Recent Trends in Judicial Review in Context of India and UK

Judicial review in India and the United Kingdom has evolved significantly in recent years, moving beyond a narrow focus on jurisdictional error to encompass a wider engagement with rights, public finance, constitutional structure, and executive accountability. In India, the written Constitution authorizes this control through Articles 13, 32, and 226, reinforced by the basic structure doctrine. The UK traces this power to common law supervision of public authorities, strengthened by the Human Rights Act 1998 and shaped by Brexit-era legislation. Recent decisions in both jurisdictions demonstrate a willingness to address politically sensitive questions when legal rights are at stake. Indian courts have scrutinized electoral finance, remission orders, and appointments to constitutional bodies while showing restraint in economic policy matters. UK courts have asserted limits on executive power in the context of Brexit and prorogation while applying a more deferential approach in national security cases. Both systems employ proportionality and legitimate expectation tests, with the intensity of review varying based on the nature of the rights involved. The introduction of new criminal, procedural, and data protection laws in India invites further judicial scrutiny. In the UK, the shift from retained EU law to assimilated law and attempts to limit migration-related challenges will likely keep courts occupied in drawing boundaries between policy and legal questions. The comparative analysis reveals a convergence in judicial techniques but divergence in the extent of judicial authority, with Indian courts possessing the power to invalidate laws that violate fundamental constitutional commitments, while UK courts often defer to Parliament after issuing declarations of incompatibility. As both nations navigate emerging challenges in areas such as artificial intelligence, platform governance, and climate change, the role of judicial review in safeguarding democratic participation, individual rights, and the rule of law remains crucial.