Different phases of judicial review in india
Answers
Answer:
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.
(
(III) Critical Evaluation of Judicial Review:
Points of criticism:
1. Undemocratic:
The critics describe Judicial Review as an undemocratic system. It empowers the court to decide the fate of the laws passed by the legislature, which represent the sovereign, will of the people.
2. Lack of Clarity:
The Constitution of India does not clearly describe the system of Judicial Review. It rests upon the basis of several articles of the Constitution.
3. Source of from Administrative Problems:
When a law is struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, the decision becomes effective from the date on which the judgement is delivered. Now a law can face Judicial Review only when a question of its constitutionality arises in any case being heard by the Supreme Court.
Such a case can come before the Supreme Court after 5 or 10 or more years after the enforcement of that law. As such when the Court rejects it as unconstitutional, it creates administrative problems. A Judicial Review decision can create more problems than it solves.
4. Reactionary:
Several critics regard the Judicial Review system as a reactionary system. They hold that while determining the constitutional validity of a law, the Supreme Court often adopts a legalistic and conservative approach. It can reject progressive laws enacted by the legislature.
5. Delaying System:
Judicial Review is a source of delay and inefficiency. The people in general and the law-enforcing agencies in particular sometimes decide to go slow or keep their fingers crossed in respect of the implementation of a law. They prefer to wait and let the Supreme Court first decide its constitutional validity in a case that may come before it at any time.
6. Tends to make the Parliament less responsible:
The critics further argue that the Judicial Review can make the Parliament irresponsible as it can decide to depend upon the Supreme Court for determining the constitutionality/ reasonableness of a law passed by it.
7. Fear of Judicial Tyranny:
A bench (3 or 5 or 9 judges) of the Supreme Court hears a judicial review case. It gives a decision by a simple majority. Very often, the fate of a law is determined by the majority of a single judge. In this way a single judge’s reasoning can determine the fate of a law which had been passed by a majority of the elected representatives of the sovereign people.
8. Reversal of its own decisions by the Supreme Court:
It is on record that on several occasions the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions. The judgment in the Golaknath case reversed the earlier judgments and the judgment in the Keshwananda Bharati case reversed the judgment in the Golaknath case. The same enactment was held valid, then invalid and then again valid. Such reversals reflect the element of subjectivity in the judgments.
On all these grounds the critics strongly criticise the system of Judicial Review as it operates in India.
(IV) Justification of Judicial Review:
A very large number of the supporters of Judicial Review do not accept the arguments of the critics. They argue that Judicial Review is an essential and very useful system for Indian liberal democratic and federal system. It has been playing an important and desired role in the protection and development of the Constitution.
(1) Judicial Review is essential for maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution.
(2) It is essential for checking the possible misuse of power by the legislature and executive.
(3) Judicial Review is a device for protecting the rights of the people.
(4) No one can deny the importance of judiciary as an umpire, or as an arbiter between the centre and states for maintaining the federal balance.
(5) The grant of Judicial Review power to the judiciary is also essential for strengthening the position of judiciary. It is also essential for securing the independence of judiciary.
(6) The power of Judicial Review has helped the Supreme Court of India in exercising its constitutional duties.
(7) The possibility of abuse of is power of by the Judiciary is very less because several checks have been in existence:
(a) Lack of a clear statement of this power in any article of the Constitution.
(b) Judicial Review is not possible on some laws. The Parliament can place laws aimed at securing socio-economic reforms in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution. This makes these immune from Judicial Review.
(c) The scope of Judicial Review stand limited to only legal and constitutional cases.
(d) The Supreme Court is itself bound by the Constitution of India and the Parliament can amend the Constitution.
(e) The grant of specific fundamental rights to the also limits the scope of Judicial Review.
(f) The Parliament can pass laws and amendments for overriding the hurdles created by Judicial Review.
Answer:
The Different phases of judicial review in india are
Explanation:
It's a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the legality of a decision or action made by a public body. In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.
Supreme Court has three types of authorities. They're original, appellate and premonitory. The governance of the Supreme Court is mentioned in Articles 131, 133, 136 and 143 of the Constitution.
#SPJ2