JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION IN THE UK AND INDIA

Judicial review and constitutional interpretation have become pivotal in shaping legal landscapes and democratic accountability in both India and the UK, especially from 2020 to 2024. This study is essential due to increasing judicial assertiveness, legislative challenges, and interpretative inconsistencies, which threaten constitutional coherence. It aims to comparatively analyze the forms, scope, and impacts of judicial review across both nations. Employing a qualitative comparative methodology with secondary data from 2,637 Supreme Court cases, the study utilized descriptive and inferential statistics-including chi-square tests (χ² = 118.76, p < 0.001), Z-tests (Z = 12.87, p < 0.001), ANOVA (F = 24.91, p < 0.001), correlation (r = 0.94), and regression analysis (R² = 0.87). Findings show India favored substantive review (650 cases) and activist rulings (55%), while the UK emphasized proportionality (280 cases) and judicial restraint (70%). India struck down 18 legislative provisions versus the UK’s 5, with purposive interpretation (β = 0.58) and activist rulings (β = 0.63) strongly predicting invalidation. A strong correlation (r = 0.89) was found between activism and contradictory rulings in India. The study concludes that while India’s judiciary enhances rights, it risks inconsistency, whereas the UK preserves legislative supremacy through cautious adjudication. Implications include the need for harmonized interpretation in India and balanced rights review in the UK. Recommendations involve institutionalizing constitutional review mechanisms and judicial training in interpretive best practices.