Judicial Review Under Siege: How Legislative Amendments Reshaped Reservation Laws
- IJLLR Journal
- 1 day ago
- 1 min read
Himank Modh & Manthan Sharma, Unitedworld School of Law, Karnavati University, Gandhinagar
ABSTRACT
This paper critically analyzes how India’s judicial review system is becoming less effective as a result of several constitutional revisions meant to change the judiciary stance on reservation laws. The legislature has regularly responded with changes that weaken or overturn the judiciary attempts to set constitutional limits on affirmative action through seminal instances like Indra Sawhney, M. nagaraj, and Kesavananda Bharati. The pattern shows a systematic deterioration of judicial protections through legislative activism from the First amendment’s reversal of Champakam Dorairajan to the 103rd amendments introduction of economic reservations. The study tracks significant instances in which court decisions attempted to uphold the supremacy of the constitution in reservation policies were ultimately limited by constitutional amendments. This research emphasizes the structural disparity between legislature and the judiciary through doctrinal examination of constitutional law and case precedents. The paper makes the cases that although acting as gatekeeper for the constitution, the judiciary rulings have frequently been deemed temporary in light of legislative supremacy. In order to restore balance in the separation of powers, this paper suggests institutional reforms, improved inter branch communication and periodic reviews of reservation policies.
Keywords: Judicial Review, Reservation policy, Constitutional Amendments, Legislative override, Basic Structure Doctrine.
