary powers of legislation as large and of the
same nature as those of the parliament itself, if that was true in 1878, it
cannot be less true in 1942.
The Supreme Court of India as a successor of Federal Court of India after the
commencement of constitution of India inherited the great traditions built by
the Federal Court. The constitution of India envisages a very healthy system of
judicial review and it depends upon the India judges to act in a way as to
maintain the spirit of democracy.
In the present democratic setup in India, the
court cannot adopt a passive attitude and ask the aggrieved party to wait for
public opinion against legislative tyranny, but the constitution has empowered
it to play an active role and to declare legislation void, if it violates the
constitution. The constitutional thinkers of India before the Indian Republic
was established were of the view that in the constitution of free India there
must be provisions for Supreme Court with the power of judicial review.
Colonel K.N.Hasker and K.M. Pannikkar in their book Federal India, said that"
the supreme judicial authority should be invested with the power to declare
ultra vires measures which go against constitution."
Constitutional Provisions for Judicial Review in India: 
The Indian Constitution adopted the Judicial Review on lines of U.S.
Constitution. Parliament is not supreme under the Constitution of India. Its
powers are limited in a manner that the power is divided between centre and
states. Moreover the Supreme Court enjoys a position which entrusts it with the
power of reviewing the legislative enactments both of Parliament and the State
This grants the court a powerful instrument of judicial review
under the constitution. Both the political theory and text of the Constitution
has granted the judiciary the power of judicial review of legislation. The
Constitutional Provisions which guarantee judicial review of legislation are
Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 143, 226, 145, 246, 251, 254 and 372.
Article 372 (1) establishes the judicial review of the pre-constitution
Article 13 declares that any law which contravenes any of the provisions of the
part of Fundamental Rights shall be void.
Articles 32 and 226 entrusts the roles of the protector and guarantor of
fundamental rights to the Supreme and High Courts.
Article 251 and 254 states that in case of inconsistency between union and
state laws, the state law shall be void.
Article 246 (3) ensures the state legislature's exclusive powers on matters
pertaining to the State List.
Article 245 states that the powers of both Parliament and State legislatures are
subject to the provisions of the constitution. The legitimacy of any legislation
can be challenged in the court of law on the grounds that the legislature is not
competent enough to pass a law on that particular subject matter; the law is
repugnant to the provisions of the constitutions; or the law infringes one of
the fundamental rights.
Articles 131-136 entrusts the court with the power to adjudicate disputes
between individuals, between individuals and the state, between the states and
the union; but the court may be required to interpret the provisions of the
constitution and the interpretation given by the Supreme Court becomes the law
honoured by all courts of the land. It must be remember that there is no express
provision in our constitution empowering the courts to invalidate laws, but the
constitution has imposed definite limitations upon each of the organs, the
transgression of which would make the law void. The court is entrusted with the
task of deciding whether any of the constitutional limitations has been
transgressed or not.
Mechanisms of Judicial Review
In India, three aspects are covered by judicial review that is as follows:
- Judicial review of legislative action
- Judicial review for judicial decision.
- Judicial review of administrative action
These facets of judicial review were pronounced by the Supreme Court of India in
case of Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, stating that the judges of higher
court have to interpret legislation up to this end that the Constitutional
values are not to be interrupted. To achieve this end, the judges have to keep
in mind that the equilibrium of control, specified in the Constitution is not
Features of Judicial Review in India:
Indian Judiciary and Judicial Review
- Judicial Review Power is used by both the Supreme Court and High
Both the Supreme Court and High Courts exercise the power of Judicial Review.
But the final power to determine the constitutional validity of any law is in
the hands of the Supreme Court of India.
- Judicial Review of both Central and State Laws:
Judicial Review can be conducted in respect of all Central and State laws, the
orders and ordinances of the executives and constitutional amendments.
Judicial Review cannot be conducted in respect of the laws incorporated in the
9th Schedule of the Constitution.
- It covers laws and not political issues:
Judicial Review applies only to the questions of law. It cannot be exercised in
respect of political issues.
- Judicial Review is not automatic:
The Supreme Court does not use the power of judicial review of its own. It can
use it only when any law or rule is specifically challenged before it or when
during the course of hearing a case the validity of any law is challenged before
- Decisions' in Judicial Review Cases:
The Supreme Court can decide:
In this case only invalid parts or part becomes non-operative and other parts
continue to remain in operation. However, if the invalidated parts/part is so
vital to the law that other parts cannot operate without it, then the whole of
the law gets rejected.
- The law is constitutionally valid. In this case the law continues to
operate as before, or
- The law is constitutionally invalid. In this case the law ceases to
operate with effect from the date of the judgment.
- Only some parts or a part of the law is invalid.
- Judicial Review Decision gets implemented from the date of Judgement:
When a law gets rejected as unconstitutional it ceases to operate from the date
of the judgment. All activities performed on the basis of the law before the
date of the judgment declaring it invalid, continue to remain valid.
- Principle of Procedure established by Law:
Judicial Review in India is governed by the principle: 'Procedure Established by
Law'. Under it the court conducts one test, i.e., whether the law has been made
in accordance with the powers granted by the Constitution to the law-making body
and follows the prescribed procedure or not. It gets rejected when it is held to
be violating of procedure established by law.
- Clarification of Provisions which a rejected law violates:
While declaring a law unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has to cite the
provisions of the constitution which it violates. The court has to clearly
establish the invalidity of the concerned law or any of its part.
In the case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab
AIR 1967 SC 1643, the Court held
that the Parliament could not amend the Constitution to take away the rights
provided in Part III of the Constitution. This resulted in the 24th amendment
(1971) of the Constitution which declared that the amendment powers of the
Parliament are not restricted.
The controversy was rested in the case of Kesavanand Bharati v. State of Kerala
AIR 1973 SC 1461 where the court though
agreeing that the Parliament is not restricted to amend the Constitution, but
also put a caveat of the doctrine of basic structure.
The Court observed that
the constitutional amendments are to be done keeping in mind the basic structure
of the Constitution. In Minerva Mills v. Union of India
AIR 1980 SC 1789
case the Court further observed that the tool of the amendment of the
Constitution cannot be used to destroy the constitution itself.
The Supreme Court of India has used the power of judicial review from time to
time to uphold the values incorporated in our Constitution.
- Judicial Review of Administrative action:
In Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, AIR 1997 SC 3387 the Supreme Court after
referring to two famous cases namely Wednesbury case and CCSU case held
as follows:- " to test the validity of executive action or of administrative
action taken in exercise of statutory powers, the Courts and tribunals in our
country can only go into the matter, as a secondary reviewing Court to find out
if the executive or the administrator in their primary roles have arrived at a
reasonable decision on the material before them in the light of Wednesbury and
CCSU tests. The choice of the options available is for the authority; the
court/tribunal cannot substitute its view as to what is reasonable."
Judicial review lies against a decision making process and not against the
decision itself (Gohil Hanubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 13 SCC 621).
- Judicial Review of Policy Decisions
In Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal
Corporation, AIR 2000 SC 2272, it was held by the Supreme Court:
stated, the Courts would not interfere with the matter of administrative action
or changes made therein, unless the Government's action is arbitrary or
discriminatory or the policy adopted has no nexus with the object it seeks to
achieve or is mala fide.
It is settled legal proposition that the policy
decision taken by the State or its authorities/instrumentalities is beyond the
purview of judicial review unless the same is found to be arbitrary,
unreasonable or in contravention of the statutory provisions or violates the
rights of individuals guaranteed under the statute. The policy decision cannot
be in contravention of the statutory provisions for the reason that if
Legislature in its wisdom provides for a particular right/ guarantee/benefit
etc., the authority taking a policy decision cannot nullify the same.
- Judicial Review of the Economic Policy:
Courts have consistently refrained from interfering with the economic decisions
and that wisdom and advisability of economic policies are not amenable to
judicial review. (Vide: Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India, AIR 2013 SC 3127;
GAIL (India) Limited v. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited, (2014) 1 SCC 329; In Re: Natural Resources, (2012) 10 SCC 1) Matters relating to economic
issues, have always an element of trial and error, so long as a trial and error
are bona fide and with best intentions, such decisions cannot be questioned as
arbitrary, capricious or illegal. (Vide: BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union
of India, AIR 2002 SC 350).
- Judicial Review of Price Fixation
Price fixation is not within the provisions of the Courts. Judicial function in
respect of such matters is exhausted when there is found to be a rational basis
for the conclusions reached by the concerned authority. (Vide: Shri Sita Ram
Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1277).
- Judicial Review of decisions based on Expert Opinion
When technical questions arise and experts in the field have expressed various
views and all those aspects have been taken into consideration by the Government
in deciding the matter, the Court should restrain from interfering with the
same. (Federation of Railway Officers Association v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 289.)
- Judicial Review of Sub-Ordinate Legislation
In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors., (1985)1 SCC 641, the Court said that a piece of subordinate
legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a
statute passed by a competent legislature. A subordinate legislation may be
questioned under Article 14 on the ground that it is unreasonable;
unreasonable not in the sense of not being reasonable, but in the sense that
it is manifestly arbitrary. Subordinate legislation must be so arbitrary
that it could not be said to be in conformity with the statute or that it
offends Article 14 of the Constitution".
- Judicial Review in Contractual Cases
In Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 51, the
Supreme Court observed as follows:
While exercising the power of judicial
review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the Court
is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the
"decision making process…..By way of judicial review the Court cannot examine
the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the
public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any
- Judicial Review of L.P.G
In K. Vinod Kumar v. S. Palanisamy, AIR 2003 SC 3171, the apex Court considered
the issue of grant of LPG distributorship and held that the proceedings of the
Dealer Selection Board must satisfy the requirements of a bona fide
administrative decision arrived at in a fair manner. Unless there are no mala
fides alleged against the Dealer Selection Board or the President or any Member
thereof, on specific plea rose impugning the manner of marking, the issue should
not be entertained.
- SUO MOTU Judicial Review
Where the Court comes to the conclusion that certain orders have been passed
illegally and in arbitrary manner, the Court can Suo Motu exercise the power of
judicial review. (Vide: Chairman and Managing Director B.P.L. Ltd. v. S.P.
Gururaja, AIR 2003 SC 4536).
In Vinay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
AIR 2001 SC 1739, the Court held
that Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ
jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the
legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or
determined class of person is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability
or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court
Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary
circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at hand, cannot
claim to have any locus standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in
the exceptional circumstances as referred to above, if the actual persons
aggrieved, because of ignorance, illiteracy, in articulation or poverty, are
unable to approach the court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or
object, in relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court,
then the court may 16 | P a g e examine the issue and in exceptional
circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue raised by him,
in the opinion of the court, requires consideration, the court may proceed suo
motu, in such respect.
In Raju Ramsingh Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhiavapurkar
, (2008) 9 SCC 54, the
Court held: "We must now deal with the question of locus standi. A special leave
petition ordinarily would not have been entertained at the instance of the
Appellant. Validity of appointment or otherwise on the basis of a caste
certificate granted by a committee is ordinarily a matter between the employer
and the employee.
Supreme Court, however, when a question is raised, can take cognisance of a matter of such grave importance suo motu. It may not treat the
special leave petition as public interest litigation, but, as a public law
litigation. It is, in a proceeding of that nature, permissible for the court to
make a detailed enquiry with regard to the broader aspects of the matter
although it was initiated at the instance of a person having a private interest.
A deeper scrutiny can be made so as to enable the court to find out as to
whether a party to a list is guilty of commission of fraud on the Constitution.
If such an enquiry sub serves the greater public interest and has a far-reaching
effect on the society, in our opinion, Supreme Court will not shirk its
responsibilities from doing so."
Limitation of Judicial Review
Judiciary has Limitations on exercising its power of judicial review. In case
the judiciary crosses its threshold by interfering in the executive's mandate,
it leads to judicial activism, and can further lead to judicial overreach. The
functioning of the government is limited by Judicial Review. In Marbury vs
, chief justice Marshall held that Court should not take
jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take
jurisdiction if it should.
it is required the extent should be only to see if the procedure in reaching the
decision has been correctly followed but not the decision itself. Opinions
provided by the judges in any judicial case become the standard for ruling other
Judicial review is part of the Supreme Court and the High Courts and these
rights are not conferred to the lower courts. The faith of the people in the
integrity, quality, and efficiency of the government can be diminished by the
court by repeated interventions
The political questions and policy matters should not be interfered by the
Judicial review unless necessary.
In case the judgments are influenced by personal or selfish motives, then it can
lead to harming the public at large. Legislative power set to be exercised by
the constitution is violated by the judicial review when it overrides any
existing law. A separation of functions is followed in India instead of the
separation of powers.
Though the concept of separation of powers is not adhered to strictly, however
it is required to have a system of checks and balances that the judiciary has
the power to strike down only unconstitutional laws passed by the legislature.
The court cannot award the contracts and perform the interface in the
administrative process unless the process is malefic, bias or Arbitrariness to
the extent of perversity.
The Judicial review in the administrative process is only restricted to the
procedure established by the law. That means judicial review over the
administrative process which is not following under Jurisdictional Error,
Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety, Proportionality, and Legitimate
Expectation leads to the judicial overreach. In the case of Council of Civil
Service Union v. Minister of Civil Service
it was concluded that though
these grounds of judicial review are not exhaustive, yet these provide an apt
base for the courts to exercise their jurisdiction.
It is clear from the Doctrine of Strict Necessity
that Court has to decide
constitutional issues only if strict necessity compels it to do so. Thus,
constitutional questions will not be decided in broader terms than are required
by the precise state of facts to which the ruling is to be applied, nor if the
record presents some other ground upon which to decide the case, nor at the
instance of one who has availed himself of the benefit of a statute or who fails
to show case that the injury is due to its operation, nor if a construction of
the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be fairly avoided.
In one of such case on PIL filed where a policy decision, by the Telangana
government's on proposal to demolish existing Secretariat building and construct
a new one, was not against any law, hence one cannot say it was arbitrary and
The judicial review through the PIL should clearly demark the petition as public
interest or Private interest through the Doctrine of Strict Necessity
. The PIL
are now days being the tool for the Private interest can be missing used to
delay the public good administrative actions or legislative laws.
In case of any flaw in the legislative action, the judicial review is limited to
the The Doctrine of Clear Mistake. Any judicial review on the legislative laws
beyond the Art.13 and not being testified with the Doctrine of Strict
or The Doctrine of Clear Mistake is judicial overreach on the subject
All the constitutional interpretation by the court through judicial review has
to test the Exclusion of Extra-Constitutional Tests.-where judicial review is
restricted to the constitutional validity of the law and not with its motives,
policy, or wisdom, or with its concurrence with natural justice, fundamental
principles of government, or the spirit of the Constitution.
There are certain practical limitations on what courts in fact can do. They
arise out of the nature of the judicial process, rather than constitutional
prohibitions. Where a court cannot adequately protect or give effect to all the
interests involved in a case before it or where the judicial machinery is
unsuited for rendering justice as the facts require, judges should refrain from
hearing the case.
According to the presumption theory, which is in favour of constitutionality,
and a law will riot be declared tin constitutional unless the case is so clear
as to be free from doubt; and the onus to prove that its unconstitutional lies
upon the person who challenges it
In case of the judicial review on the validity of a stature is questioned and
there are two interpretations, one of which would make the law valid, and the
other void, the former must be preferred and the validity of the law will be
- The court judicial review should not be deciding constitutional questions if a
case is capable of being decided on other grounds.
- The court judicial review should not decide a larger constitutional question
than is required by the case before it.
- The court judicial review should not hear an objection as to the
constitutionality of a law by a person whose rights are not affected by it.
- The court judicial review can be done only laws which are in force and courts
should not pronounce on the validity of an Act or Part of an Act which has not
been brought into force.
The scope of judicial review is limited both in its availability and function:
the role of the court is not to re-make the decision being challenged, or to
inquire into the merits of that decision, but to conduct a review of the process
by which the decision was reached in order to assess whether that decision was
flawed and should be revoked.
Judicial review has led to a debate in finding out the demarcation between the
Judicial Activism and Judicial Self Restraint. Judicial Review in its meaning
is the power of the courts to consider the constitutionality of acts of organs
of Government and to declare it unconstitutional or null and void if it violates
or is inconsistent with the basic principles of Grundnorm i.e. Constitution.
The judicial review in recent times has evolved in three dimensions as firstly,
to ensure fairness in administrative action. The second dimension is to protect
the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of citizens and third
dimension is to rule on questions of legislative competence between the centre
and the states.
Judicial Activism does not mean judicial adventurism. Judges should never be
activist as sometimes judicial activism is a useful adjunct to democracy.
The judiciary must play a vital and important role not only in preventing the
remedying abuse and misuse of power but also in eliminating exploitation and
Going forward, there should be clear debate on the judicial activism and
appropriate use of the PIL so that these are not being missing used for the
political gain. Judiciary should find out the main intention of the filing the
PILs or the writs where the constitutional remedy are asked.
The recent CAA or
the abrogation of the Article 370 were challenged in the Supreme court for the
gain of the political agenda and being used for the publicizing the ill effect
than the profits we would be making out of the cases. Such of the cases when
reaching the Judiciary for the review, it should be first checked if suc2 cases
are for the political gain or any part raising the issue is purposefully doing
so to bring bad to the common good of the people.
Currently the tools of the judicial review by many society people, NGOs are the
puppet mouth of the political parties or the agenda which are being supported by
the International countries or communities who have ill wishes for the
sovereignty of our country. It is time for the Court to look through the
transparent glass and the parties behind these causes, looking for the judicial
review and their real motive behind the same.
The another controversial interpretation of the Constitution with regards to the
selection of the CJI is that the Supreme Court took away the constitutionally
conferred power of the President of India to appoint judges to the hands of the
Chief Justice and his consultation. This lead to the power in the Chief Justice
of India and a collegium of four judges for the selection process, where-in such
provision is in no Constitution in the world to select and appoint judges
conferred on the judges themselves. This process has to be looked through.
Written By: Adv. Afshana Bashir
last visited October 18, 2019
- Article by Gurram Ramachandra Rao: last visited 10 April, 2003.
- H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 3rd ed., Vol. 1, N.M.
Tripathi Private Ltd. Bombay, 1983, p. 237
- Marbury v. Madison (1803)
last visited October 18, 2019
- Emperor v. Burah, ILR, Calcutta, 63 (1877).
- Bhola Prasad v The King Emperor AIR 1942 F.C.R 17 P20
- Federal India, at P 147
- Judicial Review In India an Analysis by Dr. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava
Date Written: December 17, 2014
- (1997) 3 SCC 261.
- Golaknath v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643
- Kesavanand Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 1789
- Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn.,(1947) 2
All ER 680,
- Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service,
(1984) 3 All ER 935
- In Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, AIR 1997 SC 3387
- Gohil Hanubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 13 SCC 621
- In Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal
Corporation, AIR 2000 SC 2272,
- In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India
& Ors., (1985)1 SCC 641
- In Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 51
- In K. Vinod Kumar v. S. Palanisamy, AIR 2003 SC 3171
- Chairman and Managing Director B.P.L. Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja, AIR 2003 SC
- In Vinay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC 1739
- Raju Ramsingh Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhiavapurkar, (2008) 9 SCC 54
last visited on June 6, 2021
- Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister of Civil Service (1984)
Masters in Criminal Law
Amity Law School, Amity University Haryana.
Email: [email protected]
Judicial Review In India
Limitation Of Judicial Review
Doctrine of Judicial Review
Limits of Judicial Review in India
Judicial Review And Its Scope In India
Presidential Pardon and Judicial Review
Judicial Review On Arbital Awards In India
Judicial Review Of Administrative Actions In India
Judicial Review of Presidential Proclamation Under Article 322
The Lockerbie Incident Cases: Judicial Review By The ICJ