Abstract:
Judicial review is a cornerstone of constitutional governance in India, empowering courts to assess the validity of legislative and executive actions against the Constitution. This study analyses the evolution of judicial review in India, examines its legal foundations, its impact on constitutional interpretation, and the tension between judicial activism and restraint. By reviewing landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the research reveals how the Supreme Court has shaped constitutional meaning in response to social changes and asserted its role as guardian of the Constitution. Using a doctrinal and qualitative method, this paper finds that judicial review has significantly broadened the scope of fundamental rights, enforced the doctrine of the basic structure, and ensured procedural fairness, but it also faces challenges of overreach, political backlash, and the risk of undermining democratic legitimacy. The study concludes that judicial review in India remains indispensable for upholding constitutional supremacy, but that its legitimacy depends on balanced exercise, judicial self-restraint, and clearer guidelines to avoid arbitrariness.
