PROJECT REPORT

ON

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE ACTION IN INDIA

SUBMITTED TO:

MS. ADITI SINGH

FACULTY( JUDICIAL REVIEW)

BY:

ISHU DESHMUKH

ROLL NO. 81

SECTION B

SEMESTER VII, B.A. LLB(HONS.)

SUBMITTED ON:

OCTOBER 25, 2018

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

UPARWARA POST, ABHANPUR, NEW RAIPUR – 493661 (C.G.)

1
 Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENT............................................................................................................II

TABLE OF CASES..................................................................................................................III

I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................4

 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………….………5

 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY ………………………5

 SCOPE OF STUDY ……………………...............5

 MODE OF CITATION………………….………..5

II. PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE

ACTION...........................................................................................................................6

III. GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE

ACTIONS........................................................................................................................6

IV. WHERE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE IN QUESTION

 DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY........................................................................6-8
 DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE................................................................................9-10
 DOCTRINE OF PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING...............................................10-11
V. WHERE THE FEDERAL STRUCTURE IS IN QUESTION
 DOCTRINE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION..........................................11-12
 DOCTRINE OF PITH & SUBSTANCE...........................................................12-13
 DOCTRINE OF COLOURABLE LEGISLATION............................................14-15
 DOCTRINE OF ANCILLARY OR IMPLIED POWERS....................................15-16
 DOCTRINE OF TERRITORIAL NEXUS........................................................16-17
 DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY.........................................................................17

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………..18

BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................18

I
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I feel elated to work on the project “Judicial review of Legislative actions in India”. The
practical realization of the project has obligated the assistance of many Persons. Firstly I
express my deepest gratitude towards, Miss Aditi Singh, Faculty of Judicial review, to
provide me with the opportunity to work on this project. Her able guidance and supervision
were of extreme help in understanding and carrying out the nuances of this project.

I would also like to thank The University and the Vice Chancellor for providing extensive
database resources in the library and for the internet facilities provided by the University.

Some printing errors might have crept in which are deeply regretted. I would be grateful to
receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project.

Ishu Deshmukh

Roll No. 81

Section B, Semester VII

II
 TABLE OF CASES

 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras

 D.S. Nakara v. Union of India
 State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara
 R.M.D.C. v. Union of India
 Bhikaji Narain Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
 Deep Chand v. State of U.P.
 Golakhnath v. State of Punjab
 CIT v Hindustan Bulk Carriers
 Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. The Bank of Commerce
 Mt. Atiqa Begam And Anr. v. Abdul Maghni Khan And Ors.
 Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao vs. State Road Transport Corporation
 KC Gajapati Narayan Deo vs State of Orissa
 Balaji vs State of Mysore
 State of Rajasthan vs G Chawla
 Tata Iron Steel vs. the State of Bihar
 M. Karunanidhi vs. Union of India

III
 INTRODUCTION

Judicial review is a great weapon in the hands of judges. It comprises the power of a court to
hold unconstitutional and unenforceable any law or order based upon such law or any other
action by a public authority which is inconsistent or in conflict with the basic law of the land.
Broadly speaking, judicial review in India deals with three aspects: (i) judicial review of
legislative action; (ii) judicial review of judicial decision; and (iii) judicial review of
administrative action. In this short-paper, we are concerned with the last aspect, namely,
judicial review of administrative action. Initially with respect to Legislative action only, The
Power of the Court to determine Constitutionality of legislative acts in a case instituted by
aggrieved persons to declare a legislative act void on the ground of unconstitutionality.

Smith & Zercher in the dictionary of American politics defined Judicial Review :- The
examination or review by the courts in cases actually before them, of legislative statutes or
executive/ administrative action to determine whether or not (i) they are prohibited by written
Constitution or (ii) are in excess of powers granted by it & if so to declare them void & of no
effect.

It is necessary to distinguish between ‘judicial review’ and ‘judicial control’. The term
judicial review has a restrictive connotation as compared to the term judicial control. Judicial
review is ‘supervisory’, rather than ‘corrective’, in nature. Judicial review is denoted by the
writ system which functions in India under Articles 32 & 226 of the Constitution. Judicial
control, on the other hand, is a broader term. It denotes a much broader concept and includes
judicial review within itself. Judicial control comprises of all methods through which a
person can seek relief against the Administration through the medium of the courts, such as,
appeal, writs, declaration, injunction, damages statutory remedies against the Administration.

4
Research Methodology

The method of research adopted is doctrinal & descriptive in nature. Secondary sources of
information have been used to give the research work a concrete structure. Websites & e-
articles have been extensively referred for relying on the data. Other relevant sources as
suggested by the faculty coordinator have been referred to. Footnotes have been provided
wherever required.

Objectives of study:-

 To study about the Judicial Review.

 To study about Judicial Review of Legislative Actions in India.
 To study various Doctrines.

Scope of study:-

In this project, the author only discusses the Doctrines of Judicial Review of Legislative
actions in India. Further Articles & case laws has been discussed.

Mode of citation:-

The mode of citation of this project is bluebook 19th edition.

5
PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE
ACTION:-

 There is always a strong presumption in favour of Constitutionality of an act &

Burden of proof on facts seeking it to be declared unconstitutional.
 A state can’t be questioned on the ground of public policy.
 The courts job is only to look into & find out if it can be declared intra vires.
 When an act has resulted into the infringement of Fundamental Rights there will be no
justification in saying that a similar act was done in the past.
 Only if the Constitutionality of an act is put into question before the Court, the Court
shall look into it.
 As regards interpretation of the Validating Act, the Courts have to follow the principle
of construction as applicable to the interpretation of the original Act.

Grounds on which Judicial Review of Legislative Actions can be Challenged:-

i) Where the Fundamental Rights are in question

ii) Where the Federal Structure is in question

i) Where the Fundamental Rights are in question:-

1) DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY

 The doctrine of severability is a guardian of our fundamental rights, suppose if any of

the provisions in an act/statue is contrary to our fundamental rights then that provision
only would consider being void and it is not the whole act that becomes void.
 The nature of the provision is material, suppose if any of the provision or any sub
section is void due to its unconstitutional nature and if due to this the entire section
adopts a different meaning such that the scheme of the whole section in the act
changes, then the whole section must be declared un constitutional. The doctrine of
severability depends on validity of provisions in an act and the effect of those
provisions on the whole act itself.

6
  When a part of the statute is to be declared unconstitutional then a question arises that,
whether the whole part of the statute is to be declared void or only that part which is
unconstitutional to be declared as such.
 It is not the whole Act which would be held invalid by being inconsistent with
Part III of the Constitution but only such provisions of it which are violative of
the fundamental rights, provided that the part which violates the fundamental
rights is separable from that which does not isolate them.
 But if the valid portion is so closely mixed up with invalid portion that it cannot be
separated without leaving an incomplete or more or less mingled remainder the court
will declare the entire Act void. This process is known as doctrine of severability or
reparability.
The Supreme Court considered this doctrine in :-
 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras,1 where section 14 of prevention detention act was
found out to be in violation of Article 14 of the constitution. It was held by the Apex
court that it is section 14 of the act which is to be struck down not the act as a whole.
It was also held that the omission of section 14 of the act will not change the object of
the act and hence it is severable.
 The doctrine was applied in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India,2 where the Act remained
valid while the invalid portion of it was declared invalid because it was severable
from the rest of the Act.
 In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara,3 it was held that the provisions of the Bombay
Prohibition Act, 1949 which were declared as void did not effect the validity of the
entire Act and therefore there was no necessity for declaring the entire statute as
invalid.
 The doctrine of severability has been elaborately considered by the Supreme Court
in R.M.D.C. v. Union of India,4and the following rules regarding the question of
severability has been laid down :
(1) The intention of the legislature is the determining factor in determining whether
the valid part of a statute are severable from the invalid parts.
(2) If the valid and invalid provisions are so inextricably mixed up that they cannot be

1
AIR 1950 S.C. 27
2
AIR 1983 S.C. 130
3
A.I.R.l.951 S.C. 318
4
AIR 1957 S.C. 628

7
 separated from the another, then the invalidity of a portion must result in the
invalidity of the Act in its entirety. On the other hand, if they are so distinct and
separate that after striking out what is invalid what remains is itself a complete code
independent of the rest, then it will be upheld notwithstanding that the rest had
become unenforceable.
(3) Even when the provisions which are valid, are distinct and separate from those
which are invalid if they form part of a single scheme which is intended to be
operative as a whole, then also the invalidity ofa part will result in the failure of the
whole.
(4) Likewise when the valid and invalid parts of a Statute are independent and do not
form part of a Scheme but what is left after omitting the invalid portion is so thin and
truncated as to be in substance different from what it was when it emerged out of
legislature, then also it will be rejected in its entirety.
(5) The severability of the valid and invalid provisions of a Statute does not depend
on whether provisions are enacted in same section or different section, it is not the
form but the substance of the matter that is material and that has to be ascertained on
an examination of the Act as a whole and of the setting of the relevant provisions
therein.
(6) If after the invalid portion is expunged from the Statute what remains cannot be
enforced without making alterations and modifications therein, then the whole of it
must be struck down as void as otherwise it will amount to judicial legislation.
(7) In determining the legislative intent on the question of severability, it will be
legitimate to take into account the history of legislation, its object, the title and
preamble of it.

Conclusion

The doctrine of severability is necessary to protect the validity of the act as a whole without
which an entire act would become void due to invalidity of one provision of the act. Now it is
upto the courts to decide the question related to the effects of invalid provisions on the
scheme of the act and accordingly adjudicate the question of declaring the validity of the act
as a whole and various provisions of the act.

8
 2) DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE

The Doctrine of Eclipse is based on the Principle that a law which violates Fundamental
Rights is not nullity or void ab initio but becomes only unenforceable. It is Over
shadowed by the Fundamental Rights and remains dormant, but it is not dead. According
to Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, all laws in force in the territory of India
immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are
inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be
void. Such laws are not dead they come alive if the restrictions posed by the fundamental
rights of the constitution are removed. Also, such eclipsed laws are operative for cases
that arose before the commencement of the Constitution. Hence, the Current Fundamental
Rights eclipse the Contravening part of those laws, rendering that part of the law as
dormant.

Doctrine of Eclipse doesn’t apply to Post Constitutional Law as the language under
Article 13(2) is obligatory in nature for Parliament not to make any law which is in
violation of Article 13. Thus any law so made shall be void ab initio, which is not in case
of pre Constitutional law that shall be void.

 Bhikaji Narain Vs State of Madhya Pradesh5

In this case provision of C.P. and Berar Motor vehicles Amendment Act,
1947 authorized the State Government to make up the entire motor transport business
in the province to the exclusion of motor transport operators. This provision, though
valid when enacted, became void on the coming into force of the Constitution in
1950 as they violated Article 19 (1) (G) of the Constitution. However, 1951, clause
(6) of Article 19 was amended by the constitution first Amendment Act, as so
to authorize the Government to monopolies any business. The Supreme Court held
that "the effect of the amendment was to remove the shadow and to make the
impugned Act free from all blemish or infirmity" It became enforceable against
citizens as well as non-citizens after the constitutional impediment was removed.

5
AIR 1955 SC 781

9
 This law was merely eclipsed for the time being by the fundamental rights. As soon
as the eclipse is removed the law begins to operate from the date of such removal.

 Deep Chand v. State of U.P.

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a post-constitutional law made under article
13(2) which contravenes a fundamental right is nullity from its Inception and a stillborn
law. It is void ab initio. The doctrine of eclipse does not apply to post-constitutional laws
and therefore, a subsequent Constitutional Amendment cannot revive it. The Doctrine of
eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional law and not post-constitutional law.

3) DOCTRINE OF PROSPECTIVE OVERRULING

 The doctrine of prospective overruling was for the first time adopted in the case of
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab6 (herein referred as Golaknath’s case). Since then
it has been applied in many case laws and has also been a point of debate of many
jurists. Through this article, an attempt is made at briefly analyzing the stand of
the Indian Judiciary on adopting the doctrine of Prospective overruling.
 It basically means that judgement holds the act invalid from the date of judgement
or any future date & not from its inception.
 It is very important in this context to analyze the holding of the Judiciary in
Golaknath’s case. The doctrine is defined as
 “The doctrine of "prospective overruling" is a modern doctrine suitable for a fast
moving society. It does not do away with the doctrine of state decision but
confines it to past transactions. While in Strict theory it may be said that the
doctrine 'involves the making of law, what the court really does is to declare the
law but refuse to give retroactivity to it. It is really a pragmatic solution
reconciling the two conflicting doctrines, namely, that a court finds the law and
that it does make law and it finds law but restricts its operation to the future. It
enables the court to bring about a smooth transition by correcting, its errors

6
1967 AIR 1643

10
 without disturbing the impact of those errors on past transactions. By the
application of this doctrine the past may be preserved and the future protected.
Our Constitution does not expressly of by necessary implication speak against the
doctrine of prospective overruling."

ii) Where the Federal Structure is in question:-

1) DOCTRINE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

 The doctrine or the rule of harmonious construction is adopted when there is a conflict
between two or more statues or between the parts or provisions of the statues. As per
this doctrine the courts try to avoid conflicts between the provisions of the statutes.
 The doctrine follows a very simple rule that every statute has made for a purpose and
specific intent as per law and it should be read as a whole and interpreted accordingly.
Thus the provisions are so interpreted that the conflict between the two statues or its
provisions is avoided and each of them is given effect. For this purpose, the scope and
meaning of one may be restricted so as to give meaning also to the other.
 So, The aim of the courts are:- i) An interpretation which makes the enactment
consistent . ii) A construction which avoids inconsistency or repugnancy between the
various sections or parts of the statute. However, in the case in which it shall be
impossible to harmonize both the provisions, the court’s decision shall prevail.
 Particular law will prevail over general law.
 In case of conflict, the courts must narrow down the scope of broader one (general
law) & broader the scope of specific law.

 This doctrine was brought about to bring harmony between the different lists
mentioned in the Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. Different subjects are
mentioned in different lists in this schedule.

 However, there can be a situation where an entry of one list overlaps with that of
another list. This is the time when this doctrine comes into the picture.

11
  It was said that the words of the entries should be given wide amplitude and the courts
shall bring harmony between the different entries and lists.

The Supreme Court laid down five principles of rule of Harmonious Construction in the
landmark case of CIT v Hindustan Bulk Carriers:

1. The courts must avoid a head on clash of seemingly contradicting provisions by reading
the intention of the lawmaker in order to avoid clash among the contradictory provisions.
2. The provision of one section cannot be used to defeat the provision contained in another
unless the court, despite all its effort, is unable to find a way to reconcile their
differences. In such case, the Court’s decision shall be binding.
3. When it is impossible to completely reconcile the differences in contradictory provisions,
the courts must interpret them in such a way that effect would be given to both. It means
not to make any provision void or to destroy it.

4. Courts must also keep in mind that interpretation that reduces one provision to a useless
number or a dead lumbar is not harmonious construction. Both the contradictory
provisions should remain effective.
5. To harmonize is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it ineffective.

2) DOCTRINE OF PITH & SUBSTANCE

 Pith means ‘true nature’ or ‘essence of something’ and Substance means ‘the most
important or essential part of something’.

 Doctrine of Pith and Substance says that where the question arises of determining
whether a particular law relates to a particular subject (mentioned in one List or
another), the court looks to the substance of the matter. Thus, if the substance falls
within Union List, then the incidental encroachment by the law on the State List does
not make it invalid.
 If a law passed by one, encroaches upon the field assigned to the other the Court will
apply the doctrine to determine whether the legislature concerned was competent to
make it.

12
 Need for the Doctrine of Pith and Substance:-

 The doctrine has been applied in India also to provide a degree of flexibility in the
otherwise rigid scheme of distribution of powers. The reason for adoption of this
doctrine is that if every legislation were to be declared invalid on the grounds that it
encroached powers, the powers of the legislature would be drastically circumscribed.

Incidental or Ancillary Encroachment

The case of Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. The Bank of Commerce succinctly explained the
situation in which a State Legislature dealing with any matter may incidentally affect any
Item in the Union List. The court held that whatever may be the ancillary or incidental effects
of a Statute enacted by a State Legislature, such a matter must be attributed to the
Appropriate List according to its true nature and character.

Thus, we see that if the encroachment by the State Legislature is only incidental in nature, it
will not affect the Competence of the State Legislature to enact the law in question. Also, if
the substance of the enactment falls within the Union List then the incidental encroachment
by the enactment on the State List would not make it invalid.

 The State of Bombay And Another vs F.N. Balsara - This is the first important
judgment of the Supreme Court that took recourse to the Doctrine of Pith and
Substance. The court upheld the Doctrine of Pith and Substance and said that it is
important to ascertain the true nature and character of a legislation for the purpose of
determining the List under which it falls.

 Mt. Atiqa Begam And Anr. v. Abdul Maghni Khan And Ors. – The court held that in
order to decide whether the impugned Act falls under which entry, one has to
ascertain the true nature and character of the enactment i.e. its ‘pith and substance’.
The court further said that “it is the result of this investigation, not the form alone
which the statute may have assumed under the hand of the draughtsman, that will
determine within which of the Legislative Lists the legislation falls and for this
purpose the legislation must be scrutinized in its entirety”.

13
 3) DOCTRINE OF COLOURABLE LEGISLATION:-

 The doctrine of colourable legislation is based upon the maxim that you cannot do
indirectly what you cannot do directly. The doctrine becomes applicable when a
legislature seeks to do something in an indirect manner what it cannot do directly.

 The doctrine thus refers to the question of competence of the legislature concerned to
enact a particular law. The Constitution has already distributed legislative powers
between the Parliament and State Legislatures and each has power to enact within its
legislative spheres, marked out for it by the specific legislative entries.

 In respect of the subject-matter of a particular legislation, the question may arise

whether the legislature transgresses the limits imposed on it by the Constitution. Such
transgression may be patent, manifest or direct or may be disguised, covert or indirect.

 In order to decide to which class of subjects of legislation a statute really belongs, and
so whether or not the legislature has transgressed the sphere assigned to it, what
material is the substance of the legislation in question, its true nature and character not
its outward or formal appearance. To ascertain the true character and substance of the
enactment, courts take into consideration its object, purpose or design.

 Summing up the doctrine, Subha Rao, J. has stated in Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao vs.
State Road Transport Corporation,7“The legislature can only make laws within its
legislative competency. The legislative field is circumscribed by the scheme of
distribution of powers.

 The legislature cannot overstep the field of competency, directly or indirectly. The
court will scrutinise to ascertain whether the legislature by device purports to make a
law which though in forms appears to be within its sphere in effect or substance,
reaches beyond it.”

 K C Gajapati Narayan Deo vs State of Orissa,8 is a famous case that illustrates the
applicability of this doctrine. In this case, SC observed that the constitution has
clearly distributed the legislative powers to various bodies, which have to act within
their respective spheres. These limitations are marked by specific legislatives entries

7
AIR 1959 S.C. 308
8
AIR 1953

14
 or in some cases these limitations are imposed in the form of fundamental rights of
the constitution.

 Balaji vs State of Mysore,9SC held that the order reserving 68% of the seats for
students belonging to backward classes was violative of Article 14 in disguise of
making a provision under Article 15(4).

4) DOCTRINE OF ANCILLARY OR IMPLIED POWERS

 This principle is an addition to the doctrine of Pith and Substance.

 What it means is that the power to legislate on a subject also includes the power to
legislate on ancillary matters that are reasonably connected to that subject.
 For example, the power to impose tax would include the power to search and seizure
to prevent the evasion of that tax. However, power relating to banking cannot be
extended to include power relating to non-banking entities.
 However, if a subject is explicitly mentioned in a State or Union list, it cannot be said
to be an ancillary matter. For example, the power to tax is mentioned in specific
entries in the lists and so the power to tax cannot be claimed as ancillary to the power
relating to any other entry of the lists.
 As held in the case of State of Rajasthan vs G Chawla10, the power to legislate on a
topic includes the power to legislate on an ancillary matter which can be said to be
reasonably included in the topic.
 However, this does not mean that the scope of the power can be extended to any
unreasonable extent. Supreme Court has consistently cautioned against such extended
construction. For example, in R M D Charbaugwala vs State of Mysore11, SC held
that betting and gambling is a state subject as mentioned in Entry 34 of State list but
it does not include power to impose taxes on betting and gambling because it exists
as a separate item as Entry 62 in the same list.
 State of U.P. v. Atiqua Begum, It was held that power to legislate carries with it
power to legislate with ancillary matters, which can be said to be reasonably included
within the power given.

9
AIR 1963
10
AIR 1959
11
AIR 1962

15
5) DOCTRINE OF TERRITORIAL NEXUS

 Article 245 states that a state legislature can make laws on the territory of the state
and not on extraterritorial laws provided there is nexus or connection between the sate
and the object of the legislation.
 Article 245(1) states that the Parliament of India can make laws for the whole or any
territory of India.
 Similarly, a state legislature can do the same.
 Such laws cannot be declared invalid on the growth that they are extra territorial
according to Article 245(2).
 To determine whether a particular legislation is within the territorial nexus or not, this
doctrine is applied.
 Supreme Court applied this doctrine in the case of Tata Iron Steel vs. the State of
Bihar

6) DOCTRINE OF REPUGNANCY

 It is Article 254 of the Constitution of India that firmly entrenches the Doctrine of
Repugnancy in India. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Repugnancy could
be defined as “an inconsistency or contradiction between two or more parts of a
legal instrument (such as a statute or a contract)”.

 The relevant provisions for the purpose of solving questions of repugnancy

between a Central and a State law is Article 254 of the Constitution. According to
Clause (1) of Article 254, if any provision of a State law is repugnant to a
provision in law made by Parliament which it is competent to enact or to any
existing law with respect to or matter in Concurrent List then the parliamentary or
existing law prevails over the State law, and it does not matter whether the
parliamentary law has been enacted before or after the State law.

16
  To the extent of repugnancy, it will be void. Clause (2) of Article 254 provides
that where a law made by a State Legislature with respect to a matter in the
Concurrent List contains any provisions repugnant to the provisions of an earlier
parliamentary law or existing law with respect to that matter, then the State law
will prevail in the State provided it has been reserved for the President’s
consideration and has received his assent.

 This clause is an exception to the general rule embodied to the clause (1) of
Article 254 as detailed above. A proviso to clause (2) provides that nothing in
clause (2) shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with
respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or
respecting the law so made by the State Legislature.

 In M. Karunanidhi vs. Union of India,12 Fazal All. J. of the Supreme Court had
analysed all earlier decisions and summarised the test of repugnancy. According
to him a repugnancy would arise between the two statutes of the State and the
Union in the following situations:

(1) It must be shown that there is clear and direct inconsistency between the two
enactments (Union Act and State Act) which is irreconcilable, so that they cannot
stand together or operate in the same field.

(2) There can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the
face of the two statutes.

(3) Where the two statutes occupy a particular field, but there is room or
possibility of both the statutes operating in the same field without coming into
collision with each other, no repugnancy results.

(4) Where there is no inconsistency but the statute occupying the same field
seeks, to create distinct and separate offences, no question of repugnancy arises
and both the statutes continue to operate in the same field.

12
AIR 1979 S.C. 898

17
 CONCLUSION

The doctrine of judicial review has been originated and developed by the American Supreme
Court, although there is no express provision in the American Constitution for the judicial
review. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court made it clear that it had the power of
judicial review. There is supremacy of Constitution in U.S.A. and, therefore, in case of
conflict between the Constitution and the Acts passed by the legislature, the Courts follow the
Constitution and declare the acts to be unconstitutional and, therefore, void. The Courts
declare void the acts of the legislature and the executive, if they are found in violation of the
provisions of the Constitution.

Judicial review of legislative actions can be challenged on 2 grounds (i) where the federal
structure is in question (ii) where fundamental rights are in question.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Books Referred

 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Seventh Edition, Lexis Nexis (2016)
 Dr J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Fifty Second Edition, Central Law
Agency (2015)
 V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, Twelfth edition, Eastern Book Company (2015)

 Websites

 www.lawnotes.in
 www.academiaedu.in
 www.desikanoon.co.in

18
19