A brief analysis of the most important cases of judicial review in India
A structure in which the powers of a state are divided between three main branches as executive, legislative, and judiciary is simply understood as the separation of powers. The concept was introduced in the USA. Now India is also following this concept in a limited but not in strict manner. Therefore, as an act of checks and balances for the separation of powers, judicial review is practiced.
The Constitution is the essential element of our Indian law. It is the primary step taken towards making the country a welfare state, as it provides basic rights for every citizen despite their community, caste, creed, or any other diversity. So this law is considered very critical. When some laws or actions enacted by the legislative branch are invalid according to the Constitution, the supreme court and the high court has the power to review and invalidate them. And this power of the judiciary is known as the judicial review. The case of Marbury v. Maddison introduced the concept of judicial review. The procedure of judicial review includes reviewing legislative or administrative activities and judgments if they are unconstitutional.
Judicial review is one of the important functions done by the legal system of India, because of its various benefits. It is not only a procedure done in the expectation of better judgment but also for the welfare of people. The reasons why the judicial review is important are:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
Kesavananda Bharati v. State, one of the most important cases in Indian history, is also called the fundamental rights case. The verdict of this case was an answer to the query that how much unrestricted power is held by the parliament and how long it can interfere with the principles said in the constitution of India by amending them. The verdict of the case is about 700 pages with the bench of 13 judges (Justice YV Chandrachud, Justice SM Sikri, Justice JM Shelat, Justice KS Hegde, Justice AN Grover, Justice AN Ray, Justice PJ Reddy, Justice DG Palekar, Justice Hans Raj Khanna, Justice KK Mathew, Justice MH Beg, Justice SN Dwivedi, Justice BK Mukherjee).
The petitioner of this case, Sripad Galvaru Kesavananda Bharati was a religious leader. Under the Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1969 the government possessed the right to obtain some amount of land of Edneer mutt (a monastic institution in Kerala), which is owned by Kesavananda Bharati. He filed a petition in the Supreme Court which questions his right to and propagate religion (article 25), freedom to acquire property(article 19), right to administer religious affairs (article 26), equality (article 14), and compulsory acquisition of property (article 31). Thus, it challenged whether the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendment acts are valid in the Constitution. This historic case laid down the doctrine of “basic structure”. In the judgement, the court said that parliament has the power to make amendments to any part of the Constitution except its basic structure.
Significance of the case: This case holds a fair amount of contribution to Indian law, as it gives a clearance about the level of authority of the parliament. In addition to it, this case passed and elucidated the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution. A few principles that make the basic structure of the Constitution are,
Therefore, the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala made paramount changes in the legal system.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
This landmark case is related to Articles 14, 19, and particularly Article 21 of the Constitution. Maneka Gandhi was the daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi, and the incident was held at the time when Indira Gandhi lost the election and the BJP government came into power. Petitioner’s passport was seized as per section 10(3)(c) of the passport act, 1967, and was not allowed to travel abroad. When asked about the impoundment of the passport, no prior reason was given. The argument was that the seizing of the passport infringed the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, right to life and personal liberty, and right to freedom of movement. In the judgement with the 7- judge bench, it’s held that in this case section 10(3)(a) of the passport act was void as the surrender of passport is ordered without leaving any reason. But the section is not unconstitutional. Correspondingly, it’s also stated that the personal liberty mentioned under Article 21 also includes the freedom of movement, and when a personal liberty is breached, it also meets the specifications in Article 14 and Article 19.
The main issues raised through the case were whether the right to travel comes under the personal liberty said under Article 21 and whether section 10(3)(c) violates Article 14 of the Constitution. As the significance of the case, it can be acknowledged that Article 21 has a wider scope. It covers the essential elements that give protection to life like livelihood, shelter, medical care, privacy, etc.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
During the struggling period for independence, acts of land reforms were enacted by the parliament to abolish the Zamindari system. The Zamindari system of land exploited many poor people, so one of the major reformations tried by the government for the welfare of the people is these acts. One of those acts was the land ceiling act, which regulates the amount of land one can own. If a person holds more than a certain quantity of land, the government uses those land for providing to the landless labourers.
Petitioner’s main argument was that through the land reforms act, their right to property under Article 19(1)(f) got breached. It also questioned the validity of the first amendment act which inserted the article 31A and 31B, which justified the property acquisition by the state. Another article is also related to this case, 13(2) which says that it is prohibited to enact laws that are unconstitutional. These articles have been contrary to each other.
However, in the judgment of the case, it’s held that article 13(2) meant not about the constitutional amendments but the other normal laws only. Therefore, parliament can remove any fundamental rights and it will not become void under Article 13.
The main consequence brought by this case was, the 1st amendment Act was challenged. It’s held that the power to amend fundamental rights also includes the parliament’s power of amendment of the Constitution under Article 368. The doctrine of “basic structure” is not developed through some single case, but a set of cases are the foundation for the establishment of the doctrine, and one of them was the Shankari Prasad case.
Golaknath vs. the State of Punjab
The case is also a historic one and similar to the above-mentioned cases. However, the judgement is distinguishable. Golaknath and his brother owned a 500-acre land. But after the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act passed in 1953, the government took over their land after providing them only a 30 acres from their total property.
The argument was that the act offended their right to property said in Article 19(1)(f). Eventually, it’s held that parliament does not have the authority to modify the fundamental rights of citizens mentioned in the Constitution.
The doctrine of prospective overruling
The doctrine of prospective overruling is applied in this case. The doctrine originated in the USA, which says that the pronouncement made in a current case is functional in future cases only and it will not affect the past judgments of the cases with similar circumstances.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
Similar to other cases, this case is also based on Article 19. Under the Sick Textiles, undertakings act 1974, Minerva Mills (a textile industry) was taken under governmental control as an ACT for nationalisation. Petitioner opposed it and argued that their right under 19(1)(g) [right to practice any profession or business] is violated by this act.
In this case, Article 39(b) and 39(c) [which states about the control and distribution of economic wealth by the state for reducing inequalities] under Directive principles of state policies, and Article 298 [which gives authority to the state related to the properties held by them] has been clashed with Article 19.
Finally, the court said that the parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was limited, it held that the state can amend the Constitution without interfering with fundamental rights and especially with the basic structure.
The Doctrine of Harmonious Construction
The doctrine of harmonious construction is enforced in this case. When two statutes are contrary to each other, then both of them are said to work in harmony without dominating each other. In this condition, a dispute between the fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy arose in the case. Thus, according to the doctrine, both the fundamental rights and DPSP are endorsed to work together coordinately without any conflicts.
In the general election held in 1971, Indra Gandhi representing Congress and Raj Narain representing the Janata Party were the main candidates. Raj Narain was ultimately confident of winning the election, but unexpectedly Indra Gandhi won the election. This made Narain file a petition that Congress won the election by corrupt practices. Allahabad high court also held that the victory of Indra Gandhi is not valid as this election contained certain corrupt practices. Under these circumstances, Indra Gandhi appealed to the Supreme Court, however, the supreme court was on vacation.
At this time, an emergency was declared and in the interim, article 392A was introduced by the 39th amendment act.
[the article authorises the Prime minister to not be questioned, on the election, by any court]. The validity of this article was challenged as it breaches the right to conduct a free and fair election, and the right comes under the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution which is proposed in the case of Kesavanada Barathi v. State of Kerala.
In the judgement, the court held that Clause 4 of Article 329A is not valid under the Constitution. The Parliament has powers to amend the Constitution without interfering with its Basic structure, as the basic structure includes various important principles and fundamental rights that should not be controlled by the parliament.
Checks and balances are the most vital feature in a country that follows separation of powers. If the cases which hold historic importance are judged without any consideration of natural justice and rationality by merely referring to the law written, then those judgments will not create any revolution in the legal world. Most importantly, this procedure prevents tyrannical rule by controlling the other two branches(legislative and executive). A few of the above-mentioned cases also dealt with the over dominance of the parliament, but judicial review regulates this issue. Therefore judicial review takes on a crucial role in the jurisprudence and welfare of the citizens.
Name of the author: Adhila Fathima. I
Designation : Second-year student of BALLB
College : Chennai Dr.Ambedkar Government Law college.
