Skip to content

Judicial Review: Meaning and Principles, ISC Class 12

questionbuddy.in/isc/class-12/political-science/the-judiciary/judicial-review-meaning-and-principles

Political ScienceISC Class 12 · The Judiciary

Judicial Review: Meaning and Principles (ISC Class 12 Political Science)

Updated 17 October 2026 · Fact-checked

Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine whether laws and executive actions agree with the Constitution, and to declare them void if they do not. In the USA it was asserted in Marbury v. Madison (1803); in India it rests on Articles 13, 32 and 226. Its working principles include ultra vires, severability, presumption of constitutionality and doctrine of eclipse.

The court tests every law or order against the Constitution, and the four maxims below guide how it decides.

Illustration drawn for QuestionBuddy.

Understand Judicial Review: Meaning and Principles (Maxims)

Why this topic matters. The syllabus asks for judicial review: "meaning, principles (maxims)". Examiners have noted that candidates write the meaning when the maxims are asked, and cannot explain terms such as *ultra vires* and *severability*. This page gives the meaning, the source in each country, and the maxims in plain words. (The syllabus does not list the maxims by name; the ones below are the principles commonly taught in ISC textbooks and used by courts. Check them against your school textbook.)

1. Meaning. Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to review the constitutionality of laws made by the legislature and orders made by the executive. If a law or action contradicts the Constitution, the court declares it unconstitutional and void. It makes the Constitution supreme in practice and protects rights.

2. Source in the USA. The US Constitution does not mention judicial review in words. Chief Justice John Marshall established it in *Marbury v. Madison* (1803): the Court held that a provision of a law of Congress conflicted with the Constitution, and that a court must prefer the Constitution as the higher law. This became the foundation of judicial review.

3. Source in India. The Constitution gives the power in several places:

  • Article 13: laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to that extent.
  • Article 32: the Supreme Court may issue writs to enforce Fundamental Rights.
  • Article 226: High Courts may issue writs for rights and other purposes.
  • Articles 245 to 254 with the Seventh Schedule divide law-making power between the Union and the states, and the courts decide whether a particular law falls within the power of the body that made it.
  • In *Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala* (1973) the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution so as to destroy its basic structure; in later cases (such as *Minerva Mills*, 1980) judicial review was itself treated as part of the basic structure.

4. Principles (maxims) used in judicial review.

1. Ultra vires. Latin for "beyond the powers". A law or order made by a body that has gone beyond the power given by the Constitution is void. Example: a state law on a subject only the Union may legislate on.
2. Presumption of constitutionality. A law is presumed to be valid until it is shown to be inconsistent with the Constitution; the burden lies on the challenger.
3. Doctrine of severability. If only part of a law is unconstitutional and the rest can stand independently, only the bad part is struck down and the rest survives.
4. Doctrine of eclipse. A law that existed before the Constitution and conflicts with a Fundamental Right is not dead but dormant (eclipsed); if the conflict is removed, for example by an amendment, it revives.
5. Courts examine the legality, not the wisdom, of a law. The judiciary does not decide whether a policy is good or bad, but whether it respects the Constitution. (In the USA this is linked with the idea of "political questions" which courts leave to the elected organs.)
6. Courts act only when a case is brought before them (judicial self-restraint). The Court does not decide hypothetical questions on its own motion, except in a few matters such as public interest litigation.
7. Harmonious construction. Conflicting provisions are read together to give effect to both where possible.

5. Scope: what can be reviewed. Acts of Parliament and state legislatures; ordinances; executive orders; constitutional amendments (against the basic structure in India); and administrative actions.

6. Importance. Protects Fundamental Rights; keeps the legislature and the executive within limits; maintains the federal balance; guards the supremacy of the Constitution; adjusts the meaning of the Constitution to changing times.

7. Limits and debate. Critics argue that unelected judges should not override elected legislatures ("judicial overreach"); supporters answer that the Constitution is the people's higher law. The usual position is balance: review is a power to be exercised carefully, and it is subject to the Court's own doctrines of restraint.

8. India and the USA compared (outline).

BasisIndiaUSA
SourceExpress provisions: Articles 13, 32, 226Implied; asserted in Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Test for liberty"Procedure established by law" (Article 21), widened by the courts"Due process of law" (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments)
Parliament's roleParliament can amend the Constitution but not destroy basic structureAmendment through Article V; Court can interpret
ScopeNarrower in text, wide in practiceWide

Judicial Review: Meaning and Principles (Maxims): key facts

Meaning
Courts test laws and actions against the Constitution | Unconstitutional law is void
Core definition.
Sources
USA: Marbury v. Madison, 1803 | India: Articles 13, 32, 226
Name both.
Principles
  • Ultra vires
  • Presumption of constitutionality
  • Severability
  • Eclipse
  • Legality not wisdom
  • Self-restraint
Six maxims.
Limits
  • Basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973)
  • Judicial restraint
  • Political questions
What checks the checker.

How to answer Judicial Review: Meaning and Principles (Maxims) questions

Typical items: "What is judicial review?" (2 marks), "Explain the principles (maxims) of judicial review" (4 marks), or a longer question on importance or on India and USA.

  1. 1Define judicial review in one sentence with the words "constitutionality" and "void".
  2. 2Give the source: Marbury v. Madison for the USA; Articles 13, 32, 226 for India.
  3. 3If maxims are asked, do not write the meaning at length; give four maxims, each with its meaning in a line and an example.
  4. 4Define Latin terms in English.
  5. 5Close with importance or limits.

Judicial Review: Meaning and Principles (Maxims) in real life

The idea, met in an everyday situation. Answer the question in your own words, then compare with the model answer. The one-line hook is what to remember.

Ultra vires

Suppose a school's sports committee, which has authority only over games, issues an order changing the examination timetable.

Which maxim applies and what follows?

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution
  1. The committee has acted beyond the power given to it.
  2. The order is ultra vires and can be declared void.

Answer: Ultra vires: the order is invalid because the body had no authority on that subject.

Memory hook: Beyond the power, void.

Severability

Imagine a school notice with ten rules, of which one clearly goes against the school's own charter while the other nine are fine.

How would the doctrine of severability treat the notice?

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution
  1. Only the bad rule is cancelled.
  2. The other nine rules continue, because they can stand without the bad one.

Answer: Only the invalid rule is struck down; the rest remains in force.

Memory hook: Cut out the bad part, keep the rest.

Tricks to remember Judicial Review: Meaning and Principles (Maxims)

Short memory aids. Say each one aloud once, then use it on a question the same day.

  • Maxims: U-P-S-E

    Ultra vires, Presumption of constitutionality, Severability, Eclipse.

    Use it when: Four named maxims.

  • Marbury 1803

    Marshall, Marbury, 1803.

    Use it when: Origin in the USA.

  • Indian Articles: 13-32-226

    13 declares void; 32 and 226 enforce.

    Use it when: Source in India.

Judicial Review: Meaning and Principles (Maxims): solved examples

Ordered from board level to HOTS. Try each one before you open the solution.

Example 1: Origin · 1 mark · MCQBoard level

Which Chief Justice of the United States delivered the 1803 judgment in which the Supreme Court asserted the power of judicial review?
(a) John Marshall
(b) Earl Warren
(c) William Taft
(d) Roger Taney

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution
  1. Marbury v. Madison (1803) was decided by Chief Justice John Marshall (1 mark).

Answer: (a) John Marshall

Example 2: Meaning · 2 marks · Very short answerBoard level

Define judicial review and name the Article that makes a law void when it is inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights in India. (2 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution
  1. Power of courts to test laws and actions against the Constitution and declare them void (1 mark).
  2. Article 13 (1 mark).

Answer: Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine whether a law or an executive action is consistent with the Constitution and to declare it void if it is not. In India Article 13 declares laws inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights void to the extent of the inconsistency.

Example 3: Assertion and reason · 1 mark · Assertion-reasonHarder board level

Assertion (A): Under the doctrine of severability only the unconstitutional part of a law is struck down.
Reason (R): The valid part can stand independently of the invalid part.
(a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A.
(b) Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A.
(c) A is true but R is false.
(d) A is false but R is true.

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution
  1. Severability applies when the rest is independent (1 mark).

Answer: (a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A.

Example 4: Maxims · 4 marks · Short answerHarder board level

Explain any four principles (maxims) on which judicial review works. (4 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution
  1. Ultra vires (1 mark).
  2. Presumption of constitutionality (1 mark).
  3. Severability (1 mark).
  4. Eclipse or legality not wisdom (1 mark).

Answer: (i) Ultra vires: a law or order made beyond the power given by the Constitution is void. (ii) Presumption of constitutionality: a law is taken to be valid until proved otherwise, and the challenger must show the inconsistency. (iii) Severability: if only part of a law is unconstitutional and the rest can stand alone, only that part is struck down. (iv) Eclipse: a pre-Constitution law conflicting with a Fundamental Right becomes dormant, not dead, and revives if the conflict is removed.

Example 5: Importance and limits · 6 marks · Long answerHOTS / competency

Discuss the importance of judicial review and the limits on its use. (6 marks)

Try it first, then show the solutionSolution
  1. Importance (3 marks).
  2. Limits (3 marks).

Answer: Importance: judicial review makes the Constitution supreme by testing the laws of the legislature and the orders of the executive against it. It protects the Fundamental Rights of citizens, keeps each organ within its limits, settles disputes between the Union and the states in a federation, and allows the Constitution to be interpreted in the light of changing needs.

Limits: it operates only when a case is brought, and courts examine legality, not the wisdom of policy. Courts presume that a law is constitutional and tend to be restrained in political questions. In India Parliament can amend the Constitution, though not its basic structure, and judicial decisions can be changed by a valid amendment. Critics also warn that unelected judges should not override elected bodies, which is why the principle of self-restraint is regarded as essential.

Where students lose marks in Judicial Review: Meaning and Principles (Maxims)

The slips examiners see most often, and what to write instead.

  • Mistake: Writing meaning when maxims are asked

    Not reading the question.

    Wrong working

    Judicial review is the power of courts...

    Right working

    State the maxims: ultra vires, severability, eclipse, presumption of constitutionality.

    Do this: Underline the keyword "principles" or "maxims".

    Usually costs: 2 to 3 marks.

  • Mistake: Not translating ultra vires

    Latin not defined.

    Wrong working

    Ultra vires means unconstitutional.

    Right working

    Ultra vires means beyond the powers of the authority.

    Do this: Add the English meaning.

    Usually costs: 1 mark.

  • Mistake: Applying eclipse to new laws

    Misunderstanding the term.

    Wrong working

    A law made after 1950 may be eclipsed.

    Right working

    Eclipse applies to pre-Constitution laws; a post-Constitution law that violates a right is void from the start.

    Do this: Link eclipse with pre-1950.

    Usually costs: 1 mark.

Exam tips

  • If the question says "principles" or "maxims", do not give only the meaning.
  • Define every Latin term in English.
  • Name Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Articles 13, 32 and 226.
  • Add the basic structure doctrine as a limit on amendments.

Practice questions on Judicial Review: Meaning and Principles (Maxims)

Write each answer on paper first. Open the hint only if you are stuck, and the answer only when you have finished.

  1. Q1 · 1 mark · MCQBoard level

    Which Article empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights?
    (a) Article 13
    (b) Article 32
    (c) Article 226
    (d) Article 368

    Hint

    Right to Constitutional Remedies.

    Answer

    (b) Article 32.

  2. Q2 · 2 marks · Very short answerHarder board level

    What is meant by the term ultra vires? Give one example. (2 marks)

    Hint

    Latin meaning; example.

    Answer

    Ultra vires means "beyond the powers". It refers to a law or order made by an authority that exceeds the power given to it. For example, a state legislature making a law on a subject that belongs exclusively to the Union List.

  3. Q3 · 1 mark · Assertion-reasonHarder board level

    Assertion (A): The doctrine of eclipse applies to laws made after the commencement of the Constitution.
    Reason (R): Such a law, if inconsistent with a Fundamental Right, is void from the beginning.
    (a) Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A.
    (b) Both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A.
    (c) A is true but R is false.
    (d) A is false but R is true.

    Hint

    Eclipse is for pre-Constitution laws.

    Answer

    (d) A is false but R is true.

  4. Q4 · 4 marks · Short answerHarder board level

    Explain how judicial review is provided in India, quoting at least three Articles. (4 marks)

    Hint

    Articles 13, 32, 226, and basic structure.

    Answer

    The Constitution provides judicial review in several Articles. Article 13 declares laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void to that extent. Article 32 lets any person move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, and the Court can issue writs. Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for other purposes. In addition, the Court decides whether the Union or a state had the power to make a law under the distribution of powers in the Seventh Schedule. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973) the Supreme Court held that even constitutional amendments cannot destroy the basic structure.

  5. Q5 · 6 marks · Long answerHOTS / competency

    Suppose a state legislature passes a law with twelve sections, one of which prevents all citizens from publishing criticism of any government policy. A newspaper challenges the law. Describe, using the maxims of judicial review, how a court is likely to approach it. (6 marks)

    Hint

    Presumption; test against Article 19; severability.

    Answer

    The court would start with the presumption of constitutionality, so the newspaper has to show that the section is inconsistent with the Constitution. It would test the section against the Fundamental Right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 19(1)(a) and ask whether the restriction fits one of the grounds in Article 19(2) and is reasonable; the court judges the legality of the section, not whether the policy is wise. If the section is a restriction that goes beyond those grounds, it is void under Article 13 and also ultra vires the power of the legislature. The court would then apply severability: if the other eleven sections can stand without the offending section, only that section is struck down and the remainder continues. If the section is so central that the law cannot work without it, the whole law may fall.

Test your recall

Answer in your head or on paper first, then open the card. Pulling an answer out of memory makes it stick far better than re-reading.

  1. 1.Who decided Marbury v. Madison?Show answer

    Chief Justice John Marshall.

  2. 2.In which year?Show answer

    1803.

  3. 3.Which Article makes inconsistent laws void in India?Show answer

    Article 13.

  4. 4.What does ultra vires mean?Show answer

    Beyond the powers.

  5. 5.Which case laid down the basic structure doctrine?Show answer

    Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).

Judicial Review: Meaning and Principles (Maxims): frequently asked questions

Does the US Constitution mention judicial review?

No. It was established by the Supreme Court in 1803.

Can Indian courts review constitutional amendments?

Yes, on the ground that they destroy the basic structure.

What is the difference between ultra vires and severability?

Ultra vires tests whether a law is within power; severability decides how much of an invalid law is struck down.

Is judicial review an unlimited power?

No. It is limited by restraint, by the presumption of constitutionality and by the amending power within the basic structure.