The scope of Judicial Review in India is somewhat circumscribed as compared to that in the U.S.A.
In India the fundamental rights are not so broadly corded as in the U.S.A and limitations there on have been stated in the constitution itself and this task has not been left to the courts. The constitution makers adopted this strategy as they felt that the courts might find it difficult to work act the limitations on the fundamental rights and the same better be laid down in the constitution itself.
The constitution makers also felt that the Judiciary should not be raised at the level of ‘Super legislature’, whatever the justification for the methods logy adopted by the constitution makers, the inevitable result of this has been to restrict the range of judicial review in India.
It must, however, be conceded that the American Supreme Court has consumed its power to interpret the constitution liberally and has made so thorough a use of the due process of law clause that it has become more than a more interpreter of law.
It has, in fact come to occupy the position of a maker of law and has been correctly described as a ‘third chamber of the legislature, indeed, as a super legislature. Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court has assumed this position; it has not been specifically conferred upon it by the constitution.
Like the American Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of India enjoys the power of Judicial Review’ and this power has been specifically recognized by the constitution. However its authority in relation to ‘judicial review of legislation is more restricted than that of the American Supreme Court.
The framers of the Indian constitution took, good care not to embody the due process of law clause in the constitution on the contrary, the Indian constitution refers to ‘procedure established by law’ consequently, there has been no scope for the development “Alexandrowicz is not conceived as an additional constitution maker but as a body to apply express law.”
It can invalidate laws if they violate provisions of the constitution but not on the ground that they are bad laws. In other words the Indian Judiciary including the Supreme Court is not a Third Chamber claiming the power to sit in judgement on the policy embodied in the legislation passed by the legislature.