The concept of judicial review, under which courts can declare laws unconstitutional, was adopted in the Indian Constitution mainly from the constitution of:

The concept of judicial review, under which the courts can examine laws and executive actions and declare them void if they violate the Constitution, was adopted in India mainly from the Constitution of the United States of America.

Judicial review in the USA:

The US Constitution does not mention judicial review in so many words.

The power was established by the US Supreme Court in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), under Chief Justice John Marshall.

The Court held that it had the power to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.

Since then, judicial review has been an important part of the American system.

Judicial review in India:

• The Indian Constitution expressly provides for judicial review in several provisions.
• Laws that are inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights are void.
• The Supreme Court and the High Courts can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
• The courts can strike down laws made by Parliament or the State Legislatures if they go beyond their legislative competence or violate the Constitution.

Basic structure:

• In the Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court held that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and cannot be taken away even by a constitutional amendment.
• In the Minerva Mills case (1980), the Court again held that judicial review is a basic feature.

Difference between India and the USA:

• The scope of judicial review in India is narrower than in the USA, because India uses the principle of "procedure established by law" (from Japan), while the USA uses "due process of law".
• India also has a parliamentary system, in which Parliament has wide powers, while the USA has a presidential system with a strict separation of powers.

Britain:

In Britain, Parliament is sovereign, and the courts cannot declare an Act of Parliament invalid.

Why not the other options?

• ✗Britain, Ireland and Japan were not the source of judicial review in India.