In this article you will learn about the Judicial Review Power in Political Science.
Judicial Review Power
Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine and potentially invalidate actions taken by other branches of government that may be inconsistent with the constitution or other laws. This power is an important aspect of the system of checks and balances in democratic societies, as it allows the judiciary to ensure that the other branches of government are operating within the bounds of the law.
The power of judicial review is not absolute, however. The courts can only review cases that are brought before them, and they can only invalidate actions that are clearly unconstitutional or inconsistent with the law. The courts must also be careful not to infringe upon the powers of the other branches of government or to engage in political or policy-making decisions.
Judicial Review Power of Indian Judiciary
In India, the power of judicial review is one of the most important functions of the judiciary. The Constitution of India grants the power of judicial review to the judiciary, which allows it to examine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.
Critical Appraisal of Judicial Review Power of Indian Judiciary
1. Undemocratic : The critics describe the system of Judicial Review as an undemocratic system which enables the court to decide the fate of the laws passed by the legislatures which represent the sovereign will of the people and the national public opinion.
2. Lack of Clarity : The Constitution of India does not clearly and fully describe the system of Judicial Review. It rests mostly upon the doctrine of implied powers, and upon the interpretation of several articles of the Constitution.
3. Source of Administrative Problems : The system is a source of problems. When a law or any of its part or parts are struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. The decision made by the Supreme Court becomes effective from the date on which the judgement is delivered. Now a law faces Judicial Review only when a question of its constitutionality arises in any case being heard by the Supreme Court. Such a case can come before the Supreme Court after five or ten or more years after the enforcement of that law. As such when the court declares it null and void, it creates administrative problems. Many times a Judicial Review decision creates more problems than it solves.
4. Reactionary : Many critics regard the Judicial Review system as a reactionary system. They hold that while determining the constitutional validity of a law, the Supreme Court often adopts a legalistic and conservative approach and rejects a progressive law enacted by the legislature for promoting socio-economic development. Judicial Review, as such, constitutes only a conservative check upon the legislature.
5. Delaying System : Judicial Review is a source of delay and inefficiency in so far as the people in general and the law enforcing agencies sometimes decide to go slow or keep their fingers crossed in respect of the implementation of a law. They prefer to wait and let the Supreme Court decide its constitutional validity in a case that may come before it at any time. The process of conducting Judicial Review is in itself a slow and delaying process. As such the Judicial Review system is quite often a source of delay and inefficiency.
6. Makes the Parliament Irresponsible : The critics further argue that the Judicial Review makes the Parliament irresponsible at times as it prefers to depend upon the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality or reasonableness of a law passed by it.
7. Fear of Judicial Tyranny : A bench of the supreme court hears the constitutional case that comes before it and gives a decision by simply majority. Very often, the fact of a law is determined by the majority of a single judge. In this way a single judge’s reasoning determines the fact of a law which had been passed by a majority of the elected representatives of the sovereign people.
8. Reversal of its own decision by the Supreme Court : It is on record that on several occasions the Supreme Court has reversed its earlier decisions. The judgement in the Golaknath case reversed the earlier judgements and the judgement in the Keshwananda Bharati case reversed the judgement in the Golaknath case and the status quo was restored. The same enactment was held valid, then invalid and again valid. Such reversals reflect the element of subjectivity in the judgements made by different benches of the Court in respect of same or similar cases.
On all these above grounds the critics strongly criticise the system of Judicial Review as it operates in India.
This article on Judicial Review Power in Political Science is contributed by Dipshikha Anand. If you like LawStudyPoint.com do follow us on our Twitter handle.