JUDICIAL REVIEW: THE P0WER 0F COURT T0 INTERPRET THE C0NSTITUTI0N

Author: Jasaswini Maharana, SOA National Institute of Law

Our Indian constitution is the largest constitution in the world, with 395,22 and 8 articles, parts and schedules respectively when it was adopted in 1950. But now due to various amendments as of now its content,448,25 and 12 articles, parts and schedules respectively. The Indian Governance structure is divided into three main branches such as:  Legislature, Executive, Judiciary. There is interstation among them regarding Checks and Balances, Separation of powers. Here the Judiciary plays a very important role that is the Judiciary Interprets Laws, adjudicates disputes and ensures justice is delivered. Its primary role is to uphold the constitution and the rule of law. Judiciary of India based on, ‘Salus Populi Suprema Lex Est’– Translated as ‘people welfare shall be supreme law’, this maxim underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the public interest and welfare. The largest constitution also has flexibility, rule of law and amendment procedure based on the features of it. The judicial body if India has power to interpret the constitution as our need. ‘Noscitur a Socils’ meaning ‘it is known by its associated’, this maxim suggests that the meaning of a word in the constitution should be interpreted in the context of the surrounding text. 

The ability of courts to examine and possibly declare legislation or actions of the legislative and executive branches that contravene the highest law of the land unconstitutional is known as judicial review. The process by which courts assess whether laws, regulations, or government acts are constitutional is known as judicial review. It gives judges the authority to decide whether these actions are in line with the constitution's provisions. Courts have the authority to declare laws or actions unconstitutional and so invalid through judicial review. This authority ensures that the other arms of government stay within the parameters of the constitution by acting as a vital check on them. The process of elucidating the meaning of a law is referred to as interpretation, contractor legal document. It involves understanding the intention behind the words and applying them to the specific situation at hand. 

Marbury v. Madis0n in 1803, in case the U.S. S.C asserted its authority to review the constitution of laws passed by the Congress and signed by Interpretation is crucial in law to ensure that the law is applied correctly and fairly.  

Power of courts to interpret the constitution, often referred to as judicial review, is a fundamental aspect of constitutional law in many countries. The power allows courts to review law, regulation, and government action to ensure they are consistent with the constitution. Courts have the authority to interpret the constitution, including determining the meaning of its provision and how they apply to specific cases. The interpretive authority is essential for applying the constitution to changing societal norms and circumstances. Concepts of judicial recheck  based on the idea, and it is the role of the government to adhere to it. This power was established in the landmark case of the President.

Constitution, Ligature, Executive, Judiciary, supreme law, Rule of law, Salus populi suprema lex esto, Noscitur a socils, potentially invalidate laws, Interpretation

The Constitution is the soul of every democratic country, and our Constitution is the greatest and the largest Constitution in all over the world and represents the governance structure of the country, it is also in written form and flexible and rigid by which a qui- federal country like Indian runes. The Indian Constitution was adopted on 26th November, 1949, and came into force on the 26th day of January 1950. The formation of Constitution Assembly of India drafted the Constitution between December 9, 1949, and November 26, 1949. Under the supervision of The Drafting Committee, chaired by Dr. Amebedkar, was instrumental in preparing the draft.  In simple terms, a ‘Review’ is an evaluation or assessment of something, such as a book, movie, product, service, or performance. It usually involves giving an opinion on quality or effectiveness of that item, often highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. Review can help others decide whether or not they want to engage with the item being reviewed. But in typically refers to a judicial examination of a lower court’s decision or the action of the govt. agency. This process is often undertaken by another higher court to determine if there was any wrong in the application of the law or procedural mistakes. The recheck can result in upholding, reversing, or ensure that decisions comply with legal standards and principles. Judicial review is the power of courts to assess the constitutionality of legislative, executive or administrative action. The process ensures that laws and governmental actions similar with the constitution and other applicable legal standards. The word Interpretation means explaining or understanding the meaning of something. For example, when you read a book, your interpretation is how you understand the story and its messages. Similarly, in everyday situations, interpretation involves making sense of signs, actions, or spoken words based on context and personal knowledge. In legal terms, ‘Interpretation’ refers to the process by which court and legal authorities determine the meaning and implications of statute, regulation, contract, and other legal documents. Interpretation involves understanding the intent of the legislature or parties involved, as well as applying relevant principles and precedents to clarify ambiguous or unclear language. Legal interpretation involves understanding and applying the meaning of laws and contracts. It can be done strictly, considering intent, addressing legal issues, or focusing on the law’s purpose. Different interpretations can lead to varied outcomes in legal matters. The Indian Constitution is a complex document with broad principles that need interpretation to apply them to specific situations. Interpretation ensures the Constitution’s relevance over time, adapts it to changing societal norms, and clarifies its meaning in different contexts. It also helps maintain the Constitution’s supremacy and ensures its principles are upheld consistently. The SC of India, in famous judgment, uphold the power of judicial review and significantly reinforced the doctrine of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution. The Court ruled that while the parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power does not extend to altering the ‘basic structure’ or essential features of the Constitution. The judgment defined certain core principles, such as the supremacy forms of government, secularism, separation of powers, and federalism, which cannot be amended by Parliament. This case is a cornerstone of Indian Constitutional law as it established the basic structure doctrine, which ensures that the fundamental framework of the Constitution cannot be altered by parliamentary amendments. It balances the need for Constitutional flexibility with the protection of essential democratic principles and rights. Courts play a vital role in interpreting the constitution, ensuring its application and relevance. They clarify constitutional provisions, resolve disputes, and safeguard fundamental rights. Through judicial review, courts uphold the constitution’s supremacy, balance powers between branches, and protect against unconstitutional actions, ensuring the law rules prevail. Some examples of Interpret of Constitution by courts in India-

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: Basic Structure Doctrine • The right to privacy (Union of India v. K.S. Puttaswamy) • Freedom of Expression and Speech (State of Madras v. Romesh Thappar) • Indra Sawhney v. Union of India: Reservation Policies • The Federal Structure (Union of India v. S.R. Bommai) 

These examples illustrate how the courts in India Interpret the Constitution to clarify its provisions, protect fundamental rights, and ensure the balance of power between different entities in the government. 

Judicial review is subject to scrutiny to ensure its proper application and adherence to legal principles. This scrutiny can come from various sources, including legal scholars, politicians, and the public. It assesses whether judicial   review is being used appropriately to check the constitutionality of government actions and whether courts are overstepping their authority. Judicial review the constitutionality of law and government actions they adhere to constitutional principles. There are some legal maxims related to the decision of courts, among them one is ‘Obiter dictum’ which mean the remark or observation of the judges of respective courts in a legal opinion that is incidental to the decision and not essential to the judgement itself, and other is ‘Stare Decisis’ refers to the legal decision of landmark cases of higher courts which are to be bound to their lower courts, in the same facts and circumstances of another court respectively, basically these are the judgments which are to be taken as the president in further cases which are to be bound by the lower itself.  The evolution of Indian Constitution interpretation by courts through judicial review involves assessing the effectiveness, consistency, and fairness of judiciary’s applicational principles. Here are some key points for evaluation:

• Protection of Fundamental Rights: Evaluate how well the court protects the constitutionally guaranteed rights to equality before the law, freedom of speech, and the right to life and personal independence.

•   Maintaining Balances: Make sure a system of checks and balances is upheld by assessing how the judiciary strikes a balance between the authority of the legislative and executive branches and its judicial review authority.

• Constitutional Rule Adherence: Determine if the courts' interpretations and rulings consistently uphold constitutional values such as federalism, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. 

• Balance and Coherence: Maintaining a consistent application of constitutional principles is essential for public confidence and legal clarity. 

• Changing Jurisprudence: Courts have modified constitutional interpretations to take into account the issues and values of the modern world. Monitoring and.

• Regulatory Framework: Courts have interpreted economic policies and regulations that impact industries such as banking, telecommunications, and the environment.

• Federalism and the Center-State Relation: Courts have made it clearer how the Center and the State share authority, guaranteeing that the federal system is balanced. 

• Social Justice and Public Welfare: Courts have construed the constitution to advance equality and social justice, particularly for underprivileged group

•  Doctrine of Basic Structure: The idea that parliament cannot change some fundamental aspects of the constitution. 

• Public Interest Litigation vs. Judicial Restraint: Courts have occasionally adopted an active posture to address concerns of governance and social justice, but they have also come under fire for going too far. 

• It protects citizens' fundamental liberties and prevents the tyranny of the administration. 

•  It is essential for preserving the judiciary's independence. 

•  It is absolutely necessary to uphold the Constitution's supremacy. 

• Additionally, it assists in preventing the abuse of authority by the executive and legislative branches and in preserving the balance between the federal government and the states. 

• The law infringes upon the provisions specified in the Constitution and fails to uphold the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the document. The law's implementation exceeds the authority or capability of the responsible official. 

• Our Indian Constitution contains a number of articles and sections that address the courts' interpretation of the document through judicial review. Judicial review is defined as the process by which the judiciary reviews legislative and executive decisions. In India, the judiciary is given the power to examine the activities of other government organs, despite the fact that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are all subject to the concept of separation of powers. Both the Supreme Court and the High Courts in India have the authority to conduct judicial review. Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution grant the courts the authority to conduct judicial reviews, such, 

• Of making the action of the Government legitimate, and

• To secure the Constitution from any undue encroachment by the Government.

                                   Laws and executive acts can be reviewed by the Supreme Court and lower courts to make sure they don't infringe upon basic rights or go beyond the authority granted by the Constitution. For the enforcement of fundamental rights, citizens may petition the Supreme Court immediately under Article 32, and for a more comprehensive judicial review, they may petition the High Court under Article 226. 

SOME INSTANCES OF JUDICIAL RECHECK OF THE CONSTITUTION BY COURT AND THEIR EXPLANATION, WITH CASE ANALYSIS:

To guarantee that the Constitution's tenets are appropriately applied in changing social settings, interpretation is essential. It assists in resolving disputes, elucidating unclear clauses, and adjusting to changing conditions without changing the original text. The rule of law is upheld, checks and balances are preserved, and fundamental rights are protected by judicial interpretation. By enabling a dynamic and adaptable legal system, it guarantees that the constitution will continue to be applicable and successful in resolving modern problems, protecting the longevity and integrity of the country's founding legal text. The following lists a few court interpretations,

• Basic Structure Doctrine: - The basic structure doctrine is a legal principle in India that states that fundamental aspects of a system, such as a constitution, cannot be altered or destroyed. This doctrine ensures the stability and integrity of the system, preserving its core values and principles. It was established in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, and serves as a safeguard to prevent amendments from compromising the core principles.

• Case analysis,

 Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala

Kesavananda Bharati case India began with land reforms introduced in Kerala in the 1950s and 160s. The Kerala Land Reforms Act, passed in 163, limited land ownership. Sri Kesavananda Bharati, head of the Edneer Mutt, challenged the constitution of the Act in the Kerala High court. The Supreme court ruled in favor of the state govt. The 24th Amendment to the constitution, which limited judicial powers and citizens’ rights, was challenged by Bharati, who argued they violated the basic structure of the constitution. The case is considered a significant constitutional case. 

       FACTS: The case was filed by Sri Kesavananda Bharati, the head of a Hindu religious mutt in Kerala, challenging the constitutional validity of the 24th, 25th and 29th amendment to the powers of the judiciary and the fundamental rights of citizens. This was heard by a bench of 13 judges of the Supreme court of India and making it one of largest benches in Indian legal history.

      JUDGEMENT: The foundation structure concept of the constitution was created by this case, which was heard by 13 judges of the Indian Supreme Court. According to this theory, Parliament cannot change the constitution's core principles, which include democracy, federalism, secularism, and the rule of law. The court further ruled that Parliament cannot remove the judicial review power through constitutional amendments because it is an essential component of the document. This theory has ensured that the constitution is a living document that adapts to new circumstances while upholding its core ideals and ideas by acting as a check on parliament's authority to modify it.

• Privacy Rights: Privacy is the right to control personal information, avoid public scrutiny, and protect against unauthorized surveillance. Legally, it is enshrined in constitutions, statues, and case law. In the US, privacy is inferred from constitutional amendments. Laws like the EU's General Data Protection Regulation provide comprehensive rules on privacy.

Case analysis,

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India

The judgment was the first time that the supreme court recognized the rights of LGBT community in India. The judgment includes the right to determine sexual orientation and the right to privacy. By linking privacy to LGBTI issues, this judgment fueled the fire for the challenge to section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which came in the form of Navtej Singh Jahar v. State of India in 2017.

       FACTS: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy, a retired judge of Madras High court, challenged the constitution validity of the Aadhaar scheme. He argued that the scheme violated the right to privacy. A three-judge bench held that a larger bench should determine whether the constitution of India guarantees a right to privacy. A nine- judge bench decided this case.

        JUDGMENT: A nine-judge panel decided that no government law could unnecessarily infringe on Indian people' fundamental right to privacy. The court established a three-pronged standard for determining whether any article 21 right has been infringed: proportionality, necessity, and legality. To avoid future diminution of the right, the explanation was essential. Joining the United States, Canada, South Africa, the European Union, and the United Kingdom in acknowledging this fundamental right, the court adopted a liberal interpretation of fundamental rights, ruling that individual liberty must extend to digital spaces, individual autonomy, and privacy. This decision paved the way for the decriminalization of homosexuality in India on September 6, 2018. However, there is a critical examination of the judgment's constitutionality. 

• Freedom of Speech and Expression: Freedom of expression and speech is a fundamental right in democratic societies, allowing individuals to express opinions without fear of censorship. Enshrined in constitutions and international human rights instruments, it is subject to restrictions to balance national security, public order, and protection from defamation or hate speech.

• 
  

Case Analysis,

Romesh Thappar v. The state  Madras

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the Madras state's decision to ban his periodical was "cross roads." His basic right to freedom of speech and expression, granted to him by Article 19(1) of the Constitution, has been violated. The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition was only applied in situations when there was a threat to public safety, as stated in article 19(2). Situations in which such an issue could not occur, it cannot be held to be constitutional and valid to any extent. Supreme court quashed the order of Madras state and allowed the application of the petitioner under article 32 of the constitution.

• Reservation Policies: Reservation policy in India is an affirmative action system aimed at improving educational, government, and legislative opportunities for underrepresented communities, rooted in constitutional provisions and legislative frameworks, to address historical injustices.

A federal structure is a form of government in which numerous regional (state or provincial) administrations share authority with a central (national) government. The constitutionally established division of powers guarantees that the two tiers of government function autonomously within their respective spheres of influence. 

This implies to the general public that there are several levels of government, each of which is in charge of overseeing a distinct area of governance. For instance, regional administrations oversee local education and transportation, while the federal government normally handles foreign affairs and national security. 

A federal structure establishes a legal framework in which regional and national laws coexist. These laws are interpreted and upheld by courts, who make sure they comply with the constitution. Conflicts between the various governmental layers Disputes between various regional administrations are frequently settled by a supreme court or constitutional court, preserving the federal system's power balance.

CONCLUSION

A vital role in maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and individual rights is judicial review. It guarantees that government operations are in line with constitutional precepts, upholding democratic ideals and avoiding abuses of authority. Upholding justice, defending citizens' rights, and preserving constitutional integrity are the responsibilities of the court.

1. The U.S. Supreme Court and Judicial Review, Justia, https://www.justia.com/constitutional-law/the-us-supreme-court-and-judicial-review/.

2. The Constitutional Origin of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx.

3. Judicial Review in the United States, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/constitutional-law/Judicial-review-in-the-United-States.

4. Suhaas R. Joshi, Law Contempt of Court & Legislature (2023).

5. Christine Landfried, Judicial Power (2020)

6. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Interpretation of Statutes (2019).