Judicial Review of Fundamental Rights in India: From Constitutional Supremacy to Proportionality

The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land and establishes a framework of limited government in which State power remains subject to constitutional restraints. Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III serve as essential limitations on governmental authority and provide individuals with enforceable protections against arbitrary State action. Judicial review enables constitutional courts to examine legislative and executive measures and invalidate those inconsistent with Fundamental Rights or other constitutional requirements. Article 13 expressly recognises this power in relation to laws inconsistent with Part III, while Articles 32 and 226 provide important constitutional remedies for the enforcement of rights. The Supreme Court’s approach, however, has evolved considerably. From the relatively formal rights analysis visible in early decisions such as A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, judicial review progressively developed into a more substantive examination of State action, particularly following Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. In this evolution, proportionality has emerged as an important framework for determining whether restrictions on Fundamental Rights are constitutionally justified.