Illegality as a ground of review
⚖️ Illegality as a Ground of Judicial Review
✅ What is Illegality in Judicial Review?
Illegality is one of the primary grounds on which courts can review and quash administrative or governmental decisions. A decision is illegal if the decision-maker:
Acts beyond or outside the scope of powers granted by law (ultra vires),
Fails to comply with mandatory statutory provisions,
Misinterprets or misapplies the law,
Takes into account irrelevant considerations or ignores relevant considerations required by law,
Acts for an improper purpose,
Or makes a decision that contravenes fundamental legal principles.
🧑⚖️ Significance of Illegality
It protects the rule of law by ensuring that public authorities act within the boundaries set by the law.
Ensures accountability of public officials.
Prevents arbitrariness and abuse of power.
📚 Key Cases Illustrating Illegality in Judicial Review
1. Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) – UK
Facts:
Anisminic challenged a decision of the Foreign Compensation Commission that refused compensation under a statute.
Issue:
Was the decision made by the Commission a nullity because it misinterpreted the statute?
Holding:
The House of Lords held that a misinterpretation of the law by a decision-maker renders the decision a nullity.
An error of law by a public body means the decision is illegal and void, even if a statute tries to oust judicial review.
Significance:
This landmark case greatly expanded judicial review on grounds of illegality.
The doctrine that any error of law by an administrative body is reviewable unless Parliament expressly restricts it.
2. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables and Thompson (1998) – UK
Facts:
Two juvenile offenders challenged the Home Secretary’s decision on their tariff for detention.
Issue:
Did the Home Secretary have jurisdiction to set the tariff, and was the decision lawful?
Holding:
The court ruled that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully by taking into account irrelevant considerations.
The decision was illegally influenced by political pressure and media attention.
Significance:
Highlighted that public authorities must consider only relevant legal factors.
Taking irrelevant factors into account amounts to illegality.
3. Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture (1968) – UK
Facts:
Minister refused to refer complaints about a marketing board despite a statutory duty to consider them.
Issue:
Was the refusal lawful?
Holding:
The House of Lords held that the Minister's refusal was illegal, as the statutory discretion was not unfettered.
Discretion must be exercised to promote the policy and objects of the Act.
Significance:
Established the principle that powers must be exercised for their proper purpose.
Exercise of discretion for an improper purpose is illegal.
4. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) (1985) – UK
Facts:
The government banned trade union membership in the GCHQ without consultation.
Issue:
Whether the exercise of prerogative power was unlawful.
Holding:
The court held that illegality can arise even in prerogative powers.
Although national security justified the decision, if the decision were made without such justification, it would be illegal.
Significance:
Clarified that all public powers, including prerogative powers, are subject to the rule of law.
Highlighted illegality through failure to follow proper legal constraints.
5. R. v. Hull University Visitor, ex parte Page (1992) – UK
Facts:
A university official made a decision affecting a student's disciplinary matter.
Issue:
Was the decision illegal because it was made outside the Visitor's jurisdiction?
Holding:
The court held that the Visitor acted illegally by exceeding jurisdiction.
The Visitor’s decision was quashed.
Significance:
Demonstrates that acting beyond jurisdictional limits is a clear ground of illegality.
6. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) – India
Facts:
The case dealt with the power of the President to promulgate ordinances under Article 213.
Issue:
Whether the ordinance promulgation was illegal.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that an ordinance is valid only if immediate action is necessary and the legislative assembly is not in session.
Any ordinance promulgated without satisfying these conditions is illegal.
Significance:
Illegality arises if a public authority fails to meet statutory preconditions before exercising power.
🧩 Summary Table of Illegality Cases
| Case Name | Jurisdiction | Ground of Illegality | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anisminic Ltd v. FCC (1969) | UK | Error of law | Misinterpretation renders decision void |
| Ex parte Venables & Thompson (1998) | UK | Irrelevant considerations | Only relevant factors considered |
| Padfield v. Minister (1968) | UK | Improper purpose | Powers must be exercised for proper purposes |
| GCHQ Case (1985) | UK | Prerogative power limits | Prerogative powers subject to law |
| Ex parte Page (1992) | UK | Exceeding jurisdiction | Decision beyond power is illegal |
| State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) | India | Failure to meet conditions | Must follow statutory preconditions |
🏛️ Conclusion
Illegality as a ground of judicial review protects against misuse, abuse, or excess of administrative power.
Courts ensure that public authorities act within their lawful powers, observe mandatory conditions, consider only relevant factors, and do not act for improper purposes.
This ground is fundamental to maintaining the rule of law and ensuring administrative decisions are lawful, reasonable, and fair.
RELATED Blog
0 comments