{"id":26936,"date":"2026-06-30T07:41:13","date_gmt":"2026-06-30T07:41:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=26936"},"modified":"2026-06-30T07:53:40","modified_gmt":"2026-06-30T07:53:40","slug":"judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Judicial Review in India, USA &amp; UK: Comparative Constitutional Analysis, Landmark Cases &amp; Basic Structure Doctrine"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>&#8220;It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.&#8221; <\/em><sup>[1]<\/sup><strong>Chief Justice John Marshall<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Judicial review can be defined as the power of the court of law to review the actions of the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary itself. It is one of the great powers in the hands of the court to hold any law, rule, regulation, order, act, etc. as unconstitutional and unenforceable which conflicts with the basic structure and fundamental rights of the people.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Judicial_Review_in_India_the_United_States_and_the_United_Kingdom\" >Judicial Review in India, the United States, and the United Kingdom<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Purpose_of_the_Comparative_Analysis\" >Purpose of the Comparative Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Comparative_Overview\" >Comparative Overview<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Judicial_Review_in_India\" >Judicial Review in India<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Doctrines_Developed_by_the_Supreme_Court_of_India\" >Doctrines Developed by the Supreme Court of India<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Three_Dimensions_of_Judicial_Review_in_India\" >Three Dimensions of Judicial Review in India<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Judicial_Review_in_the_United_States_of_America\" >Judicial Review in the United States of America<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Research_Objective\" >Research Objective<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Research_Questions\" >Research Questions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Judicial_Review_in_India-2\" >Judicial Review in India<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Constitutional_Provisions_Related_to_Judicial_Review\" >Constitutional Provisions Related to Judicial Review<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Article_13_and_the_Doctrine_of_Judicial_Review\" >Article 13 and the Doctrine of Judicial Review<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Key_Highlights_of_Article_13\" >Key Highlights of Article 13<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#21_Features_of_Judicial_Review_in_India\" >2.1 Features of Judicial Review in India<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Judicial_Review_Case_Decisions\" >Judicial Review Case Decisions<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Doctrines\" >Doctrines<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Doctrine_of_Eclipse\" >Doctrine of Eclipse<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Doctrine_of_Severability\" >Doctrine of Severability<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Doctrine_of_Prospective_Overruling\" >Doctrine of Prospective Overruling<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Doctrine_of_Golden_Triangle\" >Doctrine of Golden Triangle<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Case_Laws\" >Case Laws<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#K_Gopalan_vs_State_of_Madras_17\" >K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras [17]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Shankari_Prasad_Singh_vs_Union_of_India_18\" >Shankari Prasad Singh vs. Union of India [18]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Sajjan_Singh_vs_State_of_Rajasthan_19\" >Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan [19]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#C_Golaknath_vs_State_of_Punjab_20\" >C. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab [20]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Kesavananda_Bharti_vs_State_of_Kerala_21\" >Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala [21]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Maneka_Gandhi_vs_Union_of_India_22\" >Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India [22]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Minerva_Mills_Ltd_vs_Union_of_India_23\" >Minerva Mills Ltd vs Union of India [23]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Waman_Rao_vs_Union_of_India_24\" >Waman Rao vs. Union of India [24]<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#The_Concept_of_Judicial_Review_in_USA\" >The Concept of Judicial Review in USA<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Role_of_the_US_Supreme_Court_in_Judicial_Review\" >Role of the U.S. Supreme Court in Judicial Review<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Key_Features_of_Judicial_Review_in_USA\" >Key Features of Judicial Review in USA<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-34\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#The_Concept_of_Judicial_Review_in_UK\" >The Concept of Judicial Review in UK<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-35\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Scope_of_Judicial_Review_in_the_UK\" >Scope of Judicial Review in the UK<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-36\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Human_Rights_Act_and_Judicial_Review_in_UK\" >Human Rights Act and Judicial Review in UK<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-37\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Key_Features_of_Judicial_Review_in_UK\" >Key Features of Judicial Review in UK<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-38\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Comparative_Analysis_of_India_USA_and_UK\" >Comparative Analysis of India, USA, and UK<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-39\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#i_Constitutional_Source\" >i. Constitutional Source<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-40\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#ii_Scope_of_Review\" >ii. Scope of Review<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-41\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#iii_Rights_Protection\" >iii. Rights Protection<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-42\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#iv_Interpretation_Methods\" >iv. Interpretation Methods<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-43\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Judicial_Role_and_Accountability\" >Judicial Role and Accountability<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-44\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Challenges_and_Suggestions\" >Challenges and Suggestions<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-45\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Major_Challenges_Across_the_Three_Systems\" >Major Challenges Across the Three Systems<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-46\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Suggested_Reforms\" >Suggested Reforms<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-47\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-48\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Comparative_Strengths_and_Limitations\" >Comparative Strengths and Limitations<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-49\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#Key_Takeaways\" >Key Takeaways<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-50\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#End_Notes\" >End Notes<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Judicial review and constitutional interpretation are fundamental instruments in upholding the rule of law, preserving constitutional supremacy, and safeguarding individual rights within thriving democratic societies. The doctrine of judicial review empowers the courts to examine the constitutional validity of legislative and executive actions and ensures that government power is exercised within the framework of the constitution. While the concept of judicial review is universally acknowledged, its scope, application, and interpretative methods vary significantly across different legal systems. This variation stems from differences in constitutional structures, historical evolution, political traditions, and judicial philosophies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Judicial review can be used to declare the actions of the executive, legislature and judiciary invalid or void if they violate the fundamental constitutional provisions. Through this extensive process, the judiciary keeps a check on governmental excesses and interprets the meaning of constitutional texts, while also looking at the intent of the constitution makers and keeping in mind the welfare of the people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-judicial-review-in-india-the-united-states-and-the-united-kingdom\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Review_in_India_the_United_States_and_the_United_Kingdom\"><\/span>Judicial Review in India, the United States, and the United Kingdom<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">India, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom present a different yet interrelated model of judicial review and constitutional interpretation. India has a robust written constitution which, when coupled with the doctrine of basic structure, has allowed the judiciary to play an active role in preserving the fundamental rights of the citizens and keeping the governmental excess in check so that they do not abuse their power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the United States, the concept of judicial review can be traced back to the landmark case of &#8220;<strong>Marbury v. Madison<\/strong>&#8220;<sup>[2]<\/sup>, and its courts have since then balanced judicial supremacy along with ensuring democratic accountability while employing different interpretational approaches such as the theory of originalism and the concept of living constitutionalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In contrast to India and the USA, the United Kingdom, which lacks a codified or written constitution, follows the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, and judicial review is exercised primarily for the field of administrative law, with courts increasingly interpreting rights through statutory frameworks like the Human Rights Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-purpose-of-the-comparative-analysis\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Purpose_of_the_Comparative_Analysis\"><\/span>Purpose of the Comparative Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The main objective behind this comparative analysis is to explore how judicial review and constitutional interpretation function within these three major legal systems, with main emphasis on their historical foundations, institutional structures, interpretative methodologies, and respective challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The approaches towards judicial review and constitutional interpretation vary significantly across different legal systems. While the United States established the principle of judicial review through landmark precedents and has developed vigorous interpretational traditions, India, on the other hand, has adopted and adapted the concept of judicial review post-independence and embedded it implicitly within its Constitution under a framework which was highly influenced by the British and American models. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, supports more limited types of judicial scrutiny, mostly limiting their power of judicial review to administrative activities rather than parliamentary enactments due to its uncodified constitution and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-comparative-overview\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparative_Overview\"><\/span>Comparative Overview<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Country<\/th><th>Constitution<\/th><th>Judicial Review<\/th><th>Key Feature<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>India<\/td><td>Written Constitution<\/td><td>Extensive constitutional review<\/td><td>Basic Structure Doctrine<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>United States<\/td><td>Written Constitution<\/td><td>Established through <em>Marbury v. Madison<\/em><\/td><td>Originalism and Living Constitutionalism<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>United Kingdom<\/td><td>Uncodified Constitution<\/td><td>Mainly administrative law review<\/td><td>Parliamentary Sovereignty<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-judicial-review-in-india\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Review_in_India\"><\/span>Judicial Review in India<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The idea of judicial review in India is ingrained in the Constitution of India by virtue of Articles 32 &amp; 136, respectively. Part 3rd of the Constitution of India, which talks about the fundamental rights, includes &#8220;Article 32&#8221; as a right that can be used by the people by approaching the Supreme Court or High Court to enforce their fundamental rights if violated and granted to them under Part III of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In general, judicial review can be sought on four grounds:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The legitimacy of Expectation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Irrationality<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Uncertainity of Procedure<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Proportionality<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>On the error of jurisdiction<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Though the above-mentioned grounds of judicial review are not exhaustive and cannot be categorised, they do provide a sound basis for the courts in the case of India, the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to exercise their judicial review jurisdiction in the interest of justice. If the statute or law in question is not valid, then the court will declare the statute in question or the law invalid and will refuse to grant the statute in question effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">If even a common person believes that the legislature has exceeded its constitutional authority by making a law, he or she can take the matter to the court and may sue to have the concerned law declared unconstitutional. The Indian Constitution provides for the establishment of an independent judiciary with judicial review powers over all legislation and enforcement activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-doctrines-developed-by-the-supreme-court-of-india\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Doctrines_Developed_by_the_Supreme_Court_of_India\"><\/span>Doctrines Developed by the Supreme Court of India<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court of India has formulated several doctrines based on the principle of judicial review, and they are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Doctrine of Eclipse<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Doctrine of Severability<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Doctrine of Prospective Overruling<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Doctrine of Golden Triangle, etc.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-three-dimensions-of-judicial-review-in-india\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Three_Dimensions_of_Judicial_Review_in_India\"><\/span>Three Dimensions of Judicial Review in India<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The concept of judicial review in India is based on three dimensions, i.e., &#8220;judicial review of constitutional amendments, judicial review of legislative actions and judicial review of administrative acts.&#8221;<sup>[3]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Judicial review of constitutional amendments.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Judicial review of legislative actions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Judicial review of administrative acts.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-judicial-review-in-the-united-states-of-america\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Review_in_the_United_States_of_America\"><\/span>Judicial Review in the United States of America<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the United States of America, the Supreme Court has the power to examine laws, legislation, judicial decisions, etc. to check if they go against any existing laws of the state or the federal constitutions. A judicial review mechanism is an essential part of the checks and balances system, in which the government&#8217;s court branch supervises the legislative and executive branches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(Marbury v.Chief Justice John Marshall, was one of the most prominent Chief Justices of the United States Supreme Court, and was primarily responsible for forming the authority of Judicial Review.<sup>[4]<\/sup> Judicial review was meant to be established by Marshall&#8217;s decision in <em>Marbury v. Madison<\/em> (Marbury v Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, famous historian Edward Corwin gave a clear definition of &#8220;judicial review&#8221; as the &#8220;courts&#8217; ability and obligation to overturn all legislative or executive acts of the federal or state governments.&#8221;<sup>[5]<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-research-objective\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Research_Objective\"><\/span>Research Objective<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The main objective of this comparative analysis is to explore how judicial review and constitutional interpretation function within these three major legal systems, emphasising their historical foundations, institutional structures, interpretative methodologies, and respective challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This research aims to examine and compare the framework, evolution, and application of the doctrine of judicial review and constitutional interpretation in India, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. The study mainly aims to explore the doctrines, principles, and interpretative methods employed by courts in these respective jurisdictions while also assessing their impact on constitutional governance, the protection of fundamental rights, and the maintenance of the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By analysing how judicial activism and restraint influence decision-making, the research seeks to understand the role of courts in upholding constitutional supremacy and balancing the separation of powers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-research-questions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Research_Questions\"><\/span>Research Questions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>How do courts in these countries interpret constitutional provisions, and what doctrines or interpretative methods are commonly employed?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In what ways does judicial review serve to protect individual rights, maintain the separation of powers, and ensure constitutional supremacy in each country?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>What challenges do courts face while interpreting constitutional provisions, and how do these challenges affect judicial legitimacy and public trust?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-judicial-review-in-india-0\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Review_in_India-2\"><\/span>Judicial Review in India<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Indian Constitution is a hybrid model of the UK&#8217;s and USA\u2019s constitutions. In India we follow the concept of supremacy of law and the Constitution, through which every law derives its validity and power, and the duty of interpreting the Constitution has been taken up by the Supreme Court of India through a mechanism commonly known as &#8216;judicial review&#8217;.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Although the term <strong>\u2018judicial review&#8217;<\/strong> has not been expressly mentioned anywhere in the Indian Constitution, its presence has always been felt, like it has always been omnipresent, and it is very essential to safeguard the rights of the people against the government and to act as a system of checks and balances against the government in case they exceed the powers conferred to them and infringe upon the basic rights of the people or try to change the basic structure of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The main objective behind the concept of judicial review is to promote just treatment and fairness and prevent abuse of power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the Constitution of India, we can find traces of the doctrine of judicial review embedded in Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 141, 143, 226, 227, 245, 246 and 372<sup>[6]<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-constitutional-provisions-related-to-judicial-review\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Constitutional_Provisions_Related_to_Judicial_Review\"><\/span>Constitutional Provisions Related to Judicial Review<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The following constitutional provisions contain traces of the doctrine of judicial review:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Article<\/th><th>Relevance to Judicial Review<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Article 13<\/td><td>Declares laws inconsistent with fundamental rights as void.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Article 32<\/td><td>Provides the right to constitutional remedies.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Articles 131\u2013136<\/td><td>Confer various jurisdictions and appellate powers on the Supreme Court.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Article 141<\/td><td>Supreme Court judgements are binding on all courts.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Article 143<\/td><td>Advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Articles 226 &amp; 227<\/td><td>Empower High Courts to issue writs and exercise supervisory jurisdiction.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Articles 245 &amp; 246<\/td><td>Deal with legislative powers and competence.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Article 372<\/td><td>Continues existing laws subject to constitutional provisions.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-article-13-and-the-doctrine-of-judicial-review\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Article_13_and_the_Doctrine_of_Judicial_Review\"><\/span>Article 13 and the Doctrine of Judicial Review<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">review,Article 13 of the Constitution of India is very important for the doctrine of judicial review which states that:-<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u201cAll 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Part,The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">requires \u2013In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,-<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">&#8216;Law'(a) law includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(b) Laws in force include laws passed or made by the legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.\u201d<sup>[7]<\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-highlights-of-article-13\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Highlights_of_Article_13\"><\/span>Key Highlights of Article 13<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with fundamental rights become void to the extent of inconsistency.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The State cannot enact laws that take away or abridge fundamental rights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Any law violating fundamental rights is void to the extent of such violation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The term &#8220;law&#8221; includes ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, customs, and usages having the force of law.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Constitutional amendments made under Article 368 are excluded from the scope of Article 13.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-2-1-features-of-judicial-review-in-india\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"21_Features_of_Judicial_Review_in_India\"><\/span>2.1 Features of Judicial Review in India<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The main features of judicial review in India are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Feature<\/th><th>Description<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>The Supreme Court and the High Courts exercise judicial review power.<\/strong><\/td><td>Judicial review is practised by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Supreme Court of India, then again, has the last say on whether a law is naturally legitimate.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Legal Review of Central and State Laws<\/strong><\/td><td>Judicial review can be utilised to challenge all government and state laws.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>It just relates to validity of laws, not political ones<\/strong><\/td><td>Judicial review just connects with the validity of the concerned law and cannot be utilised to address political issues.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Judicial Review is not automatic<\/strong><\/td><td>The Supreme Court cannot exercise the power of judicial review on its own, i.e., suo motu. It can only utilise it when a law or rule is directly challenged before it or when the validity of a statute is contested during a case hearing.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Judicial Review Case Decisions<\/strong><\/td><td>The Supreme Court can rule on whether the law is constitutional.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Appellate Review<\/strong><\/td><td>When a statute is declared unconstitutional, it is no longer in effect as of the date of the ruling. All actions taken in reliance on the law before the date of the judgement pronouncing it invalid are still valid.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>The Procedure Established by Law<\/strong><\/td><td>In India, judicial review is regulated by the notion of &#8216;Procedure Established by law&#8217;. The court uses it to determine whether a law has been made in line with the powers provided to the law-making body by the Constitution and follows the required method or not. When it is shown to violate legal procedure, it is rejected.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Clarification of Provisions Violated by a Rejected Statute<\/strong><\/td><td>When ruling a law invalid, the Supreme Court must cite the constitutional provisions it violates. The court must prove the laws or any component of their ineffectiveness.\u201d [8]<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-judicial-review-case-decisions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Review_Case_Decisions\"><\/span>Judicial Review Case Decisions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court can rule on whether the law is constitutional. In this instance, either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>the law continues to operate as before, or<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The statute is declared to be unconstitutional. In this situation, the legislation no longer applies as of the date of the ruling.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The law is only partially or entirely invalid. Only invalid parts or parts become non-operational, whereas other portions remain operational. However, if the invalidated part\/part is so crucial to the law that other portions of the law cannot function without it, the entire statute is rejected.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-doctrines\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Doctrines\"><\/span>Doctrines<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The following doctrines came into being by the concept of judicial review:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-doctrine-of-eclipse\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Doctrine_of_Eclipse\"><\/span>Doctrine of Eclipse<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The doctrine of eclipse applies to the laws that were enacted before the date of when the constitution of India came into force. Article 13(1) states, &#8220;Any provision that was in existence before the enactment of the Constitution would become unenforceable and unconstitutional after the Constitution is enacted.\u201d This means that at the time when the legislation was originally enacted, the legislation was legal and operational, but at the time when the Constitution of India came into force, the legislation became invalid due to the existence of Article 13. So, the doctrine of Eclipse states that the law becomes invalid till the point in time there is a constitutional ban, and when that constitutional ban is removed, the law again comes back into operation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In \u201cBhikaji Narayan v. State of MP&#8221; [9], the Court observed that \u201cthe doctrine of eclipse is applied in relation to a pre-constitution law, which was valid when it was enacted. Subsequently, when the Constitution came into force, a shadow fell on it because it was inconsistent with the Constitution. The Act is eclipsed. When the shadow is removed, the pre-constitutional law becomes fully applicable and is free from infirmity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-doctrine-of-severability\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Doctrine_of_Severability\"><\/span>Doctrine of Severability<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This doctrine states that \u201cthe Court can cut the part of the law that is unconstitutional from the rest of the legislation, i.e., the unconstitutional part of a specific provision can be separated from the constitutional part, and the part which is constitutional can remain operative.\u201d However, if the situation is such that the constitutional and unconstitutional part of the law cannot be separated or cut, then the entire law or provision is deemed to be void.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the landmark decision of &#8220;A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras&#8221; [10], \u201cthe Court struck down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as violative of the fundamental right under Article 22. The rest of the Act was held to be valid. The doctrine of severability has been applied by the Supreme Court in cases of challenge to the validity of a constitutional amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-doctrine-of-prospective-overruling\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Doctrine_of_Prospective_Overruling\"><\/span>Doctrine of Prospective Overruling<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The primary focus of this doctrine is on the interpretation of an earlier decision passed by the court of law in such a way that it is suitable to the present scenario but without causing disturbance to the original parties upon whom the earlier decision was binding, i.e., the focus of the doctrine is on determining all the cases that might come in the future without causing any disturbance to the events that happened in the past and to the parties which were bound by the earlier decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This doctrine came into being in the landmark case of \u201cGolak Nath v. State of Punjab&#8221; [11], in which the Court altered its earlier position held in the judgement of \u201cSajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan&#8221; [12] and \u201cShankari Prasad v. Union of India&#8221; [13] and hence laid down the doctrine of prospective overruling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court said that \u201cthe doctrine of prospective overruling is a modern doctrine suitable for fast-moving society [14].&#8221; \u201cThe Court upheld the validity of the 1st, 4th and 19th amendments and held that the \u201cdecision of the Court would be operative prospectively.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-doctrine-of-golden-triangle\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Doctrine_of_Golden_Triangle\"><\/span>Doctrine of Golden Triangle<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The doctrine of the golden triangle refers to the harmonious interpretation of Article 14, which talks about equality before the law; Article 19, which talks about freedom of speech and expression, etc.; and Article 21, which talks about protection of life and personal liberty of the Indian Constitution, and states that these articles are not mutually exclusive but form a \u201cgolden triangle\u201d and should be interpreted together as they complement each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court in &#8220;A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras&#8221; [15] held that \u201claw\u201d under Article 21 meant enacted law irrespective of its fairness or reasonableness. The Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India [16] judgement overruled this decision, hence expanding the scope of Article 21, and the Supreme Court held that \u201cpersonal liberty\u201d is not merely confined to freedom from bodily restraint but includes a lot of rights, including the right to travel abroad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-laws\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Laws\"><\/span>Case Laws<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The following landmark Supreme Court judgements have shaped the evolution of judicial review, constitutional amendments, fundamental rights, and the Basic Structure Doctrine in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case<\/th><th>Key Constitutional Principle<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras<\/td><td>Narrow interpretation of Article 21: Articles 14, 19 and 21 held mutually exclusive.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Shankari Prasad Singh vs Union of India<\/td><td>Parliament&#8217;s power to amend fundamental rights under Article 368 is upheld.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan<\/td><td>Reaffirmed Parliament&#8217;s constituent power to amend the Constitution.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>C. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab<\/td><td>Fundamental rights are held beyond Parliament&#8217;s amending power.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala<\/td><td>Basic Structure Doctrine established.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India<\/td><td>Golden Triangle Doctrine; expanded Article 21.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Minerva Mills Ltd vs Union of India<\/td><td>The basic structure doctrine was reaffirmed, limiting Parliament&#8217;s amending power.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Waman Rao vs Union of India<\/td><td>Prospective application of the Basic Structure Doctrine.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-k-gopalan-vs-state-of-madras-17\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"K_Gopalan_vs_State_of_Madras_17\"><\/span>K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras [17]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this case the Supreme Court adopted a narrow interpretation of the fundamental rights, particularly related to Article 21, i.e., the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court held that the \u201cprocedure established by law\u201d under Article 21 did not require due process but merely compliance with validly enacted law. The judgement established that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are mutually exclusive and independent of each other and that preventive detention under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, was constitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Narrow interpretation of Article 21.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Articles 14, 19 and 21 are treated as mutually exclusive.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Preventive detention upheld as constitutional.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-shankari-prasad-singh-vs-union-of-india-18\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Shankari_Prasad_Singh_vs_Union_of_India_18\"><\/span>Shankari Prasad Singh vs. Union of India [18]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this case the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the First Amendment Act, 1951, establishing that Parliament has the power under Article 368 of the Constitution to amend any provision of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. The Court held that the term \u201claw\u201d in Article 13(2), which prohibits laws violating fundamental rights, does not include constitutional amendments passed through Parliament\u2019s constituent power. This judgement laid the foundation for Parliament\u2019s broad amending powers and distinguished between ordinary legislative power and constituent power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>First Amendment Act upheld.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Article 368 interpreted to include amendment of fundamental rights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Constitutional amendments held outside Article 13(2).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-sajjan-singh-vs-state-of-rajasthan-19\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sajjan_Singh_vs_State_of_Rajasthan_19\"><\/span>Sajjan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan [19]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this case the Supreme Court of India, in a 3:2 majority decision, reiterated Parliament\u2019s authority to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights, by way of constitutional amendments. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 17th Amendment Act, which amended Article 31A of the Indian Constitution and added several land reforms to the 9th Schedule to protect their constitutional validity against any judicial review. The judgement further clarified that constitutional amendments do not fall under the definition of \u201claw\u201d as provided under Article 13 of the Constitution, thus exempting them from the restrictions imposed on ordinary legislation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Parliament&#8217;s amending power reaffirmed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>17th Constitutional Amendment upheld.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Constitutional amendments excluded from Article 13.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-c-golaknath-vs-state-of-punjab-20\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"C_Golaknath_vs_State_of_Punjab_20\"><\/span>C. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab [20]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this case the Supreme Court overruled the Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh decisions and held that the Parliament does not have the power to amend the fundamental rights under Article 368 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that constitutional amendments are \u201claws\u201d within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the constitution, and hence they are subject to judicial review if they violate any fundamental rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Earlier decisions overruled.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Fundamental rights held beyond Parliament&#8217;s amending power.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Constitutional amendments treated as &#8220;laws&#8221; under Article 13(2).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-kesavananda-bharti-vs-state-of-kerala-21\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Kesavananda_Bharti_vs_State_of_Kerala_21\"><\/span>Kesavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala [21]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This case is one of the most significant cases in Indian legal history, and it defined the scope of judicial review. In this case a 13-judge bench in a 7:6 decision established the doctrine of basic structure and held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, it cannot destroy the basic elements or fundamental features of the Constitution. The judgement partially overruled the Golaknath judgement, allowing the parliament to amend the fundamental rights, provided that such amendments do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this judgement the Supreme Court established the date of the decision, i.e., 24th April 1973, as the cutoff date, which means that the laws placed in the 9th schedule of the Indian Constitution prior to this date have a blanket immunity from judicial review, but any law added to the 9th Schedule on or after this date will fall under the purview of judicial review. This decision played a very important role in creating a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Basic structure doctrine established.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A 13-judge bench delivered a 7:6 decision.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>24th April 1973 was fixed as the cut-off date for the Ninth Schedule review.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Balance maintained between parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional supremacy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-maneka-gandhi-vs-union-of-india-22\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Maneka_Gandhi_vs_Union_of_India_22\"><\/span>Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India [22]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this case the Supreme Court revolutionized the interpretation of the fundamental rights by establishing the \u2018Golden Triangle Doctrine&#8217;. In this case the Supreme Court overruled the A.K. Gopalan judgement and held that Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution are interlinked and complementary rather than mutually exclusive. The judgement established that \u201cprocedure established by law\u201d under Article 21 must be \u201cjust, fair and reasonable\u201d, rejecting the earlier interpretations that allowed arbitrary state actions. This judgement played an important role in expanding individual rights and established the principle of substantive due process in Indian constitutional law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Golden Triangle Doctrine established.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Articles 14, 19 and 21 were interlinked.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Article 21 interpreted as requiring a just, fair and reasonable procedure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-minerva-mills-ltd-vs-union-of-india-23\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Minerva_Mills_Ltd_vs_Union_of_India_23\"><\/span>Minerva Mills Ltd vs Union of India [23]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this case the Supreme Court reinforced the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution, restating that Parliament\u2019s power to amend the constitution is not unlimited and that Parliament cannot destroy fundamental rights and the basic structure of the constitution. In this case the Supreme Court struck down parts of the 42nd Constitutional amendment as unconstitutional for violating the basic structure of the constitution. The court declared Articles 368(4) and 368(5) unconstitutional, as they barred judicial review of constitutional amendments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Basic structure doctrine reaffirmed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The 42nd Constitutional Amendment was partially struck down.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Articles 368(4) and 368(5) were declared unconstitutional.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-waman-rao-vs-union-of-india-24\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Waman_Rao_vs_Union_of_India_24\"><\/span>Waman Rao vs. Union of India [24]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this case the Supreme Court established the doctrine of prospective overruling and held that the doctrine of basic structure should not have retrospective effect, i.e., all law and constitutional amendments enacted before 24th April 1973 would remain valid and immune from challenges under the basic structure doctrine; however, subsequent amendments could be challenged if they violate the basic structure. The Supreme Court also upheld the validity of Articles 31A and 31B, stating that they do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Doctrine of prospective overruling applied.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>24th April 1973 is retained as the constitutional cut-off date.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Articles 31A and 31B upheld.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-the-concept-of-judicial-review-in-usa\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Concept_of_Judicial_Review_in_USA\"><\/span>The Concept of Judicial Review in USA<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the United States of America, judicial review can be defined as the power of federal courts to invalidate or declare void any legislative or executive actions that conflicts with the constitution of U.S. This authority was firmly established in the landmark case of <em>\u201cMarbury v. Madison&#8221; (Marbury v Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 <\/em>(1803)), where Chief Justice John Marshall held that the Supreme Court could refuse to enforce a law that was <em>\u201cinconsistent with the Constitution\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In doing so, the Court invalidated a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 [25] as beyond Congress\u2019s power, thereby enshrining the principle that <em>\u201cno legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid\u201d<\/em>. Judicial review in the U.S. thus functions as a key check on legislative and executive power, making the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of constitutional meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-role-of-the-u-s-supreme-court-in-judicial-review\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Role_of_the_US_Supreme_Court_in_Judicial_Review\"><\/span>Role of the U.S. Supreme Court in Judicial Review<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court has used judicial review in landmark cases to protect fundamental rights. For example, <em>Brown v. Board of Education <\/em>(1954) [26] unanimously struck down state laws establishing racially segregated schools, declaring that the <em>\u201cseparate but equal\u201d<\/em> doctrine was inherently unconstitutional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Such decisions illustrate the Court\u2019s role in adapting broad constitutional guarantees (like equal protection) to changing social values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In its interpretive approach, the Court today often oscillates between originalist methods \u2013 trying to discern the Constitution\u2019s original public meaning \u2013 and living-constitutional methods that allow the text to evolve with society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Conservative justices typically emphasise historical intent and fixed meaning.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Others accept that provisions may acquire new content over time.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In practice, the U.S. system empowers courts to invalidate both federal and state laws via the Fourteenth Amendment [27] and to strike down even constitutional amendments if they violate immutable principles, as in Marbury and later cases, or the Supreme Court\u2019s insistence that fundamental rights cannot be curtailed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Through its robust scope and creative interpretation, U.S. judicial review remains a central tool for upholding the Constitution\u2019s supremacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-features-of-judicial-review-in-usa\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Features_of_Judicial_Review_in_USA\"><\/span>Key Features of Judicial Review in USA<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>Description<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Source of Power<\/td><td>Established in <em>Marbury v. Madison (1803)<\/em>.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Scope<\/td><td>Federal courts can invalidate legislative and executive actions inconsistent with the Constitution.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Role of Supreme Court<\/td><td>Acts as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Rights Protection<\/td><td>Safeguards fundamental rights through constitutional interpretation.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Interpretation Methods<\/td><td>Originalism and living constitutionalism.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-the-concept-of-judicial-review-in-uk\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Concept_of_Judicial_Review_in_UK\"><\/span>The Concept of Judicial Review in UK<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The United Kingdom\u2019s system of judicial review is fundamentally different due to its unwritten constitution and doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As Lord Sales of the UK Supreme Court explains, Parliament is <em>\u201cthe sovereign\u201d<\/em> law-making authority; anything Parliament enacts as a statute <em>\u201cwill be accepted as such and applied&#8221;,<\/em> and there is <em>\u201cno scope for strong-form judicial review\u201d<\/em> to invalidate Acts of Parliament [28].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In other words, UK courts have no power to strike down primary legislation on constitutional grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-scope-of-judicial-review-in-the-uk\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Scope_of_Judicial_Review_in_the_UK\"><\/span>Scope of Judicial Review in the UK<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Judicial review in the UK instead operates chiefly in the realm of public or administrative law; the courts review the legality of decisions by government bodies and officials, ensuring that power is exercised within legal limits and with fair procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Established principles such as the Wednesbury reasonableness test from <em>Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury, <\/em>1948 [29], and the newer proportionality approach in human rights cases set high thresholds for overturning executive actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Courts review administrative and executive decisions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Courts ensure legality, fairness, and procedural compliance.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Courts may quash unlawful regulations or executive orders.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Courts cannot nullify Acts of Parliament.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-human-rights-act-and-judicial-review-in-uk\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Human_Rights_Act_and_Judicial_Review_in_UK\"><\/span>Human Rights Act and Judicial Review in UK<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Since the Human Rights Act 1998 [30] incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights [31] (ECHR) into domestic law, UK courts have an enhanced role in rights protection, albeit in a limited way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Under the Act, judges must read legislation in a way compatible with Convention rights whenever possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">If a conflict cannot be reconciled by interpretation, the court issues a declaration of incompatibility, i.e., a formal statement that the existing law violates human rights, which merely alerts Parliament to amend the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Crucially, even in this context, the judiciary still lacks the power to strike down the statute itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As a Supreme Court fact sheet notes, <em>\u201cno UK court\u2026has the power to \u2018strike down\u2019 legislation if it is incompatible with the ECHR.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Thus, UK constitutional interpretation remains grounded in respect for parliamentary supremacy; the courts ensure that the executive acts comply with law and rights standards, but the ultimate legal authority rests with the legislature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-features-of-judicial-review-in-uk\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Features_of_Judicial_Review_in_UK\"><\/span>Key Features of Judicial Review in UK<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>Description<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Constitution<\/td><td>Unwritten Constitution with Parliamentary Sovereignty.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Judicial Power<\/td><td>Cannot strike down Acts of Parliament.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Main Function<\/td><td>Reviews the legality of administrative and executive actions.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Human Rights Act 1998<\/td><td>Allows compatible interpretation of legislation with ECHR rights.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Declaration of Incompatibility<\/td><td>Alerts Parliament but does not invalidate legislation.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-comparative-analysis-of-india-usa-and-uk\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparative_Analysis_of_India_USA_and_UK\"><\/span>Comparative Analysis of India, USA, and UK<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The contrast between the U.S., Indian, and UK systems becomes clear when we compare their structures and doctrines:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-i-constitutional-source\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"i_Constitutional_Source\"><\/span>i. Constitutional Source<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The United States of America\u2019s and Indian legal systems are built on written, codified constitutions that explicitly, like in the USA, or implicitly, like in India, authorise judicial review. By contrast, the UK constitution is uncodified and is based on statutes, common law, and conventions. As a result, UK courts operate under the overarching rule of parliamentary sovereignty, whereas U.S. and Indian courts derive authority directly from constitutional text, e.g., Article III of the U.S. Constitution and Articles 13, 32, 131-136, and 226 of the Indian Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Country<\/th><th>Constitutional Source<\/th><th>Judicial Review Authority<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>United States<\/td><td>Written and codified Constitution<\/td><td>Explicit constitutional authorization<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>India<\/td><td>Written and codified Constitution<\/td><td>Implicit constitutional authorization<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>United Kingdom<\/td><td>Uncodified Constitution based on statutes, common law, and conventions<\/td><td>Parliamentary sovereignty<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-ii-scope-of-review\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"ii_Scope_of_Review\"><\/span>ii. Scope of Review<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the U.S., federal and state laws can be invalidated if they conflict with the Constitution. Indian courts similarly exercise strong judicial review: they can strike down statutes, state legislation, and even constitutional amendments that violate fundamental rights or the \u201cbasic structure\u201d of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In India, landmark decisions like \u201cKesavananda Bharati v. Kerala (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225)\u201d affirmed that Parliament cannot amend essential constitutional features (including judicial review itself).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By contrast, the courts in the United Kingdom cannot overturn primary legislation at all, and their power of judicial review is limited to secondary legislation and executive acts. Where fundamental rights (now in the Human Rights Act, 1998) conflict with an act, UK courts may declare incompatibility but leave the statute in force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Thus, U.S. and Indian judiciaries serve as a final check on elected bodies, whereas UK courts provide a review of legality and rights without displacing Parliament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Country<\/th><th>Scope of Judicial Review<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>United States<\/td><td>Can invalidate federal and state laws inconsistent with the Constitution.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>India<\/td><td>Can strike down statutes, state legislation, and constitutional amendments violating the basic structure.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>United Kingdom<\/td><td>Limited to reviewing secondary legislation and executive actions; cannot invalidate primary legislation.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-iii-rights-protection\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"iii_Rights_Protection\"><\/span>iii. Rights Protection<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Both the U.S. and India have well-established Bills of Rights, for example, the U.S. Bill of Rights [32] and the Fundamental Rights provided under Part III of the Indian Constitution that courts quite actively enforce against legislative encroachment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Indian courts have, through the doctrine of basic structure and by adopting a liberal interpretation method, affirmed that constitutional supremacy and rule of law cannot be overridden by ordinary politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The U.S. Supreme Court similarly interprets the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment expansively in landmark cases for example, \u201cBrown v. Board of Education&#8221; (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 US 483 (1954)), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan [33], etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The UK, though lacking a fundamental charter until 1998, protects rights mostly through statutes and common law. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act framework now allow courts to highlight rights violations, but the ultimate change depends on Parliament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In practice, the United States of America\u2019s and the Indian judicial systems impose higher legal constraints on the majorities, whereas the UK model lays emphasis on political accountability, with rights protections remaining parliamentary and conditional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>United States:<\/strong> Bill of Rights actively enforced by courts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>India:<\/strong> Fundamental rights under Part III are protected through judicial review and the basic structure doctrine.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>United Kingdom:<\/strong> Rights primarily protected through statutes, common law, and the Human Rights Act, 1998.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-iv-interpretation-methods\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"iv_Interpretation_Methods\"><\/span>iv. Interpretation Methods<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The United States of America\u2019s constitutional law debates often revolve around originalism [34] versus living-constitution [35] theories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In India judges, by contrast, have traditionally adopted a progressive or purposive style by widening the scope of rights and protection like &#8220;right to life and personal liberty\u201d provided under Article 21 and evolving the law over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Many Indian opinions cite instrumental readings of the Preamble and Directive Principles of State Policy alongside rights, leading to dynamic outcomes, for instance, expanding free-speech or equality clauses beyond their literal text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the UK, without the existence of a single foundational text to interpret, judges apply statutory interpretation and common-law principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Human Rights Act in particular requires a purposive approach interpreting statutes in line with fundamental rights wherever reasonably possible. But even here, courts demonstrate restraint; they read laws down to fit rights where they can and otherwise defer to Parliament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Country<\/th><th>Primary Interpretation Method<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>United States<\/td><td>Originalism and living-constitution theories.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>India<\/td><td>Progressive and purposive interpretation.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>United Kingdom<\/td><td>Statutory interpretation and common-law principles with purposive interpretation under the Human Rights Act.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-judicial-role-and-accountability\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Role_and_Accountability\"><\/span>Judicial Role and Accountability<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court in the USA is seen as a co-equal branch of government whose constitutional pronouncements bind all actors, as was held in the case of Cooper v. Aaron [36].<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In India the Supreme Court and High Courts view themselves as guardians and interpreters of the Constitution\u2019s core values and can invalidate amendments that violate the basic structure of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By contrast, in the UK the judges acknowledge Parliament\u2019s democratic legitimacy and supremacy. In the UK the judicial review serves primarily to ensure legality and fairness rather than to enforce an overarching constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As a result, the judges in the UK are more willing to accept political judgements in areas like economic policy or foreign affairs, intervening only where there is a clear violation of a legal right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In summary, U.S. and Indian judiciaries actively check government through constitutional review, while the UK judiciary respects parliamentary supremacy by keeping its review confined to the public law domain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>United States<\/th><th>India<\/th><th>United Kingdom<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Constitution<\/td><td>Written<\/td><td>Written<\/td><td>Uncodified<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Judicial Review<\/td><td>Extensive<\/td><td>Extensive<\/td><td>Limited<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Power to Strike Down Laws<\/td><td>Yes<\/td><td>Yes<\/td><td>No (Primary Legislation)<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Rights Protection<\/td><td>Bill of Rights<\/td><td>Fundamental Rights<\/td><td>Statutes and Human Rights Act<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Judicial Philosophy<\/td><td>Originalism\/Living Constitution<\/td><td>Purposive and Progressive<\/td><td>Statutory and Common-Law Interpretation<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-challenges-and-suggestions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Challenges_and_Suggestions\"><\/span>Challenges and Suggestions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From the extensive study it is clear that each system faces its own challenges in creating a balance between judicial power and democratic governance. In the United States of America, there is a continuing debate over judicial activism as opposed to restraint, and critics worry about ideological swings on the Court that may undermine public confidence. Both India and the U.S. must find a way to manage heavy caseloads with massive backlogs of writ petitions and ensure that powers of judicial review are not abused by frivolous claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In India, tensions arise when courts overturn popular legislation or police unpopular legislation, leading some to accuse the judiciary of overreaching or creating a constitutional seizure. Meanwhile, in the UK, proposals to limit judicial review, for e.g., by tightening leave requirements or expanding ouster clauses, have sparked serious concerns about weakening the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A general issue which can be seen across systems is maintaining judicial legitimacy, i.e., unelected judges must justify broad authority to strike down laws, so they need clear reasoning, transparency, and consistent standards to preserve public trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-major-challenges-across-the-three-systems\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Major_Challenges_Across_the_Three_Systems\"><\/span>Major Challenges Across the Three Systems<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Jurisdiction<\/th><th>Major Challenge<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>United States<\/td><td>Continuing debate over judicial activism versus judicial restraint and concerns regarding ideological shifts affecting public confidence.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>India<\/td><td>Heavy backlog of writ petitions, allegations of judicial overreach, and criticism when courts invalidate popular legislation.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>United Kingdom<\/td><td>Concerns that proposals restricting judicial review through leave requirements or ouster clauses may weaken the rule of law.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Common Issue<\/td><td>Maintaining judicial legitimacy through transparency, reasoned judgements, and consistent constitutional standards.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Several scholars and practitioners have offered various reforms to address these issues. One of the proposals is to clarify review procedures and grounds. For example, setting stricter standing rules or time limits can reduce frivolous cases without foreclosing meritorious claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Increasing the use of alternative dispute resolution or specialised tribunals for administrative appeals could streamline justice. Enhancing judicial accountability through independent oversight bodies or codes of conduct may bolster legitimacy without curtailing independence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For India and the U.S., constitutional amendments can be made to define the scope of judicial power more precisely or to protect certain amendments, though these risks politicising the amendment process. In the UK, a more durable written constitution or at least established constitutional statutes has been advocated by experts to provide a firmer and clearer basis for rights review and to reduce uncertainty about fundamental laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Across all jurisdictions, judicial training and dialogue in comparative constitutional law can promote better understanding among judges, and judges who study foreign experiences often find new perspectives. For instance, Indian courts have at times cited U.S. First Amendment cases, and vice versa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Improving transparency, for e.g., broadcasting hearings, publishing detailed judgements, and investing in court infrastructure and technology, can also help manage caseloads and maintain confidence in judicial review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ultimately, each country must adapt its review process according to its own values and structures, but common lessons include the importance of procedural rigour, restraint in politically charged cases, and a clear commitment to protecting constitutional principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-suggested-reforms\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Suggested_Reforms\"><\/span>Suggested Reforms<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Clarify judicial review procedures and grounds.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Introduce stricter standing rules and reasonable time limits to discourage frivolous litigation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Expand the use of alternative dispute resolution and specialised administrative tribunals.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Strengthen judicial accountability through independent oversight bodies and codes of conduct.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Define the scope of judicial power more clearly through constitutional reforms where appropriate.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Consider a more durable written constitutional framework or constitutional statutes in the UK.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Promote comparative constitutional law training and judicial dialogue.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Increase transparency by broadcasting hearings and publishing detailed judgements.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Invest in court infrastructure and technology to reduce case backlogs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Preserve procedural rigour, judicial restraint, and constitutional values across all jurisdictions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-conclusion\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On comparing the United States, India, and the United Kingdom models of judicial review, it reveals that judicial review and constitutional interpretation serve a common purpose of safeguarding the rule of law and fundamental rights, but they operate in very different operational frameworks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The U.S. and India both have strong written constitutions, which grant them strong review powers to their respective Supreme Courts, which have been used time and again to strike down the laws which violated the fundamental structures, and it helped in shaping the social policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The UK, though without a codified constitution, like the USA and India, relies on judicial oversight of executive action and rights-protective statutes while upholding parliamentary sovereignty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-comparative-strengths-and-limitations\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparative_Strengths_and_Limitations\"><\/span>Comparative Strengths and Limitations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Country<\/th><th>Key Strength<\/th><th>Key Limitation<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>United States<\/td><td>Strong constitutional judicial review with extensive precedent.<\/td><td>Debates over judicial activism and ideological polarisation.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>India<\/td><td>Powerful constitutional review and the Basic Structure Doctrine.<\/td><td>Judicial overreach concerns and heavy case backlogs.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>United Kingdom<\/td><td>Effective judicial oversight while preserving parliamentary sovereignty.<\/td><td>Absence of a codified constitution limits direct constitutional review.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Each model has their own strengths and weaknesses, like written constitution systems can directly enforce higher law but can risk conflict between the judiciary and legislature, whereas parliamentary systems preserve democratic decision-making but may lack an established rights culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Looking ahead, all the three systems will continue to engage with the tension between constitutional limits and political change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">At last, the comparative insights suggest that mechanisms like the doctrine of basic structure review in India, robust rights declarations in the UK, and the evolved interpretive system of doctrines in the USA each play their roles in balancing these tensions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By learning from each other\u2019s experiences, these democracies can better refine the balance between judicial authority and democratic legitimacy, strengthening constitutional governance for the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-takeaways\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Takeaways\"><\/span>Key Takeaways<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Judicial review safeguards constitutional governance and fundamental rights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The United States and India rely on written constitutions with strong judicial review powers.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The United Kingdom emphasises parliamentary sovereignty while protecting rights through judicial oversight.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Each model balances judicial authority and democratic governance differently.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Comparative constitutional learning can improve judicial legitimacy and strengthen the rule of law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-end-notes\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"End_Notes\"><\/span>End Notes<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>John Marshall CJ in <em>Marbury v Madison<\/em>, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Marbury v Madison<\/em>, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala<\/em> (1973) 4 SCC 225 (constitutional amendments); <em>Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain,<\/em> 1975 Supp SCC 1 (legislative actions); and <em>State of UP v Johri Mal<\/em> (2004) 4 SCC 714.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Likhitha Landa, \u2018A Comparative Study of Judicial Review in the United States and India\u2019 (2022) 10(2) <em>International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts<\/em> 1.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Edward S Corwin, <em>Court over Constitution: A Study of Judicial Review as an Instrument of Popular Government<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Constitution of India, 1950, arts. 13, 32, 131\u2013136, 141, 143, 226, 227, 245, 246 and 372.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Constitution of India, 1950, art. 13.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>State of Madras v V G Row<\/em> AIR 1952 SC 196; <em>Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala<\/em> (1973) 4 SCC 225; <em>Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain<\/em> 1975 Supp SCC 1; <em>Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India<\/em> (1980) 3 SCC 625; L.<em> Chandra Kumar v Union of India<\/em> (1997) 3 SCC 261.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Bhikaji Narayan Dhakras v State of Madhya Pradesh<\/em> AIR 1955 SC 781.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras<\/em> AIR 1950 SC 27.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Golak Nath v State of Punjab<\/em> AIR 1967 SC 1643.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan<\/em> AIR 1965 SC 845.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India<\/em> AIR 1951 SC 458.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Tarishi Agrawal, \u2018Judicial Review: A Comparative Study between the USA, the UK and India\u2019 (2022) 5(5) <em>International Journal of Law Management &amp; Humanities<\/em> 890.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras<\/em> AIR 1950 SC 27.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Maneka Gandhi v Union of India<\/em> (1978) 1 SCC 248.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras<\/em> AIR 1950 SC 27.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India<\/em> AIR 1951 SC 458.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan<\/em> AIR 1965 SC 845.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Golak Nath v State of Punjab<\/em> AIR 1967 SC 1643.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala<\/em> (1973) 4 SCC 225.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Maneka Gandhi v Union of India<\/em> (1978) 1 SCC 248.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Minerva Mills Ltd v Union of India<\/em> (1980) 3 SCC 625.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Waman Rao v Union of India<\/em> (1981) 2 SCC 362.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Judiciary Act 1789, ch 20, 1 Stat 73 (US).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Brown v Board of Education of Topeka<\/em>, 347 US 483 (1954).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>U.S. Constitution amendment XIV.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Lord Sales, &#8216;Constitutional Law Without a Written Constitution&#8217; (UK Supreme Court, 11 March 2025).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation<\/em> [1948] 1 KB 223 (CA).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Human Rights Act 1998 (UK).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (adopted 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953) ETS 5.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>U.S. Constitution amendments I\u2013X.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>New York Times Co. v Sullivan<\/em>, 376 US 254 (1964).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Antonin Scalia, <em>A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law<\/em> (Princeton University Press 1997) 21.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ronald Dworkin, <em>Freedom\u2019s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution<\/em> (Harvard University Press 1996) 3.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Cooper v Aaron<\/em>, 358 US 1 (1958).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/police-force-and-restraint-comparing-legal-frameworks-in-india-and-the-uk\/\">Police Force and Restraint: Comparing Legal Frameworks in India and the UK<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rule-of-law\/\">Rule Of Law<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-of-legislative-actions-comparative-study-of-india-canada\/\">Judicial Review of Legislative Actions: A Comparative Study of India and Canada<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/applying-for-a-uk-visa-a-guide-for-indian-citizens\/\">Applying for a UK visa: A guide for Indian citizens<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/doctrine-of-checks-and-balances-a-comparative-study-of-the-usa-uk-and-india\/\">Doctrine of Checks and Balances: A Comparative Study of the USA, UK, and India<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&#8220;It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.&#8221; [1]Chief Justice John Marshall Introduction Judicial<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1581,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5602],"tags":[5483,28],"class_list":["post-26936","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-judiciary","tag-judiciary","tag-top-news"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.7 (Yoast SEO v27.9) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Judicial Review in India, USA &amp; UK: Comparative Constitutional Analysis, Landmark Cases &amp; Basic Structure Doctrine - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Compare judicial review in India, the USA and the UK; landmark cases; the Basic Structure Doctrine; constitutional interpretation; and key legal principles.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Judicial Review in India, USA &amp; UK: Comparative Constitutional Analysis, Landmark Cases &amp; Basic Structure Doctrine\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Compare judicial review in India, the USA and the UK; landmark cases; the Basic Structure Doctrine; constitutional interpretation; and key legal principles.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-30T07:41:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-06-30T07:53:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Harsh Tyagi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Harsh Tyagi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Harsh Tyagi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/545e2f6d18fe983f21d3390327c454a4\"},\"headline\":\"Judicial Review in India, USA &amp; UK: Comparative Constitutional Analysis, Landmark Cases &amp; Basic Structure Doctrine\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-30T07:41:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-30T07:53:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":7275,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Judiciary\",\"Top News\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Judiciary\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\\\/\",\"name\":\"Judicial Review in India, USA &amp; UK: Comparative Constitutional Analysis, Landmark Cases &amp; Basic Structure Doctrine - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-30T07:41:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-30T07:53:40+00:00\",\"description\":\"Compare judicial review in India, the USA and the UK; landmark cases; the Basic Structure Doctrine; constitutional interpretation; and key legal principles.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Judiciary > Judicial Review in India, USA & UK: Comparative Constitutional Analysis, Landmark Cases & Basic Structure Doctrine\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/545e2f6d18fe983f21d3390327c454a4\",\"name\":\"Harsh Tyagi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/680beaca1655aeceb1c9aeff5db51278?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/680beaca1655aeceb1c9aeff5db51278?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/680beaca1655aeceb1c9aeff5db51278?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"Harsh Tyagi\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/harsh-tyagi\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Judicial Review in India, USA &amp; UK: Comparative Constitutional Analysis, Landmark Cases &amp; Basic Structure Doctrine - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Compare judicial review in India, the USA and the UK; landmark cases; the Basic Structure Doctrine; constitutional interpretation; and key legal principles.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Judicial Review in India, USA &amp; UK: Comparative Constitutional Analysis, Landmark Cases &amp; Basic Structure Doctrine","og_description":"Compare judicial review in India, the USA and the UK; landmark cases; the Basic Structure Doctrine; constitutional interpretation; and key legal principles.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-06-30T07:41:13+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-06-30T07:53:40+00:00","author":"Harsh Tyagi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Harsh Tyagi","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/"},"author":{"name":"Harsh Tyagi","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/545e2f6d18fe983f21d3390327c454a4"},"headline":"Judicial Review in India, USA &amp; UK: Comparative Constitutional Analysis, Landmark Cases &amp; Basic Structure Doctrine","datePublished":"2026-06-30T07:41:13+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-30T07:53:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/"},"wordCount":7275,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Judiciary","Top News"],"articleSection":["Judiciary"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/","name":"Judicial Review in India, USA &amp; UK: Comparative Constitutional Analysis, Landmark Cases &amp; Basic Structure Doctrine - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-06-30T07:41:13+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-30T07:53:40+00:00","description":"Compare judicial review in India, the USA and the UK; landmark cases; the Basic Structure Doctrine; constitutional interpretation; and key legal principles.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/judicial-review-india-usa-uk-comparative-constitutional-analysis\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Judiciary > Judicial Review in India, USA & UK: Comparative Constitutional Analysis, Landmark Cases & Basic Structure Doctrine"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/545e2f6d18fe983f21d3390327c454a4","name":"Harsh Tyagi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/680beaca1655aeceb1c9aeff5db51278?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/680beaca1655aeceb1c9aeff5db51278?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/680beaca1655aeceb1c9aeff5db51278?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"Harsh Tyagi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/harsh-tyagi\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26936","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1581"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26936"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26936\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27004,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26936\/revisions\/27004"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26936"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26936"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26936"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}