The Evolution of Judicial Review in India: From Kesavananda to Sabarimala

**A look at how Indian jurisprudence has shaped the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature** As law students, we often hear about the importance of judicial review in our democracy, but what exactly does it entail? In this article, we'll delve into the evolution of judicial review in India, from the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati to the recent Sabarimala verdict.

The Kesavananda Bharati Case: A Shift in Power Dynamics

In 1973, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, which would go on to shape the course of Indian jurisprudence. The court held that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 was not absolute and that certain fundamental rights could not be taken away by amendment. This decision marked a significant shift in the power dynamics between the judiciary and the legislature, giving the court the power to review and strike down laws that violated the Constitution.

Think of it like this: the Kesavananda judgment established that the judiciary would serve as a check on the legislature's power to amend the Constitution, ensuring that the rights of citizens were protected.

The 42nd Amendment: A Legislative Response

In response to the Kesavananda judgment, the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution was introduced, which aimed to curb the judiciary's power to review and strike down laws. However, this amendment was met with criticism from the judiciary, which argued that it was an attempt to undermine the court's independence.

As the Supreme Court noted in its judgment in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), "A free and untrammelled judiciary is the foundation of a democracy." The court struck down several provisions of the 42nd Amendment, reiterating the importance of judicial review in a democratic society.

Landmark Cases: A Pattern Emerges

Over the years, we've seen a pattern emerge in the Supreme Court's approach to judicial review. In cases such as Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), and Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the court has consistently upheld the principles of judicial review, ensuring that the rights of citizens are protected.

As Justice H.R. Khanna noted in his dissenting judgment in Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967), "If the Constitution is not to be a mere facade, the power of judicial review is essential." This sentiment has been echoed in numerous judgments, emphasizing the importance of judicial review in a democratic society.

The Sabarimala Verdict: A Modern Twist

In recent years, we've seen the Supreme Court continue to evolve its approach to judicial review, as evident in the Sabarimala verdict. In 2018, the court struck down a Kerala law that prohibited women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple, citing the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Why Does This Matter Today?

The evolution of judicial review in India is more than just a historical narrative.