How is National Supremacy Related to Judicial Review? A Brief Analysis

Judicial review is the process by which the courts examine and invalidate the actions of the executive or legislative branches that are inconsistent with the constitution. It is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers, and it ensures constitutional supremacy. But how is national supremacy related to judicial review? This article will explore this question by looking at some examples from India and the United States, two countries that have adopted judicial review in their constitutional systems.

Judicial Review in India

According to Testbook, judicial review in India is explicitly provided for by Articles 13, 32, 131 through 136, 143, 226 and 246 of the Constitution of India. Judicial review upholds the supremacy of the constitution, maintains federal equilibrium, protects fundamental rights, and empowers the court as the ultimate interpreter of the constitution.

Judicial review in India has been used to invalidate laws and executive actions that violate the basic structure of the constitution, which was established by the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1970). Some examples of such laws and actions are:

  • The 39th Amendment Act (1975), which sought to immunize the election of the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny.
  • The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act (2014), which sought to replace the collegium system of appointing judges with a commission comprising members from the executive, legislature and judiciary.
  • The Aadhaar Act (2016), which sought to create a biometric identification system for all residents of India without adequate safeguards for privacy and data protection.

Judicial review in India has also been used to cause changes in government decisions that affect public interest or welfare. According to LiveLaw2, some examples of such decisions are:

  • The cancellation of coal block allocations (2014) and spectrum licenses (2012) that were found to be arbitrary and corrupt.
  • The ordering of floor tests (2016) and trust votes (2019) in state assemblies that were facing political instability or defections.
  • The direction to provide free food grains (2020) and oxygen supply (2021) to people affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Judicial Review in the United States

According to ThoughtCo, judicial review in the United States is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it was established by the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). Judicial review is the power of the U.S. Supreme Court to review laws and actions from Congress and the President to determine whether they are constitutional. It is part of the checks and balances that the three branches of the federal government use to limit each other and ensure a balance of power.

Judicial review in the United States has been used to invalidate laws and executive actions that violate the principles of federalism, separation of powers, or individual rights. Some examples of such laws and actions are:

  • The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), which sought to restrict free speech and deport foreigners who criticized the government.
  • The Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that African Americans were not citizens and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories.
  • The National Industrial Recovery Act (1935), which sought to regulate wages, prices, and production in various industries during the Great Depression.
  • The Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which held that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional.
  • The Roe v. Wade (1973), which held that women had a constitutional right to abortion.

Judicial review in the United States has also been used to uphold laws and executive actions that promote national supremacy over state or local authority. Some examples of such laws and actions are:

  • The McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), which held that Congress had implied powers under the necessary and proper clause, and that states could not tax federal institutions.
  • The Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), which held that Congress had exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce.
  • The Cooper v. Aaron (1958), which held that state officials were bound by federal court decisions on constitutional matters.
  • The Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), which upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a valid exercise of congressional power under the commerce clause.
  • The South Dakota v. Dole (1987), which upheld the federal government’s authority to withhold highway funds from states that did not raise their drinking age to 21.

Conclusion

Judicial review is a process that ensures constitutional supremacy by allowing courts to invalidate or uphold laws and actions that are inconsistent or consistent with the constitution. National supremacy is a principle that asserts the authority of the national government over state or local governments on matters within its jurisdiction. Judicial review can be related to national supremacy in two ways:

  • Judicial review can uphold national supremacy by validating laws and actions that promote the national interest or welfare over state or local interests or preferences.
  • Judicial review can challenge national supremacy by invalidating laws and actions that infringe on the constitutional rights or powers of state or local governments or individuals.

Judicial review is a powerful tool that can shape the political, social, and economic landscape of a country. It can also be a source of controversy and conflict, as different groups may have different views on what the constitution means and how it should be interpreted. Therefore, judicial review requires a balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint, and a respect for the rule of law and the democratic process.

Doms Desk

Leave a Comment