COMPARATIVE STUDY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER INDIAN AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

AUTHOR – PRAJAKTA GAJARMAL, STUDENT OF DES SHRI NAVALMAL FIRODIA LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

BEST CITATION – PRAJAKTA GAJARMAL, COMPARATIVE STUDY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER INDIAN AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 5 (12) OF 2025, PG. 699-705, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344

ABSTRACT

                Judicial review stands as a cornerstone of constitutional democracy; acting as a safeguard for individual rights and ensuring the supremacy of the constitution. This comparative study delves into the intricate mechanisms of judicial review under the Indian and American Constitution, examining their historical evolution, current practices and impact on the legal and political landscape. While both nations have embraced judicial review as a tool to balance power, the application and scope in India and the United States have diverged significantly due to differences in legal traditions, political environments, and constitutional frameworks. Judicial review in the United States was solidified by the landmark case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, whereas in India, it was introduced gradually through judicial interpretation, most notably post the landmark case of Kesavanda Bharti in 1973. This study explores the tension between judicial review and democratic principle in both nations, with a focus on how courts in each system navigate the delicate balance of power between the judiciary, legislature and executive. The central research problem is the extent to which judicial review has evolved to serve as an effective check on governmental overreach without undermining the democratic process. The hypothesis posits that while both systems aim to preserve constitutional integrity, the broader scope of judicial activism in India has led to different outcomes compared to the more restrained approach in the United States. To enhance the efficacy of judicial review while safeguarding democratic values, including the consideration of limits on judicial intervention and enhancing transparency in the judicial process. The research paper analyse the development of judicial review in both constitutional systems, critically compare their current frameworks, and propose reforms that can ensure a balanced and effective judicial review system that upholds the core principles of democracy and constitutionalism.