Pinak Mohapatra,

Asst. Prof of Law, School of Law, CUTM Bhubaneswar, Odisha

Achint Dubey,

Asst. Prof of Law, School of Law, CUTM Bhubaneswar, Odisha

DoI: CJBES/ Vol.2.1/ June-2025…

Abstract:        

This paper examines the evolution, scope, and application of judicial review in the UK and India, tracing the historical development from English common law foundations to contemporary constitutional frameworks. The study employs a comparative legal analysis to explore how two jurisdictions with shared legal heritage have developed divergent approaches to judicial oversight of governmental action.

The research demonstrates that while India inherited its judicial review concepts from English common law, the scope and application of judicial review in both countries differ significantly due to fundamental constitutional distinctions. Parliamentary supremacy in Britain significantly limits the scope of judicial review available to the courts, limiting courts to examining secondary legislation and administrative actions while primary legislation remains largely immune from judicial scrutiny.

Conversely, India’s written constitution and doctrine of constitutional supremacy enable broader judicial review powers. The study analyzes how Article 13 of the Indian Constitution empowers courts to review both pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws, supported by the doctrines of eclipse and severability.

The paper concludes that India’s judicial review system operates with broader scope and stronger constitutional foundation compared to the UK’s more constrained approach. While the UK system prioritizes democratic legitimacy through parliamentary sovereignty, India’s model emphasizes constitutional supremacy and fundamental rights protection. This comparative analysis illustrates how similar legal principles can evolve differently within distinct constitutional frameworks, reflecting varying approaches to balancing democratic governance with judicial oversight.

The study contributes to comparative constitutional law scholarship by examining how colonial legal transplantation has produced divergent institutional outcomes, highlighting the significance of constitutional design in shaping judicial power and the rule of law.

Keywords:

Judicial review, Constitutional supremacy, Fundamental rights, Wednesbury principle, Natural justice