Indian Journal of Law and Human Behavior

This doctoral research paper conducts a comparative analysis of judicial review across India, the United States, and the United Kingdom, examining how courts ensure governmental actions comply with constitutional limits. The study traces the historical evolution and constitutional foundations in each jurisdiction: India’s explicit constitutional provisions (Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 141- 143, 226-227), the US’s implicit framework derived from Articles III and VI through judicial interpretation, and the UK’s uncodified system rooted in parliamentary sovereignty. Key findings reveal distinct scopes: India’s basic structure doctrine enables review of legislative, executive, and constitutional amendments; US review covers legislation and executive acts but not constitutional amendments; UK review focuses primarily on secondary legislation and administrative actions. The research analyses judicial review’s impact on fundamental rights protection, constitutional governance, and tensions between judicial activism and restraint across different constitutional cultures. It proposes reforms to enhance judicial accountability while maintaining the balance between judicial independence and democratic legitimacy, demonstrating judicial review’s essential yet varied role in constitutional democracies across legal traditions.

Background: Medical negligence cases in India are increasingly adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), which provides for summary trial mechanisms. While these forums aim to deliver swift justice, concerns remain about procedural fairness, evidentiary rigor, and the balance between patient rights and practitioner protections. Objective: To critically examine the implications of summary trial verdicts in medical negligence cases under the CPA, highlighting their impact on healthcare accountability, judicial efficiency, and medico-legal safeguards. Methods: A doctrinal analysis of statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and procedural frameworks was conducted. Comparative insights were drawn from consumer forum practices and conventional civil trial processes. Case law examples were reviewed to illustrate recurring patterns and challenges. Results: Findings suggest that summary trials under the CPA expedite resolution but often compromise detailed evidentiary examination. This creates tension between the goals of consumer protection and the principles of natural justice. The study identifies procedural gaps, risks of practitioner vulnerability, and inconsistencies in verdicts across forums. Conclusion: While the CPA’s summary trial model enhances access to justice for patients, it requires recalibration to safeguard medical practitioners against undue liability. Strengthening procedural safeguards, ensuring expert testimony, and harmonizing consumer forum practices with civil jurisprudence are essential for balanced medico-legal accountability.

Background: The intersection of statutory law (“black letter law”) and medical practice (“white coat profession”) in India presents unique challenges. While law emphasizes codified rules and judicial precedent, medicine operates within ethical, clinical, and humanitarian frameworks. The tension between rigid legal interpretation and dynamic medical realities often leads to conflict in accountability, negligence claims, and patient rights. Objective: To critically examine how Indian jurisprudence interacts with medical practice, highlighting areas of convergence, conflict, and reform. The study aims to contextualize medicolegal accountability within India’s healthcare system and propose frameworks for balancing statutory rigidity with clinical discretion. Methods: A doctrinal and analytical approach is adopted, reviewing statutory provisions, case law, and regulatory guidelines. Comparative insights are drawn from international medicolegal frameworks, while Indian case studies illustrate practical implications. The analysis integrates perspectives from medical ethics, patient safety, and legal accountability. Results: Findings reveal systemic gaps in aligning legal standards with medical realities. Courts often rely on black letter law without adequate consideration of clinical complexities, leading to defensive medicine and practitioner vulnerability. Conversely, medical professionals sometimes underappreciate statutory obligations, resulting in breaches of patient rights. Emerging jurisprudence shows gradual movement toward harmonization, but inconsistencies remain. Conclusion: A balanced medicolegal framework in India requires judicial sensitivity to medical realities, statutory reforms to protect both patients and practitioners, and institutional mechanisms for compliance. Bridging law and medicine is essential to ensure justice, accountability, and compassionate care.