An analysis of Judicial Control of Administrative Action through Special Leave Petition
Judicial Control of Administrative Action through Special Leave Petition (SLP)
I. Introduction
What is Special Leave Petition (SLP)?
The Special Leave Petition is a unique remedy under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
It grants the Supreme Court of India discretionary power to hear appeals against any judgment, decree, or order from any court or tribunal in the country.
It is often invoked to challenge administrative actions or decisions taken by governmental authorities that have been upheld or dismissed by lower courts.
II. Judicial Control over Administrative Actions
Why Judicial Control?
Administrative actions affect fundamental rights, property rights, and other legally protected interests.
The doctrine of rule of law demands that such actions be subject to judicial review.
Courts ensure administrative authorities act within the scope of their statutory powers and do not abuse discretion.
Role of SLP in Judicial Review:
SLP provides a broad supervisory jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.
It is a special, discretionary remedy, allowing the Court to correct gross injustice, error of law, or violation of principles of natural justice.
It supplements ordinary appellate jurisdiction.
III. Grounds for Judicial Control through SLP
Illegality: Administrative action beyond the scope of statutory powers (ultra vires).
Arbitrariness or abuse of discretion.
Violation of principles of natural justice.
Procedural impropriety.
Violation of Fundamental Rights.
Unreasonableness or perversity in administrative decisions.
IV. Important Case Laws and Their Explanation
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the government without providing reasons or a hearing.
Issue:
Whether administrative action depriving a person of personal liberty without due process is violative of Article 21.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that any administrative action affecting fundamental rights must satisfy the procedure established by law and must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Significance:
Expanded judicial review of administrative action under SLP.
Reinforced that administrative discretion is subject to constitutional safeguards.
2. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
Facts:
Challenge to the dismissal of a government servant under administrative orders.
Issue:
Whether the administrative action was in compliance with natural justice and statutory provisions.
Holding:
The Court reiterated that administrative decisions must not be arbitrary or malafide, and violation of principles of natural justice renders the action liable to be struck down.
Significance:
Judicial control via SLP ensures fairness in administrative disciplinary actions.
3. R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged government policy on administrative grounds, alleging it was arbitrary.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that arbitrariness in administrative action violates Article 14 (equality before law), and courts must intervene.
Significance:
Demonstrated that SLP can be a remedy against arbitrary administrative actions violating equality.
4. Bihar State Electricity Board v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (1965)
Facts:
Dispute related to administrative action involving tariffs and service conditions.
Holding:
The Court emphasized that administrative actions must be within the delegated powers and cannot transgress limits fixed by statute.
Significance:
Judicial control through SLP prevents excessive delegation or misuse of power.
5. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
Facts:
Challenge to the dismissal of a government employee on grounds of bias and arbitrariness.
Holding:
The Court held that arbitrariness is antithetical to the rule of law and can be reviewed judicially.
Significance:
Strengthened the doctrine of judicial control over administrative arbitrariness through SLP.
V. Scope and Limitations of Judicial Control via SLP
Scope
SLP is not a matter of right, but of discretion.
The Supreme Court uses it to maintain uniformity of law and correct gross miscarriage of justice.
It covers administrative decisions where fundamental rights or substantial legal questions arise.
Limitations
Court usually does not interfere with administrative discretion unless there is illegality or violation of natural justice.
It avoids becoming a forum for routine appeals against administrative orders.
The principle of separation of powers restricts excessive judicial intervention.
VI. Procedure of SLP against Administrative Action
Petition filed in the Supreme Court after exhausting remedies in lower courts or tribunals.
Court examines prima facie case before admitting SLP.
On admission, merits are considered, and if violation is found, administrative action may be quashed or modified.
VII. Conclusion
The Special Leave Petition under Article 136 is a powerful instrument for judicial control over administrative action.
It upholds the rule of law, protects fundamental rights, and prevents abuse of administrative power.
Landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi, E.P. Royappa, and R.K. Garg emphasize that while administrative discretion is essential, it is always subject to judicial scrutiny to prevent arbitrariness and injustice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments