Explain and offer a critical analysis of the relationship between the various grounds of judicial review and process-based issues such as locus standi and the public/ private divide
Judicial Review: Grounds and Process-Based Issues — Detailed Explanation & Critical Analysis
1. Introduction
Judicial Review is the power of courts to examine the actions of administrative and legislative bodies to ensure legality, fairness, and constitutionality. It prevents abuse of power and protects fundamental rights.
Grounds of judicial review typically include:
Illegality (lack of jurisdiction, error of law),
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness),
Procedural Impropriety (breach of natural justice).
However, process-based issues such as locus standi (who can sue) and the public/private divide (who is subject to judicial review) crucially shape the practical scope of judicial review.
2. Grounds of Judicial Review
| Ground | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Illegality | Decision-maker acts outside their legal authority (ultra vires). |
| Irrationality | Decision is so unreasonable no reasonable authority would make it. |
| Procedural Impropriety | Failure to follow fair procedures or principles of natural justice. |
3. Process-Based Issues
a) Locus Standi (Standing to Sue)
Traditional Rule: Only a person directly affected by a decision could approach the court.
Evolution: Courts expanded standing to include:
Public interest litigants,
NGOs,
Concerned citizens for protecting public rights.
b) Public/Private Divide
Judicial review traditionally applied only to public authorities exercising public functions.
Courts have grappled with whether private bodies can be subject to judicial review when performing public functions.
4. Relationship Between Grounds and Process Issues
Even if grounds of review are valid, lack of locus standi can prevent judicial scrutiny.
Similarly, courts determine if the entity is public or private to decide the applicability of judicial review.
This relationship defines who can challenge what, shaping access to justice and administrative accountability.
5. Key Case Laws Illustrating These Principles
Case 1: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) (Locus Standi)
Issue: Expanded locus standi for PIL.
Held: Any public-spirited person or organization can file a writ petition in public interest.
Significance: Broadened access to judicial review, particularly on procedural grounds, enabling courts to address administrative excesses.
Case 2: Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohanlal (1967) (Public/Private Divide)
Issue: Whether a government electricity board is a public authority subject to judicial review.
Held: The Board was exercising public functions, so decisions were subject to judicial review.
Significance: Established that public function is crucial, irrespective of formal status.
Case 3: R. v. Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Datafin (1987) – UK case applied in India
Issue: Whether a private body performing public functions is subject to judicial review.
Held: The body was subject to judicial review as it exercised public law functions.
Significance: Broadened the scope of judicial review beyond traditional public bodies.
Case 4: Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) (Public Function Test)
Issue: Whether a private educational institution receiving government aid is amenable to judicial review.
Held: Yes, because it performed public functions and was substantially financed by the government.
Significance: Clarified the functional approach over formal status.
Case 5: Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) (Procedural Impropriety and Standing)
Issue: Challenged government censorship and procedural violations.
Held: Courts struck down the order for procedural impropriety; also upheld public interest standing.
Significance: Interlinking of procedural grounds with broad locus standi enhanced judicial scrutiny.
6. Critical Analysis
a) Interdependence of Grounds and Process Issues
Without locus standi, even a strong ground like illegality cannot be addressed.
The public/private divide restricts judicial review, potentially leaving private entities unaccountable despite exercising public-like functions.
This balance aims to prevent frivolous litigation but sometimes denies redress to affected parties.
b) Expansion of Locus Standi
The PIL revolution has democratized access to courts, allowing procedural impropriety or irrationality to be challenged widely.
However, this has also led to criticism about courts being overburdened or judicial overreach.
c) Public/Private Divide Challenges
Increasing privatization and outsourcing blur the line between public and private.
Courts increasingly apply the functional test: if the function is public, judicial review applies.
This trend supports accountability but creates uncertainty about the limits of judicial review.
d) Procedural Fairness vs. Access
Courts emphasize procedural fairness as a ground but also rely on locus standi to gatekeep access.
Balancing efficient judicial functioning and access to justice remains a core challenge.
7. Summary Table
| Aspect | Impact on Judicial Review | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Locus Standi | Determines who can approach court; expanded by PIL | S.P. Gupta, Indian Express |
| Public/Private Divide | Defines whether body’s actions are reviewable | Rajasthan Electricity Board, Ajay Hasia, Datafin |
| Grounds of Review | Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety guide courts in evaluating decisions | Many cases cited above |
8. Conclusion
The grounds of judicial review cannot be viewed in isolation from process-based issues like locus standi and the public/private divide. These procedural doctrines shape who can challenge administrative action and which actions are reviewable, thus defining the reach and effectiveness of judicial review.
The evolving jurisprudence reflects a trend towards expanding access (via locus standi) and broadening subject matter (via public function test) to enhance accountability, but this expansion must be balanced against judicial capacity and separation of powers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments