Judicial Review: Landmark Judgments

The concept of judicial review and its extent in government contracts is not unknown to Indian Jurisprudence. It is no longer res integra that source of judicial review lies in Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with its charter flowing from Article 13.

Image Credit: www.soolegal.com

Mahmadhusen Abdulrahim Kalota Shaikh v. Union of India: It was stated by the judge of Supreme Court, that judicial review forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that the violation of judicial review is another way of saying that the separation of powers between the principal three organs of the State have been violated. Overseeing the sphere of control of the other two organs of the State, the Court has power to afford protection from executive and/or legislative encroachment. Where judicial review is put off the way, the Court shall still review the constitutional validity of such an action. It would be incorrect to assume that judicial review has emerged of late.

State of Madras v. V G Row: It was observed by the judge that the Constitution of India contains express provision for judicial review. The courts have been assigned the role of a sentinel on the qui vive. In last six decades the Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that judicial review is a part of the inviolable basic structure doctrine. It is trite that any provision of law which bars judicial review is unconstitutional for all purposes. Amendments to the Constitution are subject to judicial review and hence, it becomes an important task to undertake a study of the contours of judicial review particularly in the field of government contracts. An attempt has been made in this paper to analyze judicial review in the context of government contracts dividing the themes for better appreciation of law.

Advocates-on Record-Association v. Union of India: It was ruled that the importance of the power of judicial review vested with the higher judiciary (to examine the validity of executive and legislative actions), bestowed superiority to the judiciary over the other two pillars of governance. This position, it was pointed out, was critical to balance the power surrendered by the civil society, in favour of the political and the executive sovereignty. The question which arose for consideration was the nature of the standards of judicial review required to be applied in judging the validity of the constitutional amendments in the context of the doctrine of basic structure.

M Nagaraj v.Union of India: Speaking for a Constitution bench it was held that the Constitution is not an ephemeral legal document embodying a set of legal rules for the passing hour. It sets out principles for an expanding future and is intended to endure for ages to come and consequently to be adapted to the various crisis of human affairs. Therefore, a purposive rather than a strict literal approach to the interpretation should be adopted. A Constitutional provision must be construed not in a narrow and constricted sense but in a wide and liberal manner so as to anticipate and take account of changing conditions and purposes so that constitutional provision does not get fossilized but remains flexible enough to meet the newly emerging problems and challenges.

P. Sambamurthy v. State of A P: Dealing with a special provision for Andhra Pradesh constitutionally mandated, Chief Justice P N Bhagwati, for a Constitution Bench, recorded that it is a basic principle of the rule of law that the exercise of power by the executive or any other authority must not only be conditioned by the Constitution but must also be in accordance with law and the power of judicial review is conferred by the Constitution with view to ensuring that the law is observed and there is compliance with the requirement of law on the part of the executive and other authorities. It is through the power of judicial review conferred on an independent institutional authority such as the High Court that the rule of law is maintained and every organ of the State is kept within the limits- of the law. Now if the exercise of the power of judicial review can be set at naught by the State Government by overriding the decision given against it, it would sound, the death-knell of the rule of law. The rule of law would cease to have any meaning, because then it would be open to the State Government to defy the law and yet get away with it.

Thanks for reading. Please follow and share this blog for more law notes.