Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Review a Bill Before It Becomes Law
In a significant constitutional clarification, the Supreme Court has ruled that judicial review applies only to enacted legislation and not to proposed bills that are still pending legislative approval. The Court observed that it cannot adjudicate on the validity of a bill before it receives assent and formally becomes law.
Key Constitutional Principle Explained
A bill is merely a proposal for legislation introduced in Parliament or a State Legislature. It becomes enforceable law only after it is passed by the House(s) and receives assent from the President or the Governor, as applicable.
The Supreme Court emphasized that until this legislative process is completed, a bill does not acquire the force of law. Therefore, courts cannot examine or strike down a bill that has not yet been enacted.
Judicial Review: Scope and Limits
Judicial review is a core feature of the Constitution, empowering courts to examine whether laws enacted by the legislature comply with constitutional provisions. However, the Court clarified that this power is triggered only after a law is formally enacted.
Intervening at the stage of a pending bill would amount to interference in the legislative process, which falls within the exclusive domain of the legislature. The judiciary, the Court noted, must respect the separation of powers among the three branches of government.
Doctrine of Separation of Powers
The ruling reinforces the principle that each organ of the State—legislature, executive, and judiciary—has distinct constitutional functions. The legislature debates, amends, and passes bills. The executive grants assent. Only after this process is complete can the judiciary step in to examine the law’s validity.
By declining to adjudicate on pending bills, the Court maintained institutional balance and avoided pre-empting legislative intent.
Implications of the Ruling
The decision clarifies that individuals or organizations cannot challenge the constitutionality of a bill in court before it becomes law. Any legal challenge must wait until the legislation is enacted and notified.
Legal experts believe this ruling strengthens procedural discipline in constitutional governance and prevents premature litigation that could disrupt parliamentary functioning.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s clarification underscores a fundamental constitutional boundary: judicial review applies to laws, not to proposed bills. Until a bill completes the legislative process and receives assent, courts cannot examine its validity. The ruling reinforces the doctrine of separation of powers and affirms the structured functioning of India’s constitutional framework.
