Question

difference between judicial review and public interest litigation

Answer 1

Judicial Review refers to the power of the judiciary to interpret the constitution and to declare any such law or order of the legislature and executive void, if it finds them in conflict the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court of India has the supreme responsibility of interpreting and protecting it. It also acts as the guardian-protector of the Fundamental Rights of the people. For this purpose, the Supreme Court exercises the power of determining the constitutional validity of all laws.
Public Interest Litigation is directly filed by an individual or group of people in the supreme court. It was felt that their interests are undermined by the government.In such a situation, the court directly accepts the public good. It is a new legal horizon in which court of law can initiate and enforce action to serve and Secure significant Public Interest

Answer 2

1INDIAN JUDICIARY SYSTEMJudicial Review and Public Interest Litigation (PIL)Judicial Review means the power of the judiciary to pronounce upon the Constitutional validity of the acts of public authorities, both executive and legislature. In any democratic society, judicial review isthe soul of the system because without it democracy and the rule of law cannot be maintained. Judicial review in India is an integral part of the Constitution and constitutes the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. The whole law of judicial review has been developed by judges on a case to case basis. Consequently, the right of seeking judicial review depends on the facts of each individual case; however, there cannot be a review of an abstract proposition of law.Though ‘judicial review’ does not find mention in our Constitution, this power has been derived by the judiciary from various provisions. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to safeguard and protect the Fundamental Rights of people and thus it is invested with the power of judicial review under Article 32 and to interpret the Constitution.The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review extends to Constitutional Amendments. However, Constitutional Amendment review by judiciary in relation to Fundamental Rights and its legal validity has been a contentious political issue.
2Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368 but such amendments should not take away or violate Fundamental Rights and any law made in contravention with this rule shall be void. Before Golakhnath case (1967) the courts held that a Constitutional Amendment is not law within the meaning of Article 13 and hence, would not be held void if it violated any fundamental right.In Golakhnath case it was settled thati) all amendments be law [13(3)]ii) Fundamental Rights are transcendental and immutable, so cannot be amended, nonetheless to amend Fundamental Rights a new Constituent Assembly needs to be convened, andiii) Constitutional Amendment is an ordinary legislative power.In 1971, Parliament, by the 24thConstitutional Amendment, reversed the Golakhnath judgements by declaring Constitutional Amendments made under Article 368, not to be as ‘law’ within the meaning of Article 13 and the validity of theConstitutional Amendment Act shall not be open to question on the ground that it takesaway or affects Fundamental Rights.