Correct option is A
The correct answer is (a) It becomes null and void.
Explanation:
- Judicial review is the power of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and High Courts, to examine the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature.
- If a law is found to be inconsistent with the Constitution, especially with the Fundamental Rights, it is declared unconstitutional.
- Once declared unconstitutional, the law ceases to have legal effect and is treated as null and void from the outset.
- This ensures that all laws conform to the basic structure and principles of the Constitution.
- Judicial review upholds the supremacy of the Constitution and acts as a check on arbitrary legislative and executive actions.
Information Booster:
- The concept of judicial review in India is derived from Article 13 of the Constitution, which states that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights shall be void.
- Judicial review is part of the Basic Structure Doctrine, established in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973).
- Both the Supreme Court (under Article 32) and High Courts (under Article 226) have the power of judicial review.
- It is an essential tool for the protection of constitutional rights and federal balance.
Additional Information:
- Option (b) It is amended by the President: Incorrect; the President has no authority to amend laws. Lawmaking and amendments fall under the purview of Parliament.
- Option (c) It remains valid but unenforceable: Incorrect; once declared unconstitutional, the law is struck down entirely.
- Option (d) It is sent back to the Parliament for reconsideration: Incorrect; courts do not send laws back to Parliament but may provide suggestions or interpretations. Parliament may choose to amend or re-enact laws accordingly.
- This principle ensures constitutional supremacy over legislative supremacy, maintaining democratic checks and balances.