In India, Judicial Review implies

The correct answer is A. Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine whether a law passed by the legislature or an executive order is consistent with the Constitution, and to strike it down if it is not. The power comes from Article 13, which declares laws inconsistent with Part III void, and from the writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226.

Why the others are wrong:

• B is wrong because courts test constitutionality, not wisdom or policy merit. Whether a law is wise is for the legislature and the electorate. Courts only check whether it is reasonable in the constitutional sense, for example under Article 14 or 19.
• C is wrong because Indian courts do not review Bills before the President gives assent. Judicial review operates after a law is enacted. Article 143 advisory opinions are not a pre-assent check.
• D describes the power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgments under Article 137, which is a different concept called review jurisdiction, not judicial review.

Core concept: judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), and in the NJAC case (2015) it struck down the 99th Amendment on this basis. This is a central Mains theme on separation of powers and checks and balances.

Trap: aspirants confuse judicial review with the Supreme Court's power to review its own judgments under Article 137, or assume courts can question the wisdom of a law.