Introduction
Judicial review stands as a cornerstone of India’s constitutional democracy, serving as a crucial check on executive powers. This comprehensive guide explores how courts examine and regulate the constitutional powers exercised by the President and Governors.
Understanding Judicial Review
Judicial review is the courts’ power to examine actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of government and determine their constitutional validity. This doctrine ensures that constitutional authorities exercise their powers within prescribed limits.
Also Read: Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain
Constitutional Framework
The Constitution provides for judicial review through several key provisions:
- Article 13: Establishes the principle of judicial review
- Articles 32 and 226: Empower courts to enforce fundamental rights
- Article 246 and Schedule 7: Define federal distribution of powers
- Articles 361: Presidential and Gubernatorial immunity
Review of Governor’s Powers
1. Appointment of Chief Minister
- Key Cases:
- Mahabir Prasad v. Prafulla Chandra (1969): Established Governor’s absolute power in CM appointment
- Pratap Singh Raojirao v. Governor of Goa (1999): Confirmed Governor’s sole discretion
2. Dissolution of Assemblies
- Landmark Judgments:
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Made dissolution subject to judicial review
- Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): Court can reverse “drastic and extreme” actions
3. Dissolution of Ministry
- Notable Cases:
- Jagdambika Pal v. State of U.P. (1998): Established composite floor test principle
- Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016): Limited Governor’s discretionary powers
4. Assembly Operations
- Key Principle: Governor must act on ministerial advice in:
- Summoning assembly
- Proroguing sessions
- Dissolving house
5. Pardoning Powers (Article 161)
- Limitations:
- Must act on Council of Ministers’ advice
- Subject to judicial review
- Cannot be arbitrary or politically motivated
Review of President’s Powers
1. Ordinance-Making Power
- Key Cases:
- T. Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P. (1985): Established scope of review
- D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1986): Set guidelines for ordinance promulgation
2. Presidential Pardon (Article 72)
- Judicial Precedents:
- Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980): Called for guidelines
- Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1988): Defined scope of review
- Satpal v. State of Haryana (2000): Established grounds for review
3. President’s Rule (Article 356)
- Landmark Cases:
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Set comprehensive guidelines
- State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977): Addressed timing of dissolution
Grounds for Judicial Review
Courts can intervene when actions are:
- Mala fide or in bad faith
- Based on irrelevant or extraneous grounds
- Violative of constitutional provisions
- Arbitrary or unreasonable
- Exceeding constitutional limitations
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Can courts review every decision made by the President or Governor?
No, courts can only review decisions on specific grounds like mala fide intent, constitutional violations, or arbitrary exercise of power.
2. What is the extent of immunity available to the President and Governors?
While Article 361 provides immunity from personal legal proceedings, their official actions remain subject to judicial review.
3. How does judicial review protect democratic principles?
Judicial review ensures constitutional authorities act within their powers and protects citizens’ fundamental rights and federal structure.
Conclusion
Judicial review of Presidential and Gubernatorial powers represents a crucial balance between executive discretion and constitutional limits. Through numerous landmark judgments, Indian courts have developed a robust framework ensuring these powers serve their intended constitutional purpose while preventing misuse.
Reference: slideshare.net
