Refer Report
1800 in America Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the presidential election that year. Then the Judiciary Act was passed in 1801. Accordingly, the appointments of judges were made and disputes arose out of it. Madison v. Marbury (1803) followed suit. In this case, Justice Marshall held that certain provisions of the Judiciary Act were unconstitutional. The concept of ‘judicial review’ became popular due to this judgment given by the Chief Justice. This means that the Supreme Court will also have the power to treat whether a law passed by the legislature is valid or not. This principle was accepted in the United States on the occasion of this case. In India, however, the Constitution itself has a principle of judicial review. Therefore, the Supreme Court or the High Court has the right to decide whether the laws passed by the Parliament or the Legislative Assembly are valid or not. Not only this, this power of the Supreme Court is part of the ‘fundamental structure of the Constitution’, it was said in the Kesavananda Bharti case (1973) that the power of the courts cannot be denied.
Although the word judicial review is not in the constitution, it is clear from several articles that the Supreme Court has this power. According to Article 13, a law inconsistent with fundamental rights can be void. According to Article 32, the Supreme Court can pass certain orders after approaching the Supreme Court in case of violation of fundamental rights. Apart from this, provisions in other articles allow the Supreme Court to decide whether a law is consistent with the Constitution or not. For example, the Electoral Bond Scheme was enacted in 2017. In 2024, the Supreme Court declared that this plan was inconsistent with the Constitution. This is an important example of judicial review. Ordinarily, laws inconsistent with fundamental rights or inconsistent with constitutional provisions can be subject to judicial review.
This power of judicial review has created tension between the Supreme Court and Parliament. That is why the Ninth Schedule was prepared. The First Amendment (1951) provided that the Supreme Court could not review the laws in this Schedule. Initially there were only 13 laws in this schedule. Today, the number of laws in the Ninth Schedule is around 300. Therefore, the debate started that whether the Parliament will prevail or the Supreme Court. In 2007 I. R. In the Kohlo case, the Supreme Court held that not all laws in the Ninth Schedule are reviewable. The judgment said that the Supreme Court can also review laws in the Ninth Schedule if there is violation of fundamental rights.
Apart from this there is an option of Public Interest Litigation. Through this, individuals or organizations can go to the court and seek a complaint. PILs are decided keeping in mind the matters of wider interest. Therefore, the responsibility of the Supreme Court increases with respect to original jurisdiction and other such matters. They should not pass judgments which would interfere with the powers of the Legislature even while revising and the Legislature should enact laws in accordance with the principles of justice and the Constitution. It is only through this that both the principles of sovereignty of Parliament and supremacy of justice can survive. The exercise of balancing these two principles has been going on since independence. The boundaries between the two are blurred. That is why the Legislature and the Judiciary need to act judiciously.
poetshriranjan@gmail. Com
Dr. Sriranjan came
Source: Marathi