In the euphoria of the return to democracy and in an attempt to refurbish its image that had been tarnished by some Emergency decisions, the Supreme Court of India opened the floodgates to Public Interest Litigation PIL. Bhagwati and Justice V. Krishna Iyer were among the first judges to admit PILs in court. Under PIL, courts take up cases that concern not the rights of the petitioner, but of the public at large.
Judicial Review in India: Meaning, Features and Other Details Article shared by: Judicial Review refers to the power of the judiciary to interpret the constitution and to declare any such law or order of the legislature and executive void, if it finds them in conflict the Constitution of India.
The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court of India has the supreme responsibility of interpreting and protecting it. It also acts as the guardian-protector of the Fundamental Rights of the people.
For this purpose, the Supreme Court exercises the power of determining the constitutional validity of all laws. This power of the Supreme Court is called the Judicial Review power.
State High Courts also exercise this power but their judgements can be rejected or modified or upheld by the Supreme Court. Judicial Review is the power of the Judiciary by which: 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 it. The Supreme Court can decide: In this case the law continues to operate as before, or ii The law is constitutionally invalid.
In this case the law ceases to operate with effect from the date of the judgment. In this case only invalid parts or part becomes non-operative and other parts continue to remain in operation.
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: Under it the court conducts one test, i.
It gets rejected when it is held to be violative 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. The critics describe Judicial Review as an undemocratic system.
It empowers the court to decide the fate of the laws passed by the legislature, which represent the sovereign, will of the people. The Constitution of India does not clearly describe the system of Judicial Review.which at extreme points, is called judicial activism, is a concept new to India.
Because these expectations falls short essay on indian judicial system of the ideals of the people. Judicial activism is gaining prominence in the present days.
In the form of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), citizens are getting access to justice. Judiciary has become the centre of controversy, in the recent past, on account of the sudden (Me in the level of judicial intervention.
The area of.
edition. 2. Sathe, S. P., Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits, Oxford University Press, edition. Judicial Activism vs.
Judicial Self-Restraint There are many differences between Judicial Activism and Judicial Self Restraint. Judicial Activism is the process by which judges take an active role in the governing process and Judicial Self Restraint is that Judges should not .
Short essay on Indian Judiciary system Dnyanesh Kumar Advertisements: India opted for a single judicial system and by creating a single judiciary with the Supreme Court at the top, the framers of the Constitution obviously intended to introduce certain judicial reforms. Wednesday, 17 July Judicial Activism in India “The great contribution of Judicial Activism in India has been to provide a safety valve in a democracy and a hope that justice is not beyond reach”.