Judicial Review in India: Scope and Limits

Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court and the High Courts to test laws, executive action and even constitutional amendments against the Constitution, and to declare them void if they fail that test. Its textual base is Article 13 (laws that take away fundamental rights are void), Article 32 (the right to move the Supreme Court) and Article 226 (the writ power of the High Courts). Since L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court has treated this power itself as part of the basic structure, so Parliament cannot amend it away.

This explainer is written for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for Constitutional Law papers, and for any citizen who wants to know why a court can set aside a law passed by an elected legislature. If you understand four provisions and five cases well, you can answer most exam questions on this topic with confidence.

Where does the Constitution give courts this power?

There is no single article titled "judicial review". The power is built from several provisions working together.

• Article 13(1) and (2): pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with Part III are void to the extent of the inconsistency, and the State "shall not make any law which takes away or abridges" fundamental rights. Any law made in contravention is void to that extent.
• Article 13(3): "law" is defined widely. It includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having the force of law. So a municipal bye-law in Nagercoil is as open to challenge as a central Act.
• Article 13(4): nothing in Article 13 applies to an amendment made under Article 368. This is why challenges to amendments rest on the basic structure doctrine, not on Article 13.
• Article 32: the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Part III rights "is guaranteed", and the Court may issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. Under Article 32(4), this right cannot be suspended except as the Constitution itself provides.
• Article 226: every High Court may issue the same writs "for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose". Those last four words make the High Court's writ power wider than Article 32, which is limited to fundamental rights.

How did the Supreme Court build the doctrine?

Learn these cases in order. Examiners reward students who can show how one judgment answered the one before it.

1. I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (decided 24 April 1973): a 13-judge Bench, by a majority of seven to six, held that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including fundamental rights, but cannot alter its basic structure. It upheld the 24th Amendment and departed from Golaknath on the amending power.
3. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975): the first application of the basic structure test, striking down the part of Article 329A, inserted by the 39th Amendment, that validated the Prime Minister's disputed 1971 election and placed it beyond judicial challenge. Most textbooks cite clause (4) as the provision struck down.
4. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (31 July 1980): a five-judge Bench struck down clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368, added by section 55 of the 42nd Amendment, which tried to give Parliament unlimited amending power. The Court held that a limited amending power is itself a basic feature. By a majority of four to one, it also struck down the 42nd Amendment's change to Article 31C, with Justice P.N. Bhagwati dissenting on that point.
5. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (18 March 1997): a seven-judge Bench held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32 is "an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, constituting part of its inviolable basic structure". It overruled S.P. Sampath Kumar (1987).
6. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (11 January 2007): a nine-judge Bench held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule by amendments made on or after 24 April 1973 are open to review if they damage the basic structure, tested through Articles 14, 19 and 21. It listed judicial review, rule of law, equality and separation of powers among basic features.

What can be reviewed, and on what grounds?

Three kinds of state action come before the courts, each with a different test.

• Ordinary laws and subordinate legislation: tested against Part III and against legislative competence. A rule, notification or bye-law falls within "law" under Article 13(3).
• Executive and administrative action: challenged through writs under Article 226 or Article 32. A tenant in Madurai facing an eviction order from a public authority, for example, would ordinarily approach the Madras High Court under Article 226.
• Constitutional amendments: tested only on the basic structure ground, because Article 13(4) excludes Article 368 amendments from Article 13.

What are the limits?

Judicial review is wide, but it is not unlimited. A good answer shows both sides.

• Amendments face a narrow test. Under Kesavananda, Parliament may amend any provision. The court asks only whether the amendment destroys the basic structure, not whether it is wise.
• Tribunals come first in their fields. L. Chandra Kumar held that tribunals remain courts of first instance in their subject areas, and litigants cannot usually skip them. Their decisions are then examined by a Division Bench of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227.
• Protected laws already upheld stay protected. I.R. Coelho said that Ninth Schedule laws already upheld by the Supreme Court cannot be reopened on these principles.
• Courts respect the separation of powers. In the Presidential Reference on assent to Bills, answered on 20 November 2025 by a five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai, the Court held that courts cannot impose fixed timelines on Governors and the President and rejected the idea of "deemed assent". It also held that Governors cannot sit on Bills indefinitely, and reports of the opinion indicate that prolonged, unexplained inaction can attract limited judicial scrutiny. This opinion revisited the approach taken in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (8 April 2025), a judgment every student in this State should know.

Where does the law stand in 2026?

The settled position is this: judicial review is part of the basic structure, Parliament's amending power is wide but limited, and Ninth Schedule protection is not a complete shield for post-1973 insertions. The live debates now are about how far courts should go in directing constitutional functionaries, as the 2025 Governor cases show. Because opinions under Article 143 are advisory, read the full text on the Supreme Court website and follow later judgments before relying on any single report.

How should you write about it in an exam?

1. Open with a two-line definition and name Articles 13, 32 and 226.
2. Explain why Article 13(4) matters for amendments.
3. Trace the case law in date order: Golaknath, Kesavananda, Indira Gandhi, Minerva Mills, L. Chandra Kumar, I.R. Coelho.
4. Give one paragraph on limits, using tribunals and the 2025 Reference as examples.
5. Close with your own view on the balance between parliamentary supremacy and constitutional supremacy. Examiners look for a reasoned opinion, not a slogan.

Students who want hands-on exposure to writ drafting can join the college legal aid clinic.

Sources

• Constitution of India: Article 13: full text of Article 13 with drafting history.
• Constitution of India: Article 32: text of the right to constitutional remedies.
• Constitution of India: Article 226: text of the High Courts' writ power.
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, [1997] 2 SCR 1186: official Supreme Court Reports text.
• I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007 INSC 28: National Digital Library record of the nine-judge judgment.
• Supreme Court Observer: Presidential Reference on Powers of the Governor and President: case tracker for the 2025 opinion and the Tamil Nadu Governor judgment.