Judicial Review: A Comparative Analysis between India & U. S. A.

The primary duty of the courts of any country is to interpret the laws and enforce them, while doing such interpretation the courts are bound to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and if any law or order is violative of the provisions of the Constitution it is bound to declare them ultra vires, thus, Judicial review is a weapon in the hands of judiciary to hold unconstitutional and unenforceable any law and order which is inconsistent with the Constitution of the country. Judicial Review is one of the most important features of any democracy. It is the power given to the Country's judiciary to maintain a check and balance system so as to control the arbitrary powers of the legislature and executive. It is the power of courts to enquire the validity of law or any other action on the touchstone of the provisions of Constitution and other implied limitations. It is one of the tools to maintain the doctrine of rule of law and it also helps the Judiciary to perform the function of judicial activism. In other words judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. Judicial review stands as a cornerstone of modern democratic governance, ensuring the supremacy of constitutional principles over legislative actions. The paper delves into the judicial review systems of two prominent democracies, India and the United States of America (U. S. A.). Despite their shared commitment to democracy and the rule of law, both nations have evolved distinct approaches to judicial review, influenced by their unique historical, political, and legal contexts. This paper examines the origins and development of judicial review in India and the U. S. A., tracing its roots to the respective constitutions and landmark judicial decisions.