Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights

Judicial review and Fundamental Rights are closely connected in the Indian constitutional system. Judicial review enables courts to examine whether legislative, executive and administrative actions comply with the Constitution, including the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III.

Fundamental Rights place substantive and procedural limits on State power, while judicial review provides an important mechanism for enforcing those limits.

The Supreme Court and High Courts exercise constitutional jurisdiction to examine State action that allegedly violates Fundamental Rights. Through this process, courts have developed important principles concerning equality, freedom, personal liberty, due process, fairness, proportionality and non-arbitrariness.

Meaning of Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of constitutional courts to examine the legality and constitutionality of governmental action.

In the context of Fundamental Rights, judicial review allows courts to determine whether:

• A law violates a Fundamental Right.
• Administrative action violates a Fundamental Right.
• Executive action is arbitrary or discriminatory.
• A restriction on a Fundamental Right is constitutionally permissible.
• Procedural safeguards have been violated.
• Governmental action exceeds constitutional authority.

Judicial review is therefore an important means of ensuring that governmental power remains subject to constitutional limitations.

Constitutional Basis

Several constitutional provisions provide the foundation for judicial review of Fundamental Rights.

Article 13

Article 13 declares that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of the inconsistency.

It applies to:

• Pre-Constitution laws.
• State-made laws after the commencement of the Constitution.
• Ordinances.
• Orders.
• Bye-laws.
• Rules.
• Regulations.
• Notifications and other instruments having the force of law.

Article 13 therefore provides a direct constitutional basis for examining laws against Fundamental Rights.

Article 32

Article 32 guarantees the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

The Supreme Court may issue appropriate writs, including:

• Habeas corpus
• Mandamus
• Prohibition
• Certiorari
• Quo warranto

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously described Article 32 as an important safeguard of Fundamental Rights.

Article 226

Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs not only for enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also “for any other purpose.”

Consequently, the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 is broader in scope than Article 32, although the Supreme Court and High Courts operate within their respective constitutional jurisdictions.

Judicial Review Under Article 14

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

Judicial review under Article 14 has developed significantly beyond the traditional doctrine of reasonable classification.

Courts may examine whether State action is:

• Arbitrary.
• Discriminatory.
• Irrational.
• Based on irrelevant considerations.
• Unreasonably unequal.

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)

The Supreme Court recognised the close relationship between equality and non-arbitrariness.

The judgment significantly expanded the understanding of Article 14 and established that arbitrary State action can be inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Judicial Review Under Article 19

Article 19 guarantees several freedoms to citizens, including freedoms relating to:

• Speech and expression.
• Peaceful assembly.
• Association.
• Movement.
• Residence.
• Profession, occupation, trade or business.

These freedoms are subject to constitutionally permitted restrictions.

Judicial review enables courts to determine whether a restriction:

• Has legal authority.
• Falls within the constitutional grounds for restriction.
• Is connected with a legitimate constitutional purpose.
• Satisfies the applicable standard of review.

Courts therefore examine whether the State has exceeded the restrictions permitted by Article 19.

Judicial Review Under Article 21

Article 21 provides:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

The interpretation of Article 21 has expanded considerably through judicial decisions.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

The Supreme Court held that the procedure affecting life or personal liberty must satisfy the requirements of fairness and reasonableness.

The judgment strengthened the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21.

Following this development, judicial review under Article 21 extends to a broad range of State actions affecting personal liberty.

Judicial Review and Due Process

The Indian Constitution uses the expression “procedure established by law” rather than expressly using the phrase “due process of law” in Article 21.

However, through constitutional interpretation, the Supreme Court has required the procedure affecting life and personal liberty to satisfy standards of fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.

Thus, judicial review under Article 21 has become an important protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

Judicial Review and the Right to Privacy

The right to privacy has been recognised as a constitutionally protected right.

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected right arising from the guarantees of life, personal liberty and other Fundamental Rights.

The judgment strengthened constitutional review of State action that interferes with privacy.

Where State action substantially restricts privacy, the applicable constitutional framework may require examination of:

• Legality.
• Legitimate State objective.
• Proportionality.
• Procedural safeguards.

Judicial Review and Proportionality

Proportionality has become an important principle in reviewing restrictions on Fundamental Rights.

Depending upon the context, proportionality analysis may examine:

1. Whether the measure pursues a legitimate objective.
2. Whether there is a rational connection between the measure and the objective.
3. Whether the restriction is necessary where the applicable standard requires such examination.
4. Whether the impact on the right is appropriately balanced against the public objective.

The principle prevents restrictions on rights from becoming broader than legally justified.

Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016)

The Supreme Court discussed proportionality in the context of restrictions affecting constitutional rights and explained a structured approach to proportionality review.

Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights of Non-Citizens

Some Fundamental Rights are available specifically to citizens, while others are available to all persons.

For example:

• Article 14 applies to “any person”.
• Article 21 applies to “any person”.
• Certain freedoms under Article 19 are specifically guaranteed to citizens.

Therefore, the availability of a particular Fundamental Right depends upon the wording of the constitutional provision.

Judicial Review of Administrative Action

Fundamental Rights are not enforceable only against legislation.

Administrative and executive actions can also be challenged where they violate Fundamental Rights.

Examples include:

• Arbitrary government decisions.
• Discriminatory administrative action.
• Unlawful restrictions on speech.
• Unlawful deprivation of personal liberty.
• Unreasonable interference with privacy.
• Arbitrary government employment decisions.

Judicial review therefore operates as an important constitutional control over day-to-day administrative action.

Judicial Review and Natural Justice

Natural justice and Fundamental Rights are closely connected.

Principles such as:

• Fair hearing.
• Absence of bias.
• Reasoned decision-making.
• Procedural fairness.

may become constitutionally relevant, particularly where administrative action affects rights or causes serious civil consequences.

A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)

The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of natural justice in administrative decision-making and contributed significantly to the development of the principle that administrative power must be exercised fairly.

Judicial Review and Article 32

Article 32 gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to enforce Fundamental Rights.

Where a Fundamental Right is violated, the Supreme Court can issue appropriate constitutional remedies.

Article 32 itself is a Fundamental Right, making it an important part of the constitutional enforcement mechanism.

However, Article 32 is primarily concerned with enforcement of Fundamental Rights, whereas Article 226 gives High Courts a wider writ jurisdiction.

Judicial Review and Article 226

High Courts have broad powers under Article 226.

They may issue writs:

• For enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
• For other legal rights and purposes within the constitutional scope of the provision.

This makes Article 226 a significant mechanism for reviewing administrative action.

High Courts can therefore examine not only constitutional violations but also other forms of administrative illegality.

Judicial Review and Basic Structure

Judicial review itself has constitutional significance.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

The Supreme Court established the basic structure doctrine, holding that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 is not unlimited.

The doctrine protects certain fundamental features of the Constitution from destruction through constitutional amendment.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

The Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review exercised by High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and by the Supreme Court under Article 32 forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The case is particularly important for understanding the constitutional status of judicial review.

Judicial Review of Laws Violating Fundamental Rights

Where legislation violates a Fundamental Right, courts may declare the offending provision unconstitutional to the extent of the violation.

The court may examine:

• Legislative competence.
• Fundamental Rights.
• Constitutional limitations.
• Permissible restrictions.
• The nature and extent of the infringement.

The precise remedy depends upon the nature of the constitutional defect.

Judicial Review and Constitutional Remedies

Courts have several constitutional remedies available.

Habeas Corpus

Used to challenge unlawful detention and protect personal liberty.

Mandamus

Used to compel a public authority to perform a legal duty where the requirements for the writ are satisfied.

Certiorari

Used to quash certain unlawful decisions of courts, tribunals or authorities.

Prohibition

Used to prevent a subordinate court or tribunal from proceeding beyond its jurisdiction.

Quo Warranto

Used to challenge unlawful occupation of a public office.

Important Cases

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

The Supreme Court initially adopted a relatively compartmentalised approach to Fundamental Rights and Article 21.

The decision represents the early constitutional approach to personal liberty.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

The Supreme Court established the basic structure doctrine.

The judgment is important for understanding constitutional limitations on the amending power and the broader role of judicial review.

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)

The Court developed the relationship between Article 14 and arbitrariness.

The case remains an important authority on equality and non-arbitrary State action.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

The Supreme Court significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 and strengthened the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21.

The judgment established the importance of fairness and reasonableness in procedures affecting personal liberty.

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980)

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and emphasised the importance of constitutional limitations on amending power.

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

The Supreme Court recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected right and developed principles relevant to judicial review of State action affecting privacy.

Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016)

The Court discussed proportionality as a method of reviewing restrictions on constitutional rights.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional importance of judicial review under Articles 226, 227 and 32.

Limits of Judicial Review

Judicial review does not mean that courts can interfere with every governmental decision.

Courts generally do not:

• Substitute their policy preferences for those of the government.
• Reassess administrative decisions as appellate authorities in every case.
• Interfere merely because another decision appears preferable.
• Ignore the constitutional separation of institutional functions.

Judicial intervention depends upon the existence of a recognised constitutional or legal defect.

Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights: Key Relationship

The relationship can be understood as:

Fundamental Rights → Constitutional limits on State power → State action → Judicial review → Constitutional remedy

Fundamental Rights establish substantive limitations, while judicial review provides a mechanism for enforcing those limitations.

Key Points for Exams

• Judicial review is an important mechanism for protecting Fundamental Rights.
• Article 13 provides for judicial control of laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights.
• Article 32 provides a constitutional remedy before the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
• Article 226 gives High Courts broader writ jurisdiction.
• Article 14 is an important basis for reviewing arbitrary State action.
• Articles 19 and 21 provide important grounds for reviewing restrictions on liberty and freedom.
• Maneka Gandhi strengthened the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21.
• K.S. Puttaswamy recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected right.
• Modern Dental College is important for proportionality.
• L. Chandra Kumar recognised constitutional judicial review under Articles 226, 227 and 32 as part of the basic structure.
• Judicial review protects Fundamental Rights while respecting constitutional limits on judicial intervention.

Conclusion

Judicial review is one of the principal mechanisms through which Fundamental Rights are protected in India. It ensures that legislative, executive and administrative authorities remain within the constitutional limits imposed by Part III.

Articles 13, 32 and 226, together with the broader constitutional structure, provide important mechanisms for challenging unlawful State action. Judicial decisions have further developed the protection of equality, freedom, personal liberty, privacy and procedural fairness.

The relationship between judicial review and Fundamental Rights therefore reflects a central constitutional principle: public power must remain subject to the Constitution, and courts provide an institutional mechanism for enforcing those constitutional limits.