Published Paper Details:

The Constitution is the most important statute in the country. According to Hans Kelson, it is the state's "basic framework." The law gives power and legitimacy to all other norms; hence a state's Constitution serves as a normative framework, validating all other laws and activities. The Indian Constitution has also accepted the notion of the rule of law, making it the ultimate law of the land. Any law that contradicts this highest law is declared null and invalid. Our Constitution provides for judicial review of such acts to check this inconsistency or any other arbitrary steps, rules, regulations, laws or by-laws, or any other actions of legislative or administration. The power of the Court to evaluate the legislative, executive, and judiciary activities is known as judicial review. It is a fundamental characteristic of the Constitution and an essential aspect of constitutionalism. The Court plays a critical role in determining the impact of the constitutionality of both the federal and state government's legislative enactments and executive directives. On a comparative note, this study describes the analysis of judicial review in the United States of America (U.S.A.) and India. This research is meant to provide a thorough picture of the extent to which the United States and India adhere to judicial review in practice, as well as their disparities. This study discusses the origins of judicial review, as well as its character, functioning, features, importance, scope, and specialised tasks. As a result, the primary concept of this research paper is to provide an overview and related aspects of judicial review and its current state, using the United States of America and India as examples. The evolution, evaluation, and conclusions drawn from this work have all been heavily emphasised. Criticism, like admiration, plays a significant role, and this component has been addressed whenever it was judged to be relevant.