Judicial review a fundamental aspect of India's constitutional framework, empowers the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders. This power ensures that the government functions within the boundaries set by the Constitution, safeguarding fundamental rights and upholding the rule of law.

Constitutional Basis:

While the phrase "judicial review" isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, its essence is embedded in several articles, notably:

• Article 13: Declares that any law inconsistent with fundamental rights is void.

• Article 32: Grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

• Article 226: Confers similar writ jurisdiction on High Courts.

• Articles 131-136: Define the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, including its power to adjudicate disputes between the Union and states, and to hear appeals from lower courts.

The Process and Implications:

When a law or executive action is challenged, the judiciary assesses its conformity with the Constitution. If found to be inconsistent, the court can declare it unconstitutional and void. This process has significant implications:

• Upholding Constitutional Supremacy: Judicial review reinforces the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all other laws must conform to it.

• Protecting Fundamental Rights: It acts as a crucial safeguard against legislative or executive actions that may infringe upon fundamental rights.

• Maintaining Federal Balance: In a federal structure, it resolves disputes between the Union and states, ensuring that neither oversteps its constitutional boundaries.

• Ensuring Checks and Balances: It forms an essential component of the system of checks and balances, preventing any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.

• Promoting the Rule of Law: by ensuring the government acts within legal parameters, it reinforces the rule of law.

Key Case Laws:

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Early on, the Supreme Court established its power to review laws affecting personal liberty.

• State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): This case highlighted the conflict between fundamental rights and directive principles, leading to the First Amendment.

• Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967): The Supreme Court initially held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, sparking a constitutional debate.

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark case established the "basic structure" doctrine, stating that Parliament cannot amend the basic features of the Constitution. This case heavily reinforced the power of judicial review.

• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Supreme Court reiterated the basic structure doctrine, emphasizing the balance between fundamental rights and directive principles.

• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): The Supreme Court clarified the application of the basic structure doctrine to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule.

Judicial review is a vital mechanism for ensuring that India's democratic framework remains robust and responsive to the needs of its citizens. It acts as a crucial check on governmental power, ensuring that the principles enshrined in the Constitution are upheld.