Concept:Judicial Review is the power of courts to check laws for constitutionality. The Indian Constitution does not explicitly define it, but it is derived from various articles. Critics argue it can make Parliament irresponsible by relying on courts to assess laws.
Explanation:Option A is correct: the Constitution does not clearly describe Judicial Review.
Option B is correct: India follows 'procedure established by law', not 'due process'.
Option C is controversial: after the I.R. Coelho case (2007), laws in the 9th Schedule can be reviewed if they violate the basic structure. However, before that judgment, it was believed they could not be reviewed.
Option D is not correct: Parliament CAN pass laws and amendments, but they must comply with the basic structure doctrine. The statement says Parliament 'cannot' override judicial review hurdles – this is false because Parliament does have the power to legislate, though subject to constitutional limits. Judicial review itself creates a system of checks and balances, not a complete bar on Parliament.
Answer:D. The Parliament cannot pass laws and amendments for overriding the hurdles created by Judicial Review.