Comparative study of administrative remedies and judicial review
Comparative Study of Administrative Remedies and Judicial Review
Overview
Administrative Remedies
These are internal mechanisms available within administrative agencies or government departments.
They allow aggrieved parties to seek redress or correction of administrative decisions without resorting to courts.
Examples include reconsideration, appeal to a higher administrative authority, grievance redressal mechanisms, tribunals, and ombudsman.
Aim: To provide quick, expert, and cost-effective resolution.
Judicial Review
It is the power of courts to examine the legality, constitutionality, and fairness of administrative actions.
Courts ensure administrative authorities act within their legal limits and follow due process.
It is a supervisory mechanism to prevent abuse of power, arbitrariness, and violations of fundamental rights.
Judicial review is exercised after exhausting or alongside administrative remedies depending on the law.
Key Differences
| Aspect | Administrative Remedies | Judicial Review |
|---|---|---|
| Forum | Administrative agencies, tribunals | Courts (High Courts, Supreme Court) |
| Nature | Internal mechanism for correction | External supervisory mechanism |
| Expertise | Expert administrative bodies | Judicial officers (legal expertise) |
| Speed & Cost | Usually faster and less expensive | Relatively slower and costlier |
| Scope | Limited to correcting errors within agency | Broader review — legality, constitutional validity, fairness |
| Binding Power | Usually binding within agency hierarchy | Binding on all authorities, including administrative ones |
| Remedy Exhaustion Requirement | Usually required before approaching courts | Can be invoked post-exhaustion of administrative remedies |
Case Law Analysis
1. Union of India v. Mahalakshmi Finance (1972)
Issue: Scope of judicial review when statutory administrative remedies exist.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that judicial review is not barred merely because a statutory remedy exists, but courts generally expect exhaustion of administrative remedies before judicial intervention.
Significance: Emphasized the complementary relationship between administrative remedies and judicial review.
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Issue: Role of judicial review in administrative decision-making involving quasi-judicial functions.
Judgment: The Court ruled that administrative decisions involving adjudication must adhere to principles of natural justice and are open to judicial review.
Significance: Judicial review acts as a check to ensure fairness in administrative adjudication, even when administrative remedies exist.
3. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Issue: Constitutional validity of tribunals and scope of judicial review over tribunal decisions.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that judicial review by High Courts and Supreme Court over tribunals is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be ousted.
Significance: Even if administrative or specialized tribunals provide remedies, judicial review remains supreme.
4. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)
Issue: Judicial review of administrative contracts and actions.
Judgment: The Court asserted that administrative actions, including contractual decisions, are subject to judicial review if they violate fundamental rights or principles of natural justice.
Significance: Reaffirms judicial review as a safeguard against arbitrary administrative action.
5. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1973)
Issue: Whether courts can entertain writ petitions before exhausting administrative remedies.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that writ jurisdiction can be exercised in exceptional cases where administrative remedies are inadequate or futile.
Significance: Shows judicial review can be direct in cases of urgency or where administrative remedies fail to provide justice.
6. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (1975)
Issue: Administrative remedies vs. judicial remedies in service matters.
Judgment: The Court noted that departmental remedies should normally be exhausted but courts may intervene where justice demands.
Significance: Balances respect for administrative remedies with the need to protect rights.
7. Bangalore Development Authority v. Government of Karnataka (2006)
Issue: Administrative appeal vs. judicial review in land acquisition cases.
Judgment: The Court held that administrative remedies must be exhausted but courts retain power to review administrative decisions for legality and fairness.
Significance: Affirms layered approach to administrative justice.
Summary Table: Cases and Their Contribution
| Case Name | Year | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. Mahalakshmi Finance | 1972 | Judicial review possible despite existing administrative remedies |
| A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India | 1969 | Natural justice and judicial review apply to administrative decisions |
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India | 1997 | Judicial review over tribunals is a basic feature of Constitution |
| R.D. Shetty v. IAAI | 1979 | Administrative contracts subject to judicial review |
| K.K. Verma v. Union of India | 1973 | Courts may intervene before exhausting remedies in exceptional cases |
| Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram | 1975 | Administrative remedies preferred but judicial relief possible |
| Bangalore Development Authority v. Karnataka | 2006 | Exhaustion of remedies needed but judicial review remains |
Conclusion
Administrative remedies offer an accessible, speedy way to address grievances within the administrative framework. They leverage administrative expertise and reduce court burdens.
Judicial review serves as the ultimate safeguard ensuring that administrative authorities do not exceed their powers, violate natural justice, or infringe fundamental rights.
Both mechanisms are complementary, with courts respecting administrative remedies but stepping in when they are inadequate or abused.
Courts encourage exhaustion of administrative remedies but are willing to intervene to prevent injustice, arbitrariness, or violation of constitutional rights.
This layered approach maintains accountability, fairness, and legality in administrative governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments