Judicial review of laws

judicial review is adopted in the Indian constitution from the constitution of the United
States of America. In the Indian constitution, Judicial Review is dealt with under Article
13. Judicial Review refers that the Constitution is the supreme power of the nation and all
laws are under its supremacy. Article 13 states that

1. All pre-constitutional laws, after the coming into force of constitution, if in conflict
with it in all or some of its provisions then the provisions of constitution will prevail and
the provisions of that pre-constitutional law will not be in force until an amendment of
the constitution relating to the same matter. In such situation the provision of that law
will again come into force, if it is compatible with the constitution as amended. This is
called the Theory of Eclipse[citation needed].

2. In a similar manner, laws made after adoption of the Constitution by the Constituent
Assembly must be compatible with the constitution, otherwise the laws and amendments
will be deemed to be void-ab-initio.

In such situations, the Supreme Court or High Court interprets the laws as if they are in
conformity with the constitution. If such an interpretation is not possible because of
inconsistency, and where a separation is possible, the provision that is inconsistent with
constitution is considered to be void. In addition to article 13, articles 32, 124, 131, 219,
226 and 246 provide a constitutional basis to the Judicial review in India.[citation needed]

Judicial activism
Judicial activism describes judicial ruling suspected of being based on personal or
political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of
judicial restraint.[1]:1 The definition of judicial activism, and which specific decisions are
activist, is a controversial political issue, particularly in the United States. The question of
judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction,
and separation of powers.

Origins of the term

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. introduced the term "judicial activism" in a January 1947 Fortune
magazine article titled "The Supreme Court: 1947."[2]

Schlesinger's article profiled all nine Supreme Court justices on the Court at
“ that time and explained the alliances and divisions among them. The article ”
characterized Justices Black, Douglas, Murphy, and Rutledge as the "Judicial
Activists" and Justices Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton as the "Champions
of Self Restraint." Justice Reed and Chief Justice Vinson comprised a middle
 group. — Keenan D. Kmiec[3]

From the very beginning, the phrase was controversial. An article by Craig Green, An
Intellectual History of Judicial Activism, is highly critical of Schlesinger's use of the
term. "Schlesinger’s original introduction of judicial activism was doubly blurred: not
only did he fail to explain what counts as activism, he also declined to say whether
activism is good or bad."[4]

Definitions
Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as a "philosophy of judicial decision-
making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other
factors, to guide their decisions.

The law on impeachment of judges

A member of the higher judiciary, which means the Judges and Chief Justices of the
Supreme Court of India and the state High Courts, can be removed from service only
through the process of impeachment under Article 124 (4) of the Constitution on grounds
of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. In India, there is no other process by which a
Judge can be removed from office before his term comes to an end. However, the process
is very As per the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, a complaint against a Judge has to be made
through a resolution either by 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha
members. After the MPs submit a duly signed motion to this effect to their respective
presiding officers — Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or Speaker of the Lok Sabha — the
presiding officer constitutes a three-member committee comprising two Judges — one
from the Supreme Court and one Chief Justice of a High Court if the complaint is against
a HC Judge; and two Supreme Court Judges if the complaint is against a sitting Judge of the
apex court — and a jurist to probe the complaint and determine if it is a case fit for
initiating the process of impeachment. cumbersome.