A Critical Study between Activism and Restraint: Rethinking Judicial Review under Constitutional Supremacy

Constitutional supremacy constitutes the foundational principle of modern democratic governance, ensuring that all organs of the State derive their authority from and remain subject to the Constitution. Rooted in the ideals of constitutionalism and the rule of law, it establishes a normative framework within which legislative, executive, and judicial actions are regulated. In this context, judicial review has emerged as a crucial mechanism for the preservation of constitutional supremacy, empowering the judiciary to interpret the Constitution, safeguard fundamental rights, and maintain institutional accountability. The study highlights the role of judicial activism and the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in broadening access to justice and enabling the judiciary to address issues of public concern Adopting a doctrinal and analytical methodology, this paper evaluates the dual role of judicial review as both a protector of constitutional supremacy and a potential source of institutional imbalance. It argues that while an expansive interpretation of judicial review is essential for the effective enforcement of fundamental rights and the promotion of constitutional morality, it must be exercised with caution and within principled limits. The paper concludes that a balanced and context-sensitive approach to judicial review is indispensable for sustaining constitutional supremacy in modern democracies. It advocates for a calibrated exercise of judicial power that harmonizes the need for rights protection with the principles of separation of powers and democratic accountability. Such an approach not only strengthens the rule of law but also enhances the legitimacy and effectiveness of constitutional governance in contemporary society.