Answer:

Under the British constitution courts cannot nullify any act of Parliament on any ground whatsoever.

♤ In the United States, on the other hand the Supreme Court has come to acquire apposition wherein it can invalidate a law not only on the ground that it transgresses the scope of legislative power vested in the constitution but also on the basis of prohibitions contained in the bill of rights as well as on the basis of general principles such as due process as defined and interpreted by the court itself.

♤ As opposed to these extremes the Indian constitution endows the judiciary with the power of declaring a law as unconstitutional if it is beyond the competence of the legislature according to the distribution of powers provided by the constitution, or if it is in contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. At the same it also deprives the judiciary of any power of ‘judicial review’ as far as the wisdom of legislative policy is concerned.

♤ Simply put, The Supreme Court in India can declare the parliamentary laws as unconstitutional through its power of judicial review and the Parliament on its part can amend major portion of the constitution through its constituent power.

♤ Additionally, the scope of power of judicial review in India is narrower than in the case of the Supreme Court in the US ostensibly because the American constitution

provides for ‘due process of law’ as opposed to the concept of ‘procedure established by law’ as enshrined in the Article 21 of the Indian constitution.

♤ However, it has to be born in mind the Judiciary in India has broadened the ambit of constitutional provisions regarding Judicial review through innovations such as basic structure doctrine.