Comparative study of Review Powers: Constitutional Judicial Review vs. Review Mechanism under the Civil Procedure Code

  • Rishit
  • Show Author Details
  • Rishit

    Student at National Law University Jodhpur, India

  • img Download Full Paper


Judicial review is a process by which the judiciary examines, determines, and invalidates the executive or legislative actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India explicitly establishes the mechanism for judicial review through various articles, including Articles 13, 32, 131 to 136, 143, 226, and 246. This judicial review serves as a fundamental element in maintaining the system of checks and balances within the framework of the separation of powers. It grants the judiciary the authority to oversee the actions of the legislative and executive branches and to uphold the primacy of the constitution. The judiciary's role encompasses the interpretation of the constitution, clarifying the distribution of powers among the different branches of government. Articles 32 and 226 further empower the judiciary with the crucial ability to conduct judicial review, which not only holds a significant place within the Constitution but is also considered an integral component of its basic structure. The Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is a set of rules and regulations that govern the process of civil litigation in India. Under the CPC, there are various mechanisms for review, which allow parties to challenge and seek a re-evaluation of a court's decision. The review mechanism aims to ensure that justice is served and that errors or omissions in the original decision are rectified. Judicial review under the Indian Constitution and the review mechanism under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) serve different purposes and operate in distinct contexts. While judicial review is a constitutional principle that allows the judiciary to examine and invalidate laws and actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution, the review mechanism under the CPC focuses on rectifying errors or omissions in the original decision of a court.




International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 7, Issue 1, Page 254 - 260


Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (, which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.


Copyright © IJLMH 2021