Question map
Not attempted Correct Incorrect ★ Bookmarked
Loading…
Q92 (IAS/2017) Polity & Governance › Judiciary › Judicial review Official Key

2. In India, Judicial Review implies

Result
Your answer: —  ·  Correct: A
Explanation

Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and state governments.[1] On examination, if they are found to be violative of the Constitution (ultra vires), they can be declared as illegal, unconstitutional and invalid (null and void) by the Supreme Court.[1] The Supreme Court and High Courts can declare invalid any law of the legislature or the actions of the executive, whether at the Union level or at the state level, if they find such a law or action is against the Constitution.[2]

Option B is incorrect because judicial review is limited to examining constitutional validity, not questioning the wisdom or policy aspects of laws. Option C is incorrect because judicial review is exercised only when laws are challenged after enactment, not before Presidential assent. Option D refers to the power of review of judgments, which is a separate constitutional power distinct from judicial review[3], where courts can review their own earlier decisions.

Sources
  1. [1] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > III Power of Judicial Review > p. 293
  2. [2] Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 4: WORKING OF INSTITUTIONS > 4.4 THE JUDICIARY > p. 70
  3. [3] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 34: High Court > I'll A Court of Record > p. 360
How others answered
Each bar shows the % of students who chose that option. Green bar = correct answer, blue outline = your choice.
Community Performance
Out of everyone who attempted this question.
56%
got it right
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full view
Don’t just practise – reverse-engineer the question. This panel shows where this PYQ came from (books / web), how the examiner broke it into hidden statements, and which nearby micro-concepts you were supposed to learn from it. Treat it like an autopsy of the question: what might have triggered it, which exact lines in the book matter, and what linked ideas you should carry forward to future questions.
Q. 2. In India, Judicial Review implies [A] the power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders…
At a glance
Origin: Books + Current Affairs Fairness: Moderate fairness Books / CA: 5/10 · 2.5/10

This is a 'Definition' question, a recurring archetype in Polity (like 'Liberty', 'State', 'Law'). It tests conceptual precision, not rote memory. If you confuse 'Review of Judgments' (Art 137) with 'Judicial Review' (Art 13), you lose easy marks. This is a non-negotiable sitter.

How this question is built

This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.

Statement 1
In India, does the doctrine of judicial review give the judiciary the power to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders?
Origin: Direct from books Fairness: Straightforward Book-answerable
From standard books
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > III Power of Judicial Review > p. 293
Presence: 5/5
“Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and state governments. On examination, if they are found to be violative of the Constitution (ultra.vires), they can be declared as illegal, unconstitutional and invalid (null and void) by the Supreme Court. Consequently, they cannot be enforced by the Government.”
Why this source?
  • Explicit definition: describes judicial review as the Supreme Court's power to examine constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders.
  • States the remedy: if found violative (ultra vires), such laws/orders can be declared illegal, unconstitutional and invalid.
Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 4: WORKING OF INSTITUTIONS > 4.4 THE JUDICIARY > p. 70
Presence: 5/5
“The Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to interpret the Constitution of the country. They can declare invalid any law of the legislature or the actions of the executive, whether at the Union level or at the state level, if they find such a law or action is against the Constitution. Thus they can determine the Constitutional validity of any legislation or action of the executive in the country, when it is challenged before them. This is known as the judicial review. The Supreme Court of India has also ruled that the core or basic principles of the Constitution cannot be changed by the Parliament.”
Why this source?
  • Plain statement that Supreme Court and High Courts can declare invalid any legislative or executive action if against the Constitution.
  • Identifies this power as 'judicial review', linking the concept to judicial pronouncement on constitutionality.
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 27: Judicial Review > SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW > p. 298
Presence: 5/5
“t SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW The constitutional validity of a legislative enactment or an executive order can be challenged in the Supreme Court or in the High Courts on the following three grounds. • (a) it infringes the Fundamental Rights (Part III), • (b) it is outside the competence of the authority which has framed it, and • (c) it is repugnant to the constitutional provisions. From the above, it is clear that the scope of judicial review in India is narrower than what exists in the USA, though the American Constitution does not explicitly mention the concept of judicial review in any of its provisions.”
Why this source?
  • Sets out the scope: constitutional validity of legislative enactments or executive orders can be challenged in SC/HC.
  • Lists grounds (fundamental rights, competence, repugnancy) on which judiciary assesses constitutionality.
Statement 2
In India, does judicial review include the power of the judiciary to question the wisdom or policy merits of laws enacted by the legislatures?
Origin: Web / Current Affairs Fairness: CA heavy Web-answerable

Web source
Presence: 4/5
"“Judicial review is the authority of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders issued by both the Central and State governments. If these laws or orders are found to violate the Constitution, the judiciary can declare them illegal, unconstitutional, and invalid.”"
Why this source?
  • Defines judicial review as the authority to examine constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders.
  • States the judiciary can declare laws invalid if they violate the Constitution — focus on constitutionality/legal validity rather than merits or wisdom.
Web source
Presence: 4/5
"“Indian constitution has created an independent judiciary which is vested with the power of judicial review to determine the legality of any validity of law and any executive action. ... To determine the unconstitutionality of legislative Acts is the fundamental objects of judicial review.”"
Why this source?
  • Describes the judiciary's power of judicial review as determining the legality and validity of laws and executive actions.
  • Identifies determining unconstitutionality of legislative acts as the fundamental object of judicial review — emphasis on constitutionality rather than policy wisdom.
Web source
Presence: 3/5
"“Judicial review ensures that the legislature and executive do not exceed their constitutional authority... Article 13: Judicial Review of Laws Article 13 explicitly empowers the judiciary to invalidate”"
Why this source?
  • Explains judicial review's role in checking that legislature and executive do not exceed constitutional authority.
  • Notes Article 13 empowers the judiciary to invalidate laws — again focusing on constitutional limits rather than policy judgments.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 27: Judicial Review > SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW > p. 298
Strength: 5/5
“t SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW The constitutional validity of a legislative enactment or an executive order can be challenged in the Supreme Court or in the High Courts on the following three grounds. • (a) it infringes the Fundamental Rights (Part III), • (b) it is outside the competence of the authority which has framed it, and • (c) it is repugnant to the constitutional provisions. From the above, it is clear that the scope of judicial review in India is narrower than what exists in the USA, though the American Constitution does not explicitly mention the concept of judicial review in any of its provisions.”
Why relevant

Gives an explicit list of the three legal grounds for challenging legislation (infringes Fundamental Rights; outside competence; repugnant to constitutional provisions), implying scope is doctrinal and constitutional rather than about policy merits.

How to extend

A student could use this rule plus the fact that 'wisdom/policy merits' are political questions to infer that courts focus on constitutional limits, not policy judgment.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 34: High Court > fll Power of Judicial Review > p. 360
Strength: 5/5
“Judicial review is the power of a high court to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orde rs of both the Central and state governments. On examination, if they are found to be violative of the Constitution (ultra-vires), they can be declared as illegal, unconstitutional and invalid (null and void) by the high court. Consequently, they cannot be enforced by the government. Though the phrase 'judicial review' has no where been used in the Constitution, the provisions of Articles 13 and ZZ6 explicitly confer the power of judicial review on a high court.”
Why relevant

Defines judicial review as examination of constitutionality (ultra vires) and declares invalid acts that violate the Constitution — framing review as legality/constitutionality assessment.

How to extend

Combine this with the understanding that 'wisdom' is not a constitutional test to suspect courts do not strike down laws solely for being unwise.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 27: Judicial Review > p. 297
Strength: 4/5
“In a number of cases, the Supreme Court has pointed out the significance of the power of judicial review in our country. Some of the observations made by it, in this regard, are given below: 'In India it is the Constitution that is supreme and that a statute law to be valid, must be in conformity with the constitutional requirements and it is for the judiciary to decide whether any enactment is constitutional or not.' "Our constitution contains express provisions for judicial review of legislation as to its conformity with the constitution. This is especially true as regards the Fundamental Rights, to which the court has been assigned the role of sentinel on the qui vive".”
Why relevant

Emphasises that the judiciary's role is to ensure statutes conform with constitutional requirements and to decide constitutionality.

How to extend

A student can contrast 'conformity with constitution' with 'policy wisdom' to argue the court's remit is legal, not policy evaluation.

Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > p. 93
Strength: 4/5
“But the powers of the Judiciary vs·a-vis the Legislature are weaker in India than in the United~ States in two respects: Fundamental Rights Firstly, while the declarations in the American Bill of under Indian Consti- tution distinguished restrictions upon the fundamental rights of the individual from American Bill of Rights_ in the collective interests had to be evolved by the Judi- ciary-in India, this power has been expressly conferred upon the Legislatures by the Constitution itself in the case of the major fundamental rights, of course, leaving a power of judicial review in the hands of the Judiciary to determine the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the Legislature.”
Why relevant

Points out a comparative difference with the US: legislatures in India are expressly given powers to make collective-interest restrictions while the judiciary retains review only to determine reasonableness of restrictions.

How to extend

Using basic knowledge that the US judiciary sometimes reviews broader policy implications, a student could infer India’s review is narrower and less about overturning legislative policy choices.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 92: World Constitutions > 2017 TEST PAPER > p. 753
Strength: 3/5
“Recently, a private member's bill has been passed in the Parliament of India for the first time in its history. | (a) The power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders. | (b) The power of the Judiciary to question the wisdom of the laws enacted by the Legislatures. | (c) The power of the Judiciary to review all legislative enactments before they are assented to by the President. | (d) The power of the Judiciary to review its own earlier judgments given earlier in similar or different cases. 21”
Why relevant

Contains an exam-style option listing 'the power of the Judiciary to question the wisdom of the laws' as a distinct proposition — implying this is a common (but contestable) framing of judicial power.

How to extend

A student might treat this as a hint to consult authoritative definitions (like those above) and thereby test whether that option is correct or a distractor.

Statement 3
In India, does judicial review give the judiciary the power to review all legislative enactments before they receive the President's assent?
Origin: Weak / unclear Fairness: Borderline / guessy
Indirect textbook clues
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 34: High Court > fll Power of Judicial Review > p. 360
Strength: 5/5
“Judicial review is the power of a high court to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orde rs of both the Central and state governments. On examination, if they are found to be violative of the Constitution (ultra-vires), they can be declared as illegal, unconstitutional and invalid (null and void) by the high court. Consequently, they cannot be enforced by the government. Though the phrase 'judicial review' has no where been used in the Constitution, the provisions of Articles 13 and ZZ6 explicitly confer the power of judicial review on a high court.”
Why relevant

Defines judicial review as the power to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders, implying scrutiny of laws (i.e., enacted instruments).

How to extend

A student could infer this examination is performed after enactment and compare with the assent process to judge whether review normally occurs pre-assent or post-enactment.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > III Power of Judicial Review > p. 293
Strength: 5/5
“Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and state governments. On examination, if they are found to be violative of the Constitution (ultra.vires), they can be declared as illegal, unconstitutional and invalid (null and void) by the Supreme Court. Consequently, they cannot be enforced by the Government.”
Why relevant

States the Supreme Court can declare legislative enactments invalid if found violative of the Constitution, which suggests a remedial/invalidating role rather than a prior vetting role.

How to extend

Combine with knowledge of the legislative-assent timeline to assess whether the Court's power is typically exercised before assent or after a law exists.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 27: Judicial Review > SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW > p. 298
Strength: 4/5
“t SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW The constitutional validity of a legislative enactment or an executive order can be challenged in the Supreme Court or in the High Courts on the following three grounds. • (a) it infringes the Fundamental Rights (Part III), • (b) it is outside the competence of the authority which has framed it, and • (c) it is repugnant to the constitutional provisions. From the above, it is clear that the scope of judicial review in India is narrower than what exists in the USA, though the American Constitution does not explicitly mention the concept of judicial review in any of its provisions.”
Why relevant

Specifies the scope/grounds on which constitutional validity of an enactment can be challenged (fundamental rights, competence, repugnancy), indicating judicial review functions by entertaining challenges rather than automatically pre-clearing every bill.

How to extend

A student could reason that because review depends on challenges on specific grounds, it is reactive and contingent, not a blanket pre-assent screening power.

Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 6: JUDICIARY > JUDICIARY AND RIGHTS > p. 139
Strength: 4/5
“The term judicial review is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. However, the fact that India has a written constitution and the Supreme Court can strike down a law that goes against fundamental rights, implicitly gives the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. Besides, as we saw in the section on jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in the case of federal relations too, the Supreme Court can use the review powers if a law is inconsistent with the distribution of powers laid down by the Constitution. Suppose, the central government makes a law, which according to some States, concerns a subject from the State list.”
Why relevant

Notes the term 'judicial review' is not in the Constitution but the Supreme Court can strike down laws that contravene fundamental rights, implying review is exercised to invalidate laws post-enactment.

How to extend

Using basic knowledge that presidential assent follows passage, a student could contrast the Court's strike-down function with any hypothetical pre-assent veto/review role.

Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 92: World Constitutions > 2017 TEST PAPER > p. 753
Strength: 3/5
“Recently, a private member's bill has been passed in the Parliament of India for the first time in its history. | (a) The power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders. | (b) The power of the Judiciary to question the wisdom of the laws enacted by the Legislatures. | (c) The power of the Judiciary to review all legislative enactments before they are assented to by the President. | (d) The power of the Judiciary to review its own earlier judgments given earlier in similar or different cases. 21”
Why relevant

Presents multiple-choice formulations of judicial review, including an option that judicial review is the power to review all enactments before Presidential assent — indicating this is a contested/possibly incorrect characterization in standard summaries.

How to extend

A student could use this as a clue to treat the 'pre-assent review' description skeptically and seek corroboration from procedural/timelines of law-making.

Statement 4
In India, does judicial review include the power of the judiciary to review its own earlier judgments in similar or different cases?
Origin: Direct from books Fairness: Straightforward Book-answerable
From standard books
Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 34: High Court > I'll A Court of Record > p. 360
Presence: 5/5
“According to this Act, a High Court has power to punish for contempt of not only itselfbut also contempt of subordinate courts. However, no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a subordinate court, where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As a court of record, a high court also has the power to review and correct its own judgment or order or decision, even though no specific power of review is conferred on it by the Constitution. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has been specifically conferred with the power of review by the constitution.”
Why this source?
  • Explicitly states a High Court 'has power to review and correct its own judgment or order or decision' as a court of record.
  • Contrasts High Court position with the Supreme Court, noting the Supreme Court is 'specifically conferred with the power of review by the constitution' — indicating judicial review encompasses intra-court review powers.
Pattern takeaway: UPSC Polity questions often hinge on specific legal distinctions. The trap is usually a definition that sounds correct in layman's terms (like 'questioning wisdom') but is constitutionally incorrect. Always distinguish between 'Legality' (Court's job) and 'Merit/Wisdom' (Parliament's job).
How you should have studied
  1. [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Direct lift from Laxmikanth Chapter 27 (Judicial Review) or NCERT Class XI (Constitution at Work).
  2. [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The 'Basic Structure' and 'Separation of Powers' themes where the Judiciary checks the Legislature.
  3. [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the 3 grounds for Judicial Review: (1) Infringement of Fundamental Rights, (2) Outside Legislative Competence, (3) Repugnancy to Constitutional Provisions. Contrast with Art 137 (Review of own orders) and Art 143 (Advisory Jurisdiction).
  4. [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When reading Polity terms, define what they are NOT. Judicial Review is NOT a review of 'policy wisdom' (Legislative domain) and NOT a 'pre-assent' veto (Presidential domain).
Concept hooks from this question
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Definition & core power of judicial review
💡 The insight

Several references explicitly define judicial review as the judiciary's power to test laws and executive orders for constitutionality.

High-yield for UPSC: fundamental to questions on separation of powers, judicial role, and constitutional checks. Understanding the definition helps answer questions on scope, remedies, and institutional roles; connects to judiciary, legislature, and executive topics. Revise authoritative definitions and typical judicial remedies (strike down/nullify).

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > III Power of Judicial Review > p. 293
  • Democratic Politics-I. Political Science-Class IX . NCERT(Revised ed 2025) > Chapter 4: WORKING OF INSTITUTIONS > 4.4 THE JUDICIARY > p. 70
🔗 Anchor: "In India, does the doctrine of judicial review give the judiciary the power to p..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Grounds for judicial review
💡 The insight

One reference lists the concrete grounds—violation of Fundamental Rights, exceeding competence, and repugnancy to the Constitution—used to assess constitutionality.

Essential for case-based UPSC questions: knowing the legal bases for challenge lets aspirants evaluate why a law/order may be struck down. Links to federalism, fundamental rights, and legislative competence. Practice applying these three grounds to hypothetical facts.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 27: Judicial Review > SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW > p. 298
🔗 Anchor: "In India, does the doctrine of judicial review give the judiciary the power to p..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S1
👉 Judicial review across courts and federal actions
💡 The insight

References show both Supreme Court and High Courts exercise judicial review over central and state legislative/executive actions, and that the power may be invoked in federal disputes.

Useful for questions on jurisdiction and federal balance: explains which courts can pronounce constitutionality and in what contexts (union vs state). Helps answer interlinked questions on appellate remedies, original jurisdiction, and centre-state legislative competence.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 34: High Court > fll Power of Judicial Review > p. 360
  • Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 6: JUDICIARY > JUDICIARY AND RIGHTS > p. 139
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 27: Judicial Review > p. 297
🔗 Anchor: "In India, does the doctrine of judicial review give the judiciary the power to p..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Scope of judicial review versus policy wisdom
💡 The insight

References repeatedly define judicial review as examination of constitutionality (conformity with the Constitution/Fundamental Rights), not as an open inquiry into legislative wisdom or policy merits.

High-yield for UPSC: distinguishes judicial review (constitutional validity) from policy review (legislative domain). Useful in questions on separation of powers, limits of judicial intervention, and constitutional checks. Master by memorising definitions and examples of limits of judicial review rather than conflating it with policy evaluation.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 27: Judicial Review > p. 297
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 27: Judicial Review > SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW > p. 298
🔗 Anchor: "In India, does judicial review include the power of the judiciary to question th..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Three constitutional grounds for judicial review in India
💡 The insight

The accepted grounds (infringement of Fundamental Rights; lack of competence; repugnancy to the Constitution) frame what courts can examine — showing judicial review is legally delimited.

Directly examinable topic: questions often ask grounds/limits of judicial review or compare Indian scope with US practice. Learn the three grounds and contrast with broader US review to answer application and comparison questions.

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 27: Judicial Review > SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW > p. 298
  • Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 27: Judicial Review > SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW > p. 298
🔗 Anchor: "In India, does judicial review include the power of the judiciary to question th..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S2
👉 Reasonableness test vs. policy-making
💡 The insight

Authoritative commentary notes legislatures are entrusted with collective policy-making while courts retain power to assess reasonableness of restrictions, not to substitute policy judgments for the legislature.

Crucial nuance for UPSC essays/answers: explains when courts may invalidate laws (unreasonable restrictions) without encroaching on policy. Helps in case-based questions and in debates on judicial activism vs restraint.

📚 Reading List :
  • Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 8: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES > p. 93
  • Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) > Chapter 6: JUDICIARY > JUDICIARY AND RIGHTS > p. 139
🔗 Anchor: "In India, does judicial review include the power of the judiciary to question th..."
📌 Adjacent topic to master
S3
👉 Definition & institutional scope of judicial review
💡 The insight

References define judicial review as the courts' power to examine constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders.

High-yield for UPSC constitutional law questions: explains what judicial review is, which courts exercise it, and its practical effect (striking down laws). Connects to topics on separation of powers and judicial powers; useful for questions asking what courts can do and limits of their authority. Learn by mapping definitions to landmark powers and typical outcomes (invalidating ultra vires acts).

📚 Reading List :
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 34: High Court > fll Power of Judicial Review > p. 360
  • Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > III Power of Judicial Review > p. 293
🔗 Anchor: "In India, does judicial review give the judiciary the power to review all legisl..."
🌑 The Hidden Trap

The 'Shadow' concept is the 'Ninth Schedule' and the I.R. Coelho case (2007). Since Judicial Review is a Basic Feature, even laws in the 9th Schedule are open to review if they violate Articles 14, 19, or 21 (the Golden Triangle) post-April 24, 1973.

⚡ Elimination Cheat Code

Apply the 'Logistics Filter'. Option C says 'review ALL enactments BEFORE assent'. Logistically impossible for the Court to vet every single bill before the President signs it. Option B uses the word 'wisdom'—courts deal in 'law', politicians deal in 'wisdom'. Eliminate both.

🔗 Mains Connection

Mains GS-2 (Separation of Powers): Option B ('questioning wisdom') is the exact definition of 'Judicial Overreach'. Use this distinction in answers to argue where the Judiciary crosses the line from Review (Legality) to Activism/Overreach (Policy).

✓ Thank you! We'll review this.

SIMILAR QUESTIONS

NDA-II · 2015 · Q74 Relevance score: 3.28

The two provisions of the Constitution of India that most clearly express the power of judicial review are:

CDS-II · 2016 · Q67 Relevance score: 3.13

The basic structure doctrine with regard to the Constitution of India relates to 1. the power of judicial review 2. the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) 3. the constraints on Article 368 of the Constitution of India 4. the judgment in Golaknath case (1967) Select the correct answer using the code given below.

IAS · 2020 · Q83 Relevance score: 2.14

Consider the following statements : 1. The Constitution of India defines its 'basic structure' in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy. 2. The Constitution of India provides for 'judicial review' to safeguard the citizens' liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

IAS · 2019 · Q45 Relevance score: 1.50

Consider the following statements : 1. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review. 2. The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

IAS · 2021 · Q68 Relevance score: 1.35

With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements : 1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India. 2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?