{"id":3500,"date":"2026-08-11T22:11:27","date_gmt":"2026-08-11T16:41:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/judicial-review-and-basic-structure-doctrine\/"},"modified":"2026-08-12T02:57:55","modified_gmt":"2026-08-11T21:27:55","slug":"judicial-review-and-basic-structure-doctrine","status":"publish","type":"psir_note","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/judicial-review-and-basic-structure-doctrine\/","title":{"rendered":"Judicial Review and Basic Structure doctrine"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
PSIR Notes<\/a>\u203a<\/span>I-B Indian Government and Politics<\/a>\u203a<\/span>Judicial Review and Basic Structure doctrine<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Paper I \u00b7 Indian Government and Politics<\/div>\n

Judicial Review and Basic Structure doctrine<\/h1>\n
Syllabus \u00b7 Paper I-B \u00b7 3<\/b> \u2014 Salient Features of the Indian Constitution : The Preamble, Fundamental Rights and Duties, Directive Principles; Parliamentary System and Amendment Procedures; Judicial Review and Basic Structure doctrine<\/span>.<\/div>\n<\/header>\n
\n
<\/p>\n

Evolution of the SC as a Constitutional Court<\/h3>\n
\n

Article 32<\/span> is “the very soul of the Constitution and the heart of it.”<\/p>\n

B.R. Ambedkar<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Five phases \u2014 restraint to constitutional court.<\/span> P1 \u00b7 Early years \u2014 Textual, positivist; Gopalan \u00b7 Champakam; Shankari Prasad \u00b7 Sajjan Singh \u2192 P2 \u00b7 Assertion \u2014 Golak Nath 1967; Kesavananda 1973; ADM Jabalpur 1976 \u2192 P3 \u00b7 Post-Emergency \u2014 Maneka 1978; S.P. Gupta 1981 \u00b7 PIL \u2192 P4 \u00b7 Appointments \u2014 Collegium 1998; NJAC struck 2015 \u2192 P5 \u00b7 Post-2014 \u2014 executive strength; suo motu on life, food, health. Kesavananda Bharati (1973):<\/span> Parliament can amend but cannot destroy the basic structure \u2014 C.J. Sikri’s elements: supremacy of the Constitution, republican-democratic government, secular character, separation of powers, federal structure. ADM Jabalpur (1976):<\/span> upheld suspension of life and liberty during Emergency \u2014 the “darkest hour”.<\/p>\n

Justice P.N. Bhagwati<\/span> and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer<\/span> shaped activist jurisprudence (PIL areas: bonded labour, prisoners, environment, women, children, dignity, livelihood). P.B. Mehta<\/span> describes the judiciary as politicised, self-perpetuating and uncertain; Upendra Baxi<\/span> defends it for protecting the marginalised \u2014 the “Chemotherapy of carcinogenic politics of India”; Bhikhu Parekh<\/span> calls India a case of judicial co-governance. Fali S. Nariman<\/span> criticises basic structure \u2014 guardians of the Constitution may become guardians over the Constitution.<\/p>\n

UPSC 2021 \u00b7 15m<\/span>Evolution of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as a constitutional court.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n

High Courts & Judicial Review<\/h3>\n

High Courts are part of the integrated judiciary \u2014 one per state, established by Parliament (not state constitutions, unlike the U.S.); judges appointed by the President in consultation with the CJI and Governor. Article 226<\/span><\/span> \u2014 writ jurisdiction for FRs and “other purposes”, broader than Article 32<\/span><\/span>; plus appellate and original jurisdiction, superintendence, court of record, contempt, Art 229 appointments. The 42nd Amendment<\/span><\/span> curtailed writ jurisdiction; the 44th<\/span> restored it. Sir B.N. Rau<\/span>‘s proposal for Governor appointment with State Council approval was rejected to protect independence.<\/p>\n

Judicial review<\/h4>\n

The power of courts to test legislative and executive action against the Constitution \u2014 to uphold constitutional supremacy, protect FRs, maintain federal balance, prevent abuse of power. John Marshall<\/span> established it in Marbury v. Madison<\/span>. Basis:<\/span> Arts 13<\/span> (void laws), 32<\/span> (SC remedy), 226<\/span> (HC writs), 131\u2013136<\/span> (SC jurisdiction), 245\u2013246<\/span> (competence), 137<\/span> (review), 141<\/span> (binding law).<\/p>\n

\n

“The law declared by Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.”<\/p>\n

Article 141<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Landmark cases: Shankari Prasad<\/span> (1951) and Sajjan Singh<\/span> (1965) \u2014 Parliament could amend FRs; Golak Nath<\/span> (1967) \u2014 FRs could not be abridged; Kesavananda Bharati<\/span> (1973) \u2014 basic structure; Minerva Mills<\/span> (1980) \u2014 limited amending power, FR\u2013DPSP balance; L. Chandra Kumar<\/span> \u2014 review under Arts 32 & 226 is basic structure; I.R. Coelho<\/span> (2007) \u2014 Ninth Schedule<\/span> laws open to review; K.S. Puttaswamy<\/span> (2017) \u2014 privacy, proportionality; E.P. Royappa<\/span> \u2014 arbitrariness violates equality; Shayara Bano<\/span> \u2014 constitutional morality against instant triple talaq.<\/p>\n

\n

“It is a cardinal principle of our Constitution that no one, howsoever highly placed, can claim to be the sole judge of his own power.”<\/p>\n

Minerva Mills v. Union of India<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Efficacy \u2014 positive<\/span><\/p>\n