The two provisions of the Constitution of India that most clearly express the power of judicial review are:

1. Introduction to Judicial Review and Constitutionalism (basic)

Welcome to your first step in mastering the Indian Judiciary! To understand Judicial Review, we must first start with the concept of Constitutionalism. Simply put, constitutionalism is the idea that a government's power is not absolute; it is limited by a fundamental law (the Constitution). In India, the Constitution is supreme, and for any law or executive action to be valid, it must conform to this supreme law. Judicial Review is the mechanism through which the courts—specifically the Supreme Court and High Courts—exercise this oversight to ensure that the legislature and executive do not overstep their boundaries.

While the phrase 'Judicial Review' is never explicitly mentioned in the text of our Constitution, the power is woven into its very fabric. The Supreme Court has described itself as the 'sentinel on the qui vive'—a watchful guardian—assigned the role of protecting the fundamental rights of citizens Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 27, p.297. This power is not just a policy choice; it is a necessity for maintaining the federal balance and protecting individual liberties against potential state overreach.

The exercise of this power generally rests on three pillars of validity. A law can be challenged if:

• It infringes upon Fundamental Rights (Part III).
• It is outside the legislative competence of the authority that framed it (e.g., a State making a law on a Union subject).
• It is repugnant (contradictory) to other constitutional provisions Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 27, p.298.

Feature	Substantive Basis	Procedural Mechanism
Role	Declares the 'Rule' that inconsistent laws are void.	Provides the 'Remedy' to approach the court.
Key Article	Article 13	Articles 32 & 226

While Article 13 provides the legal logic that any law violating Fundamental Rights is 'null and void', it is Article 32 (for the Supreme Court) and Article 226 (for High Courts) that actually give the judiciary the 'teeth' to enforce this logic. Article 32 is so vital that it is often called the 'cornerstone' of the Constitution, as it guarantees the right to move the court for the enforcement of rights Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Chapter 8, p.152.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 27: Judicial Review, p.297-298; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.152

2. Constitutional Supremacy vs. Parliamentary Sovereignty (intermediate)

To understand Judicial Review, we must first look at two opposing philosophies of governance: Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Supremacy. In the British system, Parliament is supreme; it can make or unmake any law, and no court can declare its Acts unconstitutional. Conversely, the American system leans toward Judicial Supremacy, where the Supreme Court uses the broad 'due process of law' to scrutinize and invalidate legislative actions. Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.29

India, however, does not strictly follow either extreme. Instead, our founding fathers chose a synthesis of both. This is anchored in the principle of Constitutional Supremacy. In India, the Constitution is the 'Grundnorm' or the ultimate source of power. Neither the Parliament nor the Judiciary is absolute; both must function within the boundaries set by the written Constitution. While the Parliament has the power to legislate and even amend the Constitution, the Judiciary has the power to ensure these laws do not violate the document's basic structure or Fundamental Rights. Introduction to the Constitution of India, Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.92

A crucial distinction lies in the scope of this power. Traditionally, the scope of judicial review in India was considered narrower than in the USA. This is because Article 21 of the Indian Constitution originally emphasized 'procedure established by law' (checking if the correct legal steps were followed) rather than the American 'due process of law' (which allows courts to check if the law itself is fair and just). However, through various judgments, the Indian Supreme Court has moved closer to the American model to protect citizen liberties. Indian Polity, Judicial Review, p.298

Feature	UK (Parliamentary Sovereignty)	USA (Judicial Supremacy)	India (Constitutional Supremacy)
Final Authority	Parliament	Supreme Court	The Constitution
Judicial Review	Non-existent/Limited	Very broad (Due Process)	Synthesized (Procedure Established by Law)
Nature	Unwritten Constitution	Written Constitution	Written & Detailed Constitution

Sources: Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.29; Introduction to the Constitution of India, Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.92; Indian Polity, Judicial Review, p.298

3. Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances (basic)

Imagine a government where the same person makes the laws, enforces them, and also decides if you’ve broken them. That is a recipe for tyranny! To prevent this, the doctrine of Separation of Powers was developed. It suggests that the powers of the state should be divided into three distinct branches: the Legislature (to make laws), the Executive (to implement laws), and the Judiciary (to interpret and apply laws).

While some countries like the USA follow a "rigid" separation, India follows a more flexible model. Here, the Executive is actually part of the Legislature (the Prime Minister and Ministers are also Members of Parliament). However, to ensure that this overlap doesn't lead to an abuse of power, we use a system of Checks and Balances. This means each branch has some authority to oversee and "check" the others. For example, even though the Executive has the power to appoint judges Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, The Union Executive, p.212, the Judiciary has the power to review and strike down actions of the Executive or laws made by the Legislature if they are unconstitutional Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Judicial Review, p.298.

Judicial Review is the ultimate tool in this system of Checks and Balances. It ensures that no branch exercises "unguided and uncontrolled discretionary power" Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, World Constitutions, p.761. By reviewing the actions of the other two branches, the courts ensure that the Supremacy of the Constitution is maintained and that no branch steps outside its assigned boundaries.

Branch	Primary Function	How it is Checked (Example)
Legislature	Enacting Laws	The Judiciary can declare a law 'void' if it violates rights.
Executive	Implementing Laws	The Legislature can pass a 'No-Confidence Motion'.
Judiciary	Interpreting Laws	The Executive/President appoints the judges Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, p.212.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The Union Executive, p.212; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 27: Judicial Review, p.298; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), World Constitutions, p.761

4. Independence of the Judiciary (intermediate)

Imagine a football match where the referee is employed by one of the teams. Could you ever trust their whistle? In a democracy, the government is often the most frequent litigant (party in a case) before the courts. For Judicial Review to be meaningful, the judge must be entirely free from the 'fear or favour' of the government. This is why the Independence of the Judiciary is considered a Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution.

The Constitution ensures this independence through a multi-layered shield. First, it addresses the Security of Tenure. Judges are not 'at the pleasure' of the President; they can only be removed through a rigorous, quasi-judicial process in Parliament on grounds of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, Judiciary, p.126. This high bar ensures that a judge can strike down an unconstitutional law without worrying about losing their job the next morning.

Second, the judiciary is financially autonomous. To prevent the legislature from using the 'power of the purse' to bully the courts, the salaries and pensions of judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund. This means these expenses are not subject to an annual vote in the legislature M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.357. Furthermore, their conduct cannot be discussed in Parliament or State Legislatures, except during a removal motion, protecting them from political mud-slinging M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.356.

Provision	Purpose for Independence
Mode of Appointment	Involvement of the CJI curtails the absolute discretion of the Executive M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.356.
No Practice after Retirement	Prevents judges from being influenced by future employment prospects in lower courts.
Power to Punish for Contempt	Allows the court to maintain its dignity and enforce its authority against interference.

Sources: Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, Judiciary, p.126; M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.356-357

5. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Locus Standi (exam-level)

In traditional jurisprudence, the doors of the court were only open to the aggrieved party—the person whose rights were directly violated. This is the rule of Locus Standi (the right to be heard). However, as we moved toward a welfare state, the judiciary realized that the poor, illiterate, and marginalized often lack the resources or awareness to approach the courts. To bridge this gap, pioneers like Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer introduced Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which effectively relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 28, p.309. Under this new doctrine, any public-spirited citizen or social organization can move the court on behalf of a person or group who, due to their socially or economically disadvantaged position, cannot seek legal redress themselves.

PIL is not just a legal tool; it is a mechanism for Social Action Litigation (SAL). It allows the judiciary to exercise its power of Judicial Review over the executive and legislature to protect the collective rights of the public. This is most frequently exercised through Article 32 in the Supreme Court and Article 226 in the High Courts Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 28, p.311. By allowing 'class action,' the court ensures that the Rule of Law reaches the humblest member of society, turning the judiciary from a passive arbiter into an active protector of constitutional values.

Feature	Traditional Litigation	Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Locus Standi	Strict (Only the victim can sue)	Relaxed (Any citizen can sue for the public good)
Purpose	Vindication of private rights	Vindication of public interest/constitutional rights
Nature	Adversarial (Person vs. Person)	Collaborative/Inquisitorial (Court vs. Injustice)

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 28: Public Interest Litigation, p.309; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 28: Public Interest Litigation, p.311

6. Article 13: The Substantive Power of Judicial Review (intermediate)

Welcome back! In our journey through judicial review, we’ve arrived at the very foundation of this power in India: Article 13. While later we will discuss how the courts act (the procedure), Article 13 provides the substantive mandate—it is the constitutional command that says any law infringing upon Fundamental Rights (FRs) simply cannot stand. Think of it as the "Filter of Constitutionality."

Article 13 is unique because it explicitly provides for the Doctrine of Judicial Review M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 7, p.77. It does this by dividing laws into two categories:

• Article 13(1) - Pre-Constitutional Laws: These are laws that existed before January 26, 1950. They aren't completely dead, but they become void to the extent they clash with the new Fundamental Rights.
• Article 13(2) - Post-Constitutional Laws: This is a strict prohibition. It tells the State: "You shall not make any law that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights." Any law made in defiance of this is void from its inception.

To ensure the judiciary doesn't have to throw away an entire massive Act just because of one small faulty sentence, the courts developed two vital interpretations derived from Article 13:

Doctrine	Core Logic
Severability	If the invalid part of a law can be separated (severed) from the valid part, the court will only strike down the invalid portion. The rest of the law stays alive M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 80, p.647.
Eclipse	Mainly for pre-constitutional laws. An inconsistent law isn't "killed"; it is overshadowed or "eclipsed" by a Fundamental Right. If that Right is later amended, the law can become active again M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 80, p.650.

Interestingly, legal giants like D.D. Basu note that Article 13 was technically inserted out of "abundant caution." Even if it didn't exist, the very nature of a written Constitution with limited State powers would mean the courts could still invalidate laws that cross those limits D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Chapter 25, p.346. However, having it written down makes the power of judicial review explicit and undeniable.

Sources: Indian Polity, Fundamental Rights, p.77; Indian Polity, Important Doctrines of Constitutional Interpretation, p.647; Indian Polity, Important Doctrines of Constitutional Interpretation, p.650; Introduction to the Constitution of India, The Supreme Court, p.346

7. Articles 32 and 226: The Procedural Engines of Review (exam-level)

If Article 13 is the substantive heart of judicial review—declaring that laws violating Fundamental Rights (FRs) are void—then Articles 32 and 226 are the procedural engines that make that heart beat. Without a mechanism to approach a court, a constitutional right is merely a "paper tiger." As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously noted, Article 32 is the "very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it" because it transforms rights from abstract promises into enforceable realities Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 7, p.97.

Article 32 is unique because the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of FRs is itself a Fundamental Right Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Chapter 8, p.152. This means the Supreme Court cannot refuse to entertain a petition alleging a violation of FRs; it is the guarantor and defender of these rights. In contrast, Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue directions and writs not just for FRs, but also for "any other purpose" (legal rights). Interestingly, this makes the High Court's writ jurisdiction wider in scope than that of the Supreme Court Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 7, p.99.

Feature	Article 32 (Supreme Court)	Article 226 (High Courts)
Scope	Enforcement of Fundamental Rights only.	Enforcement of Fundamental Rights and ordinary legal rights ("any other purpose").
Nature of Remedy	A Fundamental Right itself; SC cannot refuse to exercise it.	A discretionary power; HC may refuse to exercise it if an alternative remedy exists.
Territorial Jurisdiction	Throughout the territory of India.	Within its state or where the cause of action arises.

While the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for the enforcement of FRs is original (you can go there directly), it is not exclusive. It is concurrent with the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 7, p.98. To provide this protection, the courts use five specialized instruments known as writs: Habeas Corpus (to release the unlawfully detained), Mandamus (to command duty), Prohibition and Certiorari (to restrain or quash lower court actions), and Quo-Warranto (to challenge the legality of holding a public office).

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 7: Fundamental Rights, p.97-99; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Chapter 8: Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties, p.152

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the theoretical foundations of the Judicial System and the Basic Structure Doctrine, this question tests your ability to identify the functional machinery of the Constitution. While the concept of Judicial Review is woven throughout our constitutional fabric, it requires a specific procedural bridge to move from a violation of rights to a legal remedy. You must connect your knowledge of writ jurisdiction to the broader power of the courts to oversee legislative and executive actions. As noted in M. Laxmikanth’s Indian Polity, while Article 13 provides the theoretical basis for review, it is the remedial power that makes it operational.

To arrive at (B) Article 32 and Article 226, you should reason that judicial review is effectively the power to strike down unconstitutional acts. Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) is the 'Heart and Soul' of the Constitution because it grants the Supreme Court the express power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Similarly, Article 226 provides High Courts with even broader powers to issue writs for both Fundamental Rights and 'any other purpose.' Together, these articles serve as the primary conduits through which the judiciary exercises its supervisory role over the other branches of government, ensuring constitutional supremacy.

UPSC often uses distractor articles that sound important but serve different functions. For instance, in Option (D), Article 143 refers to the Advisory Jurisdiction of the President to consult the Supreme Court, which is not an exercise of review. Article 44 (Uniform Civil Code) in Option (C) is a Directive Principle, while Article 21 in Option (A) is a substantive right that is protected by review, rather than being the source of the power itself. By recognizing that Article 32 and 226 are the only pair that explicitly establishes the original jurisdiction for constitutional enforcement, you can confidently eliminate the traps and select the correct procedural mechanism.