LIJDLR

Judicial Review

JUSTICE BEHIND BARS: A STUDY OF SENTENCE REVIEW BOARD OF DELHI

Volume IV Issue II /

JUSTICE BEHIND BARS: A STUDY OF SENTENCE REVIEW BOARD OF DELHI Sriyansh Shrey, BA LLB (H), 10th Semester, Student at Amity Law School, Noida (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.165 This paper critically examines the functioning of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) in Delhi within the framework of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, and the constitutional guarantees of equality and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The study addresses the central question whether the SRB, which is intended to operationalize the reformative theory of punishment through periodic review of life convicts eligible for premature release, functions in a manner consistent with statutory and constitutional requirements. A doctrinal methodology has been adopted, based on an analysis of constitutional provisions, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Lt. Governor’s Policy dated 16 July 2004, the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, and judicial decisions of the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court. The study finds that, although the legal framework is comprehensive and reform-oriented, its implementation is marked by significant deficiencies. The SRB frequently fails to hold mandatory quarterly meetings, resulting in prolonged delays in the consideration of eligible cases. Its recommendations often rely disproportionately on the gravity of the original offence and police objections, while overlooking relevant factors such as conduct in prison, parole performance, age, health, family circumstances, and prospects of rehabilitation. Judicial decisions have repeatedly characterised such practices as arbitrary and inconsistent with the principles of fair procedure. The paper recommends strict adherence to quarterly meeting requirements, mandatory speaking orders, time-bound submission of reports, reduced dependence on police opinions, and institutional reforms to ensure transparency, accountability, and constitutional compliance.

JUSTICE BEHIND BARS: A STUDY OF SENTENCE REVIEW BOARD OF DELHI Read More »

A DOCTRINAL ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: FROM COLONIAL FOUNDATIONS TO DIGITAL GOVERNANCE

Volume IV Issue I /

A DOCTRINAL ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: FROM COLONIAL FOUNDATIONS TO DIGITAL GOVERNANCE Lamiya Sultana, Assistant Professor & Program Coordinator, School of legal Studies, Swami Vivekananda University (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.134 The Constitution of India represents a transformative legal and political framework shaped by the historical, social, and psychological experiences of colonial rule. Far beyond a static legal document, it embodies the aspirations of a newly independent nation striving to secure justice, liberty, equality, and dignity for its citizens. This paper undertakes a doctrinal study of India’s constitutional transformation, tracing its evolution from colonial governance structures to its contemporary engagement with digital realities. The study examines the psychological foundations underlying the framing of the Constitution, including the influence of colonial repression, nationalist movements, and the desire for social reconstruction. It further analyzes how constitutional principles have been interpreted and reinterpreted through judicial doctrines such as the Basic Structure Doctrine, constitutional morality, and transformative constitutionalism. In the contemporary context, the Constitution faces new challenges arising from globalization, technological advancements, and digital governance. Issues such as data privacy, artificial intelligence, freedom of speech in the digital sphere, and judicial independence demand nuanced constitutional responses. Through an analysis of landmark judicial decisions and legislative developments, this paper argues that while the Constitution remains structurally resilient, its continued relevance depends on dynamic interpretation and adaptive governance.

A DOCTRINAL ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT: FROM COLONIAL FOUNDATIONS TO DIGITAL GOVERNANCE Read More »

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN INDIA: CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS, JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY LIMITS

Volume IV Issue I /

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN INDIA: CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS, JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY LIMITS Mr. Aritra Saha, Student, SOA National Institute of Law-Faculty of Legal Studies, Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan Deemed to be University, (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.22 This paper explores the constitutional parameters of parliamentary privileges in India, their development and limitations focusing especially on Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution. The origins of these privileges go back to British tradition of parliamentary independence and were designed to protect the independence of legislature and prevent closed debate in Parliament. Nonetheless, as opposed to the British concept of parliamentary sovereignty, Indian privileges take place in an order of constitutional supremacy, judicial review and fundamental rights. Through examining landmark cases like MSM Sharma vs Sri Krishna Sinha, the current study traces the transformation of the judiciary whereby in early days; there was a deference form of judgement, but gradually the judiciary has changed into a model of conditional oversight based on the basic structure doctrine. It critically explains the tensions that exist between parliamentary privileges and fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 and there is also the structural ambiguity that occurs in the non-codification of Articles 105(3). This paper presents that even though privileges are essential in the safeguarding of the deliberative democracy and the dignity of the institutions, they are not absolute; they must not be outside the constitutional boundaries, fairness in the procedures, and proportionality. The study therefore comes to the finding that legislative independence must be balanced with the rule of law and governmental accountability through statutory codification and better procedure protection. 

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES IN INDIA: CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS, JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY LIMITS Read More »

CYBER SECURITY LAWS AND ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN PROTECTING PRIVACY RIGHTS IN INDIA

Volume IV Issue I /

CYBER SECURITY LAWS AND ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN PROTECTING PRIVACY RIGHTS IN INDIA Arpit Tripathi, LLM student at DSNLU Visakhapatnam (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2026.v04.15 The rapid digitisation of India’s socio-economic framework has intensified concerns regarding cybersecurity and the protection of privacy rights. Recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to privacy attained definitive constitutional status through the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017). This judgment not only affirmed privacy as intrinsic to human dignity and personal liberty but also established the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality to assess state intrusion. India’s cybersecurity regime is primarily governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000, and strengthened by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. While the IT Act addresses cyber offences such as hacking, identity theft, and unauthorised access, the DPDP Act introduces a structured framework regulating data collection, processing, storage, and consent-based governance. Together, these statutes seek to ensure accountability of data fiduciaries and enhance digital security. The judiciary continues to play a pivotal role in balancing individual privacy with competing state interests, including national security and public order. Through constitutional interpretation and judicial review, courts have imposed procedural safeguards on surveillance mechanisms and reinforced limitations on arbitrary state action. This paper critically examines the evolving interplay between legislative measures and judicial oversight in shaping India’s digital privacy landscape, highlighting the need for robust enforcement and rights-oriented governance in the era of expanding digital infrastructure.

CYBER SECURITY LAWS AND ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN PROTECTING PRIVACY RIGHTS IN INDIA Read More »

ROLE OF INDIAN JUDICIARY IN ELECTORAL REFORMS: THE PENDING CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF INDIA

Volume III Issue IV /

ROLE OF INDIAN JUDICIARY IN ELECTORAL REFORMS: THE PENDING CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF INDIA Dr. Bhavana Dhoundiyal, LLM (IPR), IILM University, Greater Noida (India) Ms. Babita Rawat, LLM (IPR), IILM University, Greater Noida (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.218 A robust democracy requires more than just regular elections; it must be fair, transparent, and institutionally credible. Money power, politicizing crime and finance are among the issues plaguing India’s election system. While there are constitutional provisions to ensure Parliament and Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure free and fair elections, political inaction has left loopholes. Consequently, the Supreme Court has played the role of a guardian of electoral integrity through its landmark decisions like ADR, PUCL and Lily Thomas, enhancing transparency and accountability. The recent striking down of the Electoral Bonds Scheme gave another financial openness ahead. Despite the worries about judicial overreach, the proactive role of the judiciary has ensured the sanctity of democracy. This paper argues that lasting reform necessitates joint efforts of the synergy of Parliament, ECI and the judiciary towards securing and protecting the electoral process as the lifeline of Indian democracy.

ROLE OF INDIAN JUDICIARY IN ELECTORAL REFORMS: THE PENDING CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF INDIA Read More »

CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERALISM IN PERIL: CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF ARTICLE 356 AND S.R. BOMMAI IN CONTEMPORARY INDIA

Volume III Issue IV /

CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERALISM IN PERIL: CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF ARTICLE 356 AND S.R. BOMMAI IN CONTEMPORARY INDIA Aadya Singh, 3rd year, B.A.LL. B (Hons.), Integrated Law Courses, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.205 The constitutional provision of President’s Rule under Article 356 empowers the president to assume control of a State in situations of constitutional breakdown. Historically this power has been one of the most misused instruments od the Indian Constitution, often deployed to dismiss state governments on political rather than constitutional grounds. The landmark judgment of S. R. Bommai v. Union of India sought to curb this misuse by making such proclamations subject to judicial review and thus limiting president’s discretion. This paper revisits the judgment of Bommai in light of the increasing centralization of political powers and examines whether the safeguards remain effective today. By analyzing the recent cases the paper evaluates whether federalism continues to function as a ‘basic feature’ of our constitution or has been eroded through central dominance. This study examines the constitutional scheme of emergency powers, historical misuse patterns, and the evolving role of judiciary in protecting federalism. It is also argued that while Bommai established a strong precedent, the subsequent political developments and the decline of coalition politics have diluted its practical efficacy. It concludes by recommending reforms, such as codifying clear standards for constitutional breakdown, ensuring Governor’s accountability, and mandating pre-decisional judicial oversight before invoking Article 356.

CONSTITUTIONAL FEDERALISM IN PERIL: CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF ARTICLE 356 AND S.R. BOMMAI IN CONTEMPORARY INDIA Read More »

KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA: A LANDMARK IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA’S JUDICIAL PROCESS

Volume III Issue IV /

KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA: A LANDMARK IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA’S JUDICIAL PROCESS Akansha Barua , LL.M. (Cyber Law), IILM University, Greater Noida (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.147 The judgment in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) is widely regarded as a turning point in India’s judicial and constitutional history. Delivered by a thirteen-judge bench of the Supreme Court, this case addressed the scope of Parliament’s amending power under Article 368 of the Constitution. The central issue was whether Parliament’s authority extended to altering the very foundation and identity of the Constitution. By a narrow margin of 7:6, the Court propounded the Basic Structure Doctrine, which held that while Parliament has extensive amending powers, it cannot destroy or abrogate the essential features that form the Constitution’s identity. These include the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, judicial review, democracy, secularism, separation of powers, and fundamental rights. This doctrine preserved the sanctity of the Constitution and redefined the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary by establishing the latter as the ultimate guardian of constitutional principles. The judgment was particularly significant during the Emergency period (1975–77), when democratic values and fundamental rights were under threat. It prevented the concentration of absolute power in the hands of transient parliamentary majorities, thereby safeguarding India’s democratic framework. Thus, the Kesavananda Bharati judgment not only curtailed the risks of authoritarianism but also reaffirmed the Constitution as a living document that is flexible yet firmly anchored in its core principles. It remains the cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence and the defining moment that shaped the future of judicial review and constitutionalism in India.

KESAVANANDA BHARATI V. STATE OF KERALA: A LANDMARK IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA’S JUDICIAL PROCESS Read More »

THE FUTURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Volume III Issue IV /

THE FUTURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY Shreya Saxena, LLM (IP), Amity University (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.146 This paper critically examines the evolving landscape of judicial review in India, focusing on the multifaceted challenges and nascent opportunities presented by the technological advancements and socio-political dynamics of the 21st century. It specifically investigates how the integration of artificial intelligence and online dispute resolution mechanisms, while promising efficiency, concurrently introduces complex questions regarding due process, data privacy, and the fundamental right to access justice. Furthermore, the burgeoning caseload within the Indian judiciary necessitates innovative solutions, and AI-powered tools are emerging as potential aids for judges, particularly in research and preliminary judgment formulation. The Supreme Court of India’s e-Courts project, alongside initiatives like SUPACE and SUVAS, exemplifies a proactive embrace of technology to enhance judicial efficiency and address environmental sustainability concerns inherent in traditional paper-based systems. This digitalization effort is crucial given the over 4.32 crore cases pending across various courts, placing a significant burden on the judiciary to enhance its operational efficiency. The transition to digital platforms, accelerated by events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, has been pivotal in managing this burden, facilitating virtual hearings and enabling faster redressal of matters. Beyond these immediate benefits, the strategic implementation of artificial intelligence in legal processes, such as the Supreme Court’s SUVAS system, has also demonstrated significant progress in translating complex legal documents into multiple regional languages, thereby improving accessibility and comprehension for a diverse populace. This technological integration also holds promise for streamlining judicial review itself, potentially aiding in case management, precedent analysis, and even the identification of systemic legal inconsistencies. This integration, however, necessitates a rigorous examination of its implications for the foundational principles of judicial review, including its potential to either reinforce or erode judicial independence and accountability. The present analysis critically assesses these developments through the dual theoretical lenses of “Law and Society” and “Legal Realism,” thereby providing a nuanced understanding of the interplay between legal norms, technological innovation, and societal impact.

THE FUTURE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY Read More »

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AS AN INSTRUMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA: AN ANALYSIS THROUGH RECENT LANDMARK JUDGMENTS

Volume III Issue III /

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AS AN INSTRUMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA: AN ANALYSIS THROUGH RECENT LANDMARK JUDGMENTS Vikash Kumar Das, LLM Student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.90 The recent landmark judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court set a deadline for the President and Governors to act upon Bills within a prescribed timeline, has sparked intense debates on the separation of powers and judicial overreach. Judicial activism and the doctrine of separation of powers in India have been subjects of intense debate for decades. Through judicial activism, the Judiciary safeguards the constitutional framework and the rights of the people from the arbitrary exercise of power by the other branches of government. Hence, its role becomes imperative, although it often faces critical remarks and power struggles from the Legislature and the Executive. This Research Article examines the concept of Judicial Activism through the lens of recent landmark judgments. It discusses the constitutional perspective of judicial activism and the separation of powers. It delves into how judicial activism is an instrument for safeguarding constitutional values and helps establish good governance. This research paper highlights the role of judicial activism in laying the foundation for accountable government, safeguarding the rights of the people, and upholding constitutional values in this modern era through the lens of Constitutional Provisions and recent landmark judgments. It further highlights how it led to the formulation of welfare-oriented policies and legislation aimed at advocating the common good and fostering good governance, irrespective of the criticism it faces. The research article employed doctrinal and secondary legal databases to conduct this research.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AS AN INSTRUMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA: AN ANALYSIS THROUGH RECENT LANDMARK JUDGMENTS Read More »

BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE- CONSTITUTIONAL, SOCIAL, AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Volume III Issue II /

BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE- CONSTITUTIONAL, SOCIAL, AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE Dr Deepakshi Joshi, Principal, Chanakya Law College, Rudrapur, Kumaun University. Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.55 The Supreme Court of India established the Basic Structure Doctrine in the landmark judgment of Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala in 1973,[1] Creating a fundamental safeguard that protects the essential features of the Indian Constitution from being altered by parliamentary amendments.¹ This doctrine holds significant constitutional, social, and political implications. From a constitutional perspective, it preserves the Constitution’s fundamental identity by ensuring that core values—such as democracy, secularism, and justice—remain inviolable notwithstanding legislative changes. Socially, it affirms the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms, thereby playing a vital role in upholding social justice and equality. Politically, the doctrine strengthens the system of checks and balances through judicial review, thus securing the democratic framework of governance. Overall, this principle has profoundly influenced the shaping of India’s democratic ideals, the protection of individual rights, and the maintenance of the balance of power between the judiciary and legislature.  

BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE- CONSTITUTIONAL, SOCIAL, AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE Read More »