Difference between Judicial Review and Interpretation of Statutes

While Judicial Review and Interpretation of Statutes are both tools used by the judiciary to uphold the law, they operate at different levels of authority and have different end goals. Interpretation is about understanding what a rule means, while Judicial Review is about checking if that rule is allowed to exist in the first place.

1. Main Distinctions

Feature	Judicial Review	Interpretation of Statutes
Primary Goal	To check the validity/constitutionality of a law.	To determine the meaning/intent of a specific word or clause.
The "Standard"	The law is measured against the Constitution.	The word is measured against the Legislative Intent.
Result	The law can be declared void, unconstitutional, or struck down.	The law remains, but its application is clarified or narrowed/widened.
Scope	High-level (Checks if the Legislature stayed within its "Ultra Vires" limits).	Functional (Checks how the law should work in daily life).
Frequency	Used only when a law is challenged as being illegal or unfair.	Used in almost every case where the law is applied to facts.

2. Is the Power of the Court the same in both?

No, the power is fundamentally different in nature and intensity.

The Power in Interpretation (The "Subordinate" Power): In interpretation, the judge acts as an agent of the Legislature. The court’s job is to discover the voluntas legislatoris (the will of the legislature). The judge cannot change the law and cannot add words to the law (except in rare cases of clerical error). The power is strictly restricted to the "four corners" of the Act.

The Power in Judicial Review (The "Supervisory" Power): In judicial review, the judge acts as the Protector of the Constitution. This is a much higher power. The court can veto the will of the legislature and "strike down" a law passed by a majority government if it violates fundamental rights (e.g., Article 13 of the Indian Constitution). It is a "supervisory" power over the other two branches of government (Legislature and Executive).

3. Where they Overlap: "Reading Down"

There is a unique grey area where these two powers meet. Sometimes, a court sees a law that looks unconstitutional (Judicial Review), but instead of striking it down, they interpret it very narrowly so that it stays within constitutional limits. This is called "Reading Down." For example, if a law says "All protests are banned," a court might interpret "protests" to mean only "violent protests" so that the law doesn't violate the right to free speech.

Landmark Case Comparison

• Interpretation Power: In Lee v. Knapp (1967), the court had to interpret the word "stop" after an accident. The court held that "stopping" meant staying long enough to exchange particulars, not just a momentary pause. The law remained intact; only its meaning was clarified.

• Judicial Review Power: In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act entirely because it violated the Right to Freedom of Speech. The law was deleted from the books.

Conclusion

The power of Interpretation is a tool of construction (building understanding), while Judicial Review is a power of evaluation (judging validity). While interpretation seeks to give life to the legislature's words, judicial review ensures those words don't cross the constitutional "red line."