Constitutional democracy is practised in India with a focus on the rule of law. In order to protect citizen rights and the Constitution from arbitrary actions by the legislature and government, the judiciary has accepted the challenging role of serving as the Constitution's Protector. The article covers Judicial Review from an Indian perspective, which is essential for safeguarding the public interest. However, Contrary to popular opinion, courts' judicial duties do not entail making new laws; rather simply interpret ones that already exist. In practise, however, the judiciary has safeguarded the public interest through Judicial Review but in doing so, the judiciary has "extended" its judicial powers beyond what was intended to do and engaged in judicial adventurism by ignoring the constraints on Judicial Review power, such as the separation of powers and judicial restraint, etc., entrenched in the Indian Constitution. This paper shall give more emphasis on restrictions fixed on Judicial Review power of the judiciary for the purpose of maintaining the balance of power in the governance of the nation with the support of various constitutional provisions and judicial decisions. This Paper shall focus on the instances where Judiciary in the exercise of Judicial Review indulge in Judicial Adventurism and ignored the restrictions fixed on Judicial Review power of the judiciary which are required to be followed for the purpose of maintaining the balance in individual interest and societal interest in true sense.