(a) "In any democratic society, judicial review of administrative action is the soul of the system. Without it, democracy, and…

In a constitutional democracy, courts check power, Parliament may temporarily enlarge its field for national unity, and legal aid makes rights real.

Judicial review as the soul of democracy Judicial review is the power of courts to examine whether executive or legislative action conforms to the Constitution. It is a basic-structure feature: in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, amendment power cannot destroy basic structure; in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, judicial review of amendments was affirmed as part of it. The mechanism is that when authority is exercised, the court asks whether it is lawful, rational and proportionate. Wednesbury unreasonableness bars action no reasonable authority could take; proportionality requires suitable, necessary and balanced means. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, impounding a passport was challenged under Articles 14, 19 and 21. The Court held that any procedure depriving life or personal liberty must be fair, just and reasonable, not arbitrary. This prevented executive arbitrariness through facially valid rules. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India, the Court strengthened CBI autonomy by requiring consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission before withdrawal, protecting investigative independence from political interference. Thus judicial review sustains democracy by converting abstract rights into enforceable limits on power.

Parliamentary legislation on State List matters The Constitution is federal but contains exceptions. Article 249 authorises Parliament to legislate on a State List matter if the Rajya Sabha, by special majority, resolves it necessary in the national interest; the law operates for one year unless extended. Article 250 permits such legislation during national emergency, when Union competence expands to the whole territory. Article 252 allows legislation when two or more States agree to a common central law. Article 253 empowers Parliament to implement international treaties, even on State List subjects, without affecting State powers unless it could not otherwise legislate. Article 356, during President’s Rule, permits Parliament to legislate on State List matters for the affected State; Article 357 supplements this by allowing the President to make administrative rules, subject to parliamentary control. Article 246(4) extends Parliament’s competence to Union Territories, enabling State List legislation there. These powers are conditional, temporary or purpose-bound and must respect federal balance. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that Article 356 requires satisfactory material showing failure of constitutional machinery and is subject to judicial review, showing courts police federal exceptions.

Legal aid and equal opportunity Article 39A directs the State to secure that the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity and ensures free legal aid. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 gives it statutory force. Sections 12 and 13 define entitled categories—women, children, persons with disabilities, industrial workmen, persons in custody—and prescribe services such as advice, drafting and representation. Sections 19 to 22 provide for Lok Adalats, which settle disputes speedily and cheaply; Permanent Lok Adalats for public utility services are established under Sections 22A to 22E, inserted by the 2002 Amendment. The Act creates NALSA, State Legal Services Authorities and District Legal Services Authorities, making legal aid institutional rather than merely aspirational. Judicial review enforces this scheme: where a State fails to provide legal aid, a person can approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 32. Recent Supreme Court directions during the pandemic, requiring legal aid for detained persons and removal of access barriers, show how courts keep Article 39A alive.

Together, judicial review prevents arbitrariness, parliamentary powers allow national action without destroying federalism, and legal aid ensures the rule of law is not reserved for the privileged. The result is a living constitutionalism in which rights, federal balance and access to justice are continuously tested and strengthened.