Constitutional Review and Political Question Doctrine: Comparative Jurisprudential Limits

Abstract

Constitutional review lies at the heart of modern constitutionalism serving as a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power. Yet, the boundaries of judicial intervention are constrained by the political question doctrine a principle delineating the limits of justiciability in constitutional adjudication. This research paper examines the conceptual foundations and comparative applications of constitutional review and the political question doctrine in three major constitutional systems- the United States, United Kingdom and India. It explores the evolution of judicial power in each jurisdiction highlighting the jurisprudential limits shaped by history institutional design and political culture. The paper concludes that while all three jurisdictions share a concern for maintaining separation of powers they diverge in their interpretative strategies: the U.S. adopts formal judicial self-restraint through the political question doctrine the U.K. applies pragmatic constitutional conventions and India embraces an expansive judicial review tempered by self-imposed restraint.