Approach:

Introduction: Define judicial review and mention the relevant constitutional articles.

Body: Mention the relevant case laws through which the judiciary has been able to realize its role of being the protector of the fundamental rights which are enshrined in our constitution.

Conclusion: Mention judicial activism and judicial restraint.

Answer:

Judicial Review is a doctrine using which the Supreme Court or High courts can declare a law, made by the Parliament or the state legislature, null and void if that law intends to take away or abridge the fundamental rights of the people. The power of Judicial Review flows from Articles 13, 32, 132 and 226 of the Constitution.

Supreme Court of India using its power of Judicial Review expanded the scope of Fundamental Rights through various judgements like: 

1. Expanded the meaning of ‘state’ under article 12 - In Rajasthan State Electricity Board v/s Mohan Lal,1967 it was held that in order to be defined as a State under article 12, it is not necessary that the authority must be performing governmental or sovereign functions. It should-

• Be created by the Constitution of India;
• Have the power to make laws;
• Performance of functions is very close to governmental or sovereign functions.

So, under Article 12 apart from executive and legislative organs at union and state levels, local bodies and even private bodies, if it is acting as an instrument of the state, would fall within the meaning of “state” under Article 12. So, the judiciary protects the fundamental rights of the people against actions taken by all these bodies.

1. Judicial review of Constitutional amendments Acts - Although according to the 24th constitutional amendment Act, of 1971, constitutional amendment Acts are not considered as law under Article 13. But in the Kesavananda Bharati case, 1973, the Supreme Court stated that a constitutional amendment Act can be challenged on the ground that it is violative of a fundamental right which forms a part of the basic structure of the constitution and hence, can be declared as void.

1. Protected freedom of speech of expression - In Shreya Singhal v/s Union of India, 2015 case the Supreme Court struck down section 66A of IT Act, 2000 stating that a law that limits freedom of speech & expression can neither be vague nor be over-broad. As the law did not clearly define what constitutes “grossly offensive” Information.

1. Protection from arbitrary legislative actions - In the Menaka Gandhi case, 1978 the Supreme Court clearly stated that the right to life and personal liberty of a person can be deprived by a law provided the procedure prescribed by law is reasonable, fair and just. Thus, after this judgement, the right to life & Personal liberty (Article 21) is protected not just from arbitrary executive actions but also from arbitrary legislative actions.

1. Expanded scope of Article 21 - In K.S. Puttaswamy's case, 2018 the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 by stating that the right to privacy is an intrinsic aspect of dignity, autonomy and liberty thus making it a Fundamental Right. 

1. Established balance between FR & DPSPs - In Minerva Mills case, 1980 the Supreme Court stated that the harmony and balance between the two is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Indian constitution. So, the goals that are listed under DPSPs have to be achieved without abrogation of the means provided by the Fundamental rights.

1. Issues writs - Under Articles 32 & 226 the courts can issue writs of various kinds i.e. Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari & Quo-Warranto in case of violation of fundamental rights thus safeguarding fundamental rights.

Although by exercising judicial review the judiciary has played an important role in safeguarding fundamental rights but by developing a doctrine of essentiality under Article 25 and by not clearly defining what constitutes the Basic Structure of the constitution the courts are also violating the doctrine of separation of powers. Thus, the judiciary needs to strike a balance between acting as a protector of fundamental rights and doctrine of separation of powers, by practising judicial restraint.