Judicial Review, Activism, PIL & Tribunals

📄 From your Polity Notes PDF

⚖️ 1. Judicial Review — Chapter 27

The doctrine of Judicial Review originated in the USA. The Supreme Court has declared judicial review a Basic Feature of the Constitution — it cannot be curtailed or excluded, even by a constitutional amendment.

Meaning: the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State Governments — if found violative of the Constitution, they are declared void. Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri divided Judicial Review into three heads: (i) Constitutional Amendments, (ii) Legislation of Parliament, State Legislatures & Subordinate Legislation, (iii) Administrative action of the Union & State and authorities under the State.

Landmark Cases — Evolution of Judicial Review Power

Golaknath Case (1967)
Bank Nationalisation Case (1970)
Privy Purses Abolition (1971)
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973) — propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine
Minerva Mills Case (1980)

2015: Following the 99th CAA, 2014 (the NJAC Act, 2014), the Supreme Court declared it void — reaffirming judicial review as an un-amendable basic feature.

Why Judicial Review matters: upholds the supremacy of the Constitution • maintains federal equilibrium • protects citizens' Fundamental Rights.

Constitutional Provisions for Judicial Review

Article	Subject Matter
Art. 13	Any law in derogation of Fundamental Rights shall be null and void.
Art. 32	SC to issue directions/writs/orders for enforcement of FRs — original jurisdiction.
Art. 131	Original jurisdiction of SC in Centre-State and inter-State disputes.
Art. 132–134	Appellate jurisdiction of SC in constitutional, civil, and criminal cases.
Art. 134-A	Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court from a High Court.
Art. 135	SC to exercise the jurisdiction and powers of the Federal Court.
Art. 136	SC to grant special leave to appeal from any court/tribunal.
Art. 143	President's power to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Art. 226	Empowers High Courts to issue directions/orders/writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights (or other rights).
Art. 227	High Court's power of superintendence over all courts & tribunals within its territory.
Art. 245 / 246	Territorial extent of laws; Union, State & Concurrent Lists.
Art. 251 & 254	Central law prevails over a repugnant State law, to the extent of the repugnancy.
Art. 372	Continuance in force of pre-Constitution laws.

Scope: India vs. USA — India's scope is narrower. While determining a law's constitutionality, the Indian Supreme Court examines only the substantive question — whether the law is within the authority's powers — a more procedural test than the US approach.

Judicial Review of the 9th Schedule

Added by the 1st CAA, 1951 — originally 13 Acts & regulations; now 284, mostly land reforms and abolition of the Zamindari system.
I.R. Coelho Case (2007): no blanket immunity from judicial review for 9th Schedule laws — only laws added after 24 April 1973 (the Kesavananda Bharati judgment date) are subject to review.
It was on that same date that the SC first propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Conclusions after the ruling: a law violating a Fundamental Right can be cancelled; every constitutional amendment must be tested against Arts. 14, 19, 21 etc.; the 9th Schedule gives no total protection; past actions before 24 April 1973 remain valid.

⚖️ 2. Tribunals — Chapter 30

Originally absent from the Constitution — added by the 42nd CAA, 1976, via two Articles: Art. 323A (Administrative Tribunals — recruitment disputes for public services only) and Art. 323B (other tribunals — a wide range of matters, subject to legislative competence). A hierarchy of tribunals may replace the High Court & ordinary Civil Court for these disputes. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (under Art. 323A) authorises the Central Government to establish a Central Administrative Tribunal, State Administrative Tribunals, and a Joint Administrative Tribunal.

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)

Set up in 1985, principal bench at Delhi; currently 17 benches (in High Court cities, plus 2 at Jaipur and Lucknow), with circuit sittings at High Court seats.
Exercises original jurisdiction on recruitment of public servants (All India Services, Central Civil Services, etc.)
Composition: 1 Chairman (no Vice-Chairman — removed after the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006; term till age 65) + Members (term till age 67, or 5 years, whichever is earlier).
Appointed by the President, on the recommendation of a Search-cum-Selection Committee chaired by a sitting SC Judge (nominated by the CJI), and approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).

Chandra Kumar Case (1997): a person can go directly to the Supreme Court without approaching the High Court first; CAT orders cannot be appealed directly in a High Court.

SATs & JAT: the 1985 Act empowers the Centre to establish State Administrative Tribunals on the concerned State's request; SATs exercise CAT's jurisdiction within their State; Chairman/Members appointed by the President after consulting the Governor. A Joint Administrative Tribunal (JAT) covers 2+ States, appointed the same way. So far, 9 SATs exist: Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra — Haryana has also requested one.

Art. 323B covers: Taxation • Foodstuffs • Rent & Tenancy Rights • Land Reforms • Ceiling & Urban Property • Industrial & Labour • Foreign Exchange, Import & Export • Election to Parliament & State Legislature.

🔨 3. Judicial Activism & Judicial Restraint — Chapter 28

Judicial Restraint is the antithesis of Judicial Activism — self-control exercised by the judiciary. Judicial Activism originated in the USA, first coined in 1947 by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. In India, it began in the mid-1970s, with foundations laid by V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, O. Chinnappa Reddy & D.A. Desai.

Judges take bold decisions for social change; courts protect people's rights strongly.
Judges interpret law creatively for the public good, sometimes using their own understanding of society's good.
Courts expand access to justice.

Formal meaning: the proactive role of the judiciary in protecting citizens' rights and promoting justice — forcing the Legislature and Executive to discharge their constitutional duties. PIL is an outcome of Judicial Activism.

Justification: near collapse of responsible government • judiciary stepping in to protect rights/freedoms • judicial enthusiasm for social reform • legislative vacuum in unlegislated areas • the Constitution gives the judiciary scope to legislate interstitially.

Activators of Judicial Activism (per Upendra Baxi)

Rights & Welfare-Based Groups	Institutional & Accountability-Based Groups
Civil Rights Activists	Custodial Rights Groups (prisoners)
People's Groups (social & economic rights)	Property Rights Groups
Consumers' Groups	Indigenous Peoples' Groups
Bonded Labour Groups	Women's Groups
Citizens for Environmental Action	Bar-based Groups (judicial accountability)
Groups against Large Irrigation Projects	Media Autonomy Groups
Rights of the Child Groups	Assorted Lawyer-based Groups / Individual Petitioners

Fears of Judicial Activism (Baxi): Ideological Fears (legislative & executive powers) • Epistemic Fears (knowledge, tech. & scientific matters) • Management Fears • Legitimation Fears (depletion of symbolic & instrumental authority) • Democratic Fears • Biographic Fears.

Judicial Restraint contends that judges' role should be scrupulously limited — merely to say what the law is.

Courts are not elected, so are less democratic.
Judicial review isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Concern for separation of powers.

Assumptions of Judicial Restraint (India): Federal — power divided between Centre and States • courts depend on public trust, so shouldn't cross limits • courts shouldn't behave like politicians.

Supreme Court's own observations: judges cannot cross limits or take over other organs' functions; must know their limits and not try to run the government; Judicial Activism shouldn't become "Judicial Adventurism"; courts must not embarrass administrative authorities; judicial encroachment is a concern (cases pending up to half a century); the judiciary lacks the expertise/resources for many executive functions. Judicial Restraint accomplishes: (1) equality of the other two branches, (2) protecting the judiciary's own independence.

📢 4. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Chapter 29

PIL is an outcome of Judicial Activism. Also known as Social Action Litigation (SAL), Class Litigation (CLL), Social Interest Litigation (SIL). Originated in the USA in the 1960s; Justice Krishna Iyer & Justice P.N. Bhagwati are its pioneers in India.

PIL is an exception to the traditional locus standi rule (only a person whose own rights are infringed can move the court) — under PIL, a public-spirited citizen or social organisation can move the court on behalf of others.

Real purpose: vindication of the Rule of Law • facilitating effective access to justice for socially/economically weaker sections (EWS) • meaningful realisation of Fundamental Rights.

Scope of PIL

In 1988, the Supreme Court formulated guidelines, later modified in 1993 & 2003.

Will Be Considered PIL	Will NOT Be Considered PIL
Bonded labour matters	Landlord-tenant matters
Neglected children	Service matters, and pension & gratuity
Labour law matters	Admission to medical & other educational institutions
Petitions from jails, riot victims	Petitions for early hearing of pending cases
Petitions against police refusing to register a complaint	Complaints against Central/State Govt departments, local bodies
Petitions against atrocities on women	—
Petitions against torture of villagers by police/authorities	—
Petitions against environmental pollution	—
Family pension matters	—

Courts exercise powers under Arts. 32 & 226 to protect citizens' Fundamental Rights.
Courts treat letters/telegrams as PIL when enforcing a fundamental right affecting large numbers of people.
The locus standi rule has been relaxed for weaker sections.
Courts can appoint commissions or bodies to investigate allegations and find facts.
A High Court should ordinarily not entertain a PIL where the dispute is essentially between two private parties — courts step in mainly to invoke Arts. 14, 21, and international human-rights conventions on fair trial.

Guidelines for admitting a PIL: encourage only genuine & bona fide PILs • each High Court should formulate rules encouraging genuine filings • verify the petitioner's credentials prima facie • verify the PIL's content.

Features of PIL: involves larger public interest, no personal gain for the petitioner • not a fight between two private parties • protects constitutional/legal rights of poor and disadvantaged people • a cooperative effort between petitioners, State and Court for social justice • corrects public wrongs and protects collective rights • courts play an active, creative role rather than passive • follows a flexible but judicially principled procedure.

📖 5. Quick Reference — Key Articles & Case Laws

Article	Subject Matter
Art. 13	Any law in derogation of Fundamental Rights shall be null and void.
Art. 32 / 226	Right to constitutional remedies — SC/High Courts to issue writs to enforce Fundamental Rights.
Art. 131–136	Original / appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Art. 143	President's power to seek the Supreme Court's opinion.
Art. 227	High Court's power of superintendence over subordinate courts & tribunals.
Art. 245 / 246	Territorial extent of laws; distribution of legislative powers (Union/State/Concurrent Lists).
Art. 251 / 254	Repugnancy between Central and State law — Central law prevails.
Art. 323A	Administrative Tribunals — recruitment & service matters.
Art. 323B	Other Tribunals — taxation, land reforms, foreign exchange, elections, etc.
Art. 372	Continuance in force of pre-Constitution laws.
9th Schedule	Added by the 1st CAA, 1951; laws placed here after 24 Apr 1973 are subject to judicial review (I.R. Coelho, 2007).

Case	Holding
Golaknath (1967)	Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
Kesavananda Bharati (1973)	Propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine; Parliament's amending power under Art. 368 is not unlimited.
Minerva Mills (1980)	Reinforced the Basic Structure Doctrine; judicial review itself held part of the basic structure.
Chandra Kumar (1997)	Tribunal orders cannot be directly appealed in a High Court; appeal lies to the Supreme Court, bypassing the HC.
I.R. Coelho (2007)	No blanket immunity from judicial review for laws placed in the 9th Schedule after 24 April 1973.
NJAC Case (2015)	Supreme Court struck down the 99th CAA / NJAC Act, 2014, reaffirming judicial review as a basic feature.

🎯 Exam Angle

The Judicial Review → Judicial Activism → PIL chain is conceptually linked and often tested together — PIL is described directly as "an outcome of Judicial Activism." Prelims likes the specific numbers (9 SATs, 284 laws now in the 9th Schedule, 17 CAT benches); Mains rewards weighing Judicial Activism's benefits against the Supreme Court's own warnings against "Judicial Adventurism."