Judicial review in the context of constitutional amendments refers to the power of the courts to examine and potentially invalidate amendments to the constitution if they are found to be unconstitutional or in violation of the basic structure or core principles of the constitution. This concept is particularly significant in constitutional democracies where the judiciary acts as a guardian of the constitution and ensures that the legislative and executive branches do not exceed their constitutional limits.

Role of Judicial Review in Constitutional Amendments
Guardian of the Constitution:

The judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding the supremacy of the constitution. It ensures that amendments do not undermine the basic structure or fundamental principles enshrined in the constitution.
Scope of Judicial Review:

In many constitutional systems, including India, the courts have the authority to review the constitutionality of amendments.
The scope of judicial review varies, but generally includes:
Procedural Validity: Ensuring that the amendment process followed constitutional procedures (e.g., majority requirements, ratification procedures).
Substantive Validity: Assessing whether the amendment violates fundamental rights, the basic structure of the constitution, or other core principles.
Basic Structure Doctrine:

In India, the concept of the basic structure doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). This doctrine asserts that while Parliament has the power to amend the constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure or fundamental features.
The courts have used the basic structure doctrine to strike down amendments that they deemed to be in conflict with the core principles of the constitution, such as democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law.
Limitations on Judicial Review:

While courts have the authority to review the constitutionality of amendments, there are some limitations:
Political Question Doctrine: Courts may refrain from intervening in purely political matters or issues best left to the discretion of elected representatives.
Respect for Legislative Authority: There is a presumption of constitutionality, and courts are generally reluctant to interfere with amendments unless they clearly violate the constitution.
Balancing Act:

Judicial review of constitutional amendments involves a delicate balance between respecting the authority of elected representatives and ensuring the constitution’s integrity and stability.
Courts typically exercise restraint and intervene only when amendments clearly undermine the constitution’s basic structure or violate fundamental rights.
Examples and Applications
India: The Indian Supreme Court has used the basic structure doctrine to strike down amendments that sought to alter the fundamental framework of the constitution, such as attempts to curtail judicial review or dilute fundamental rights.

United States: In the US, amendments to the constitution are subject to judicial review, with the Supreme Court assessing their conformity with the Bill of Rights and other fundamental constitutional principles.

Conclusion
Judicial review of constitutional amendments serves as a vital check and balance in constitutional democracies. It ensures that amendments are consistent with the constitution’s foundational principles and do not undermine essential rights and freedoms. While courts exercise caution and respect legislative authority, they play a crucial role in safeguarding the integrity and enduring relevance of the constitution in the face of changing societal and political dynamics.