Abstract
Judicial review is one of the cornerstones of modern constitutionalism, serving as the primary mechanism through which courts uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and ensure that legislative and executive actions remain within prescribed constitutional limits. The doctrine not only preserves the separation of powers but also safeguards fundamental rights and democratic values by preventing arbitrariness in law-making. While its origins are often traced to the “United States through Marbury v Madison (1803)”, judicial review has become deeply entrenched in diverse constitutional systems, adapting to their respective historical, political, and legal traditions. In India, judicial review is a constitutionally entrenched feature, deriving authority from Articles 13, 32, and 226, and reinforced through the development of the basic structure doctrine in “Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973)”. The Indian judiciary has consistently acted as a counter-majoritarian institution, striking down legislation that violates constitutional guarantees. Conversely, in the United Kingdom, with its principle of parliamentary sovereignty, judicial review has historically been more restrained. However, the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights through the Human Rights Act 1998, alongside landmark judgments such as “R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019)”, has significantly enhanced judicial oversight over legislative and executive power. This paper explores the doctrinal foundations, evolution, and contemporary significance of judicial review in maintaining constitutional boundaries in law-making. By comparing the Indian and British contexts, the study highlights the tension between parliamentary supremacy and constitutional supremacy, and examines how courts navigate this delicate balance. Ultimately, judicial review emerges as a vital safeguard for constitutional democracy, ensuring that legislative power is exercised responsibly and in alignment with fundamental constitutional principles.
Keywords
Judicial Review; Constitutional Boundaries; Law-Making; Separation of Powers; Constitutional Supremacy; Parliamentary Sovereignty; India; United Kingdom.
Citations
IRE Journals:
Raman Jee, Dr. Bhavana Batra "Judicial Review: Upholding Constitutional Boundaries in Law Making" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals Volume 9 Issue 5 2025 Page 1949-1954 https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I5-1712292
IEEE:
Raman Jee, Dr. Bhavana Batra
"Judicial Review: Upholding Constitutional Boundaries in Law Making" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, 9(5) https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I5-1712292
About IRE Journals
IRE Journals is an open access online journals established with an aim to publish high quality of research work in various diciplines. We have more than 6 years in publications. Over 2500+ papers already published.
Important Links
For Authors
Volume 8:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 7:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 6:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 5:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 4:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 3:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12