Judicial Review-decides question of constitutionality

In Minerva mills V. Union of India: in any democratic society judicial review is the soul of the system because without it democracy and the rule of law cannot be maintained. As a guardian of constitution the supreme court has the right to review laws and executive orders to ensure that they do not contravene the constitution Judicial review means judicial scrutiny Determining the validity of law or an order The court inquire whether a law, executive order or other official action are in conflict with written constitution If it so, the court can declare it is unconstitutional, illegal or ultra vires In a federal state with written constitution and the judiciary is considered the guardian of constitution, the judicial review is natural, because the court is the ultimate interpreter of it.

 Basis of constitutionalism- consider constitution is supreme One of the main feature of American constitutionalismAlexander Hamilton- Marbury V. Madison(Chief Justice Marshall)-judiciary to interpret the law and not enforce any law Even in America there is no explicit provision for judicial review The judiciary does not scrutinise the constitutionality of every statute law before it can become operative- it is when the aggrieved party to bring the alleged violation of the constitution to the notice of the supreme court Australia and Canada, UK, France, Swiss

Advantages
Court as a protector of rights Due process of law doctrine( procedure established by law in India) Guard of federalism Justice, equity and morality Reinstating the values of framers Checking the arbitrariness Precondition of a written, rigid and federal state

Disadvantages
Judicial tyranny Anti-democratic Narrow vote Reversing their own decision Act like super chamber of third chamber The impartiality and efficiency of judges Taking the role of opposition Violates the spirit of separation of powers They may follow the rigidity of letters rather the spirit of law

Conclusion