Judicial Review: Constitutional Bedrock

CJI’s Inquiry Committee, Odisha DGP PIL, and FCRA Bill: Judicial Review in Action

The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, has set up a three‑member panel to probe the discovery of a “huge” sum of cash at Justice Yashwant Varma’s Delhi residence. In parallel, a public‑interest litigation in the Supreme Court challenges Odisha’s appointment of a Director General of Police, alleging breach of the Prakash Singh judgment. Meanwhile, the Lok Sabha has referred the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, to a joint parliamentary committee, reviving debates over the scope of legislative oversight. Together, these episodes illustrate how India’s system of Judicial Review operates across courts and Parliament.

India’s power to strike down unconstitutional statutes rests on three core provisions. Article 13 (Constitution of India) declares any law inconsistent with Part III (Fundamental Rights) void, giving courts a declaratory role. Article 32 (Constitution of India) empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of those rights, while Article 226 (Constitution of India) extends similar supervisory jurisdiction to High Courts over administrative actions and subordinate legislation. The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) cemented the “basic structure” doctrine, ensuring that any amendment violating the Constitution’s core principles can be invalidated.

• ▸Article 13(2) renders laws contravening Fundamental Rights void ab initio.
• ▸Article 32 confers the right to file writ petitions for enforcement of rights.
• ▸Article 226 allows High Courts to issue writs for any violation of law or jurisdiction.
• ▸The basic structure doctrine limits Parliament’s amending power, preserving judicial review.

These provisions collectively empower the judiciary to act as a check on both legislative excesses and executive overreach.

The Yashwant Varma Cash Probe: High Court’s Accountability

On 22 March 2025, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three‑judge committee—Chief Justice Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana), Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia (Himachal Pradesh), and Justice Anu Sivaraman (Karnataka)—to investigate allegations that a large amount of cash was found at Justice Yashwant Varma’s official residence after a fire. The inquiry, ordered under the High Court’s supervisory powers, underscores the application of Article 226 to ensure transparency within the judiciary itself.

• ▸Committee members: Sheel Nagu, G.S. Sandhawalia, Anu Sivaraman.
• ▸Allegation: “huge” cash discovered during a blaze at Varma’s residence.
• ▸Date of order: 22 March 2025.
• ▸Purpose: Examine possible misconduct and recommend appropriate action.

By invoking its supervisory jurisdiction, the Delhi High Court demonstrates that even senior judges are subject to institutional scrutiny, reinforcing public confidence in the rule of law.

Odisha DGP Appointment: PIL Invokes Prakash Singh Judgment

A PIL filed by senior lawyer‑turned‑former Home Minister P. Chidambaram challenges Odisha’s decision to bypass the panel of three senior IPS officers prescribed by the Prakash Singh judgment. The Supreme Court, under Article 32, is being asked to enforce the procedural safeguards laid down in the 2005 case, which mandates that a state’s DGP be selected from a UPSC‑prepared shortlist of the three most senior officers.

• ▸Retiring DGP: Y. B. Khurania (retirement on 16 August 2026).
• ▸UPSC‑submitted names: Sudhanshu Sarangi (1990 batch), Susanta Kumar Nath (1993), R.P. Koche (1993).
• ▸Alleged breach: State government’s attempt to appoint an officer outside the senior‑most bracket.
• ▸Legal basis: Supreme Court’s directive in the Prakash Singh case for transparent DGP appointments.

The petition exemplifies how Article 32 enables citizens to seek judicial enforcement of procedural norms, ensuring that executive appointments adhere to constitutional standards.

Foreign Contribution Amendment Bill: Parliamentary Scrutiny as Judicial Review Adjacent

On 12 August 2026, the Lok Sabha passed a motion to refer the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, to a 31‑member joint committee for detailed examination. While the bill seeks to amend the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, opposition parties allege that its provisions target minority‑run NGOs, raising concerns about potential violations of constitutional freedoms. Though parliamentary committees are not courts, their investigative role can pre‑empt judicial challenges by addressing constitutional deficiencies before legislation is enacted.

• ▸Motion moved by Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai.
• ▸Committee composition: 21 Lok Sabha members (nominated by Speaker Om Birla) and 10 Raj Sabha members (nominated by Chairman C.P. Radhakrishnan).
• ▸Deadline for report: First week of the Winter Session, 2026.
• ▸Opposition claim: Bill aims at minorities and NGOs, potentially infringing on Fundamental Rights.

Should the joint committee’s recommendations fall short, affected parties may invoke Article 32 to contest the amendment, illustrating the interplay between legislative oversight and judicial review.

---