Judicial Review of Administrative Action
Judicial Review of Administrative Action: Detailed Explanation
1. Meaning of Judicial Review
Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine the actions of the executive and administrative authorities to ensure that such actions comply with the law, the Constitution, and principles of natural justice.
It is a fundamental feature of the Rule of Law.
Courts ensure that administrative authorities do not act ultra vires (beyond their powers), arbitrarily, or violate fundamental rights.
Judicial review acts as a check on administrative discretion and prevents abuse of power.
2. Scope of Judicial Review
Judicial review applies to various types of administrative actions such as:
Rule-making (delegated legislation)
Adjudication (decisions affecting rights)
Execution of administrative policies
Quasi-judicial functions
The court examines:
Legality: Whether the action conforms to the law.
Procedural fairness: Whether principles of natural justice were followed.
Reasonableness: Whether the decision is rational or arbitrary.
Constitutionality: Whether the action violates constitutional provisions.
Jurisdiction: Whether the authority had power to act.
3. Grounds for Judicial Review
The Supreme Court of India and High Courts generally consider the following grounds for judicial review:
Illegality: Action taken without legal authority.
Irrationality or Wednesbury Unreasonableness: Action is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have taken it.
Procedural Impropriety: Violation of natural justice (e.g., no hearing).
Proportionality: Whether the action is proportionate to the objective.
Bias or Malafide: Action taken with ulterior motives.
Error of Jurisdiction: Authority exceeded or failed to exercise jurisdiction.
Violation of Fundamental Rights: Action infringing constitutional rights.
Important Indian Case Laws on Judicial Review
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Facts: The case challenged the appointment process of members to a selection committee.
Held: The Supreme Court held that administrative authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions are bound by principles of natural justice.
Significance: Established that natural justice applies to administrative actions affecting rights.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving her a chance to be heard.
Held: The Supreme Court held that any administrative action affecting fundamental rights must be “fair, just and reasonable”.
Significance: Expanded the scope of judicial review by incorporating the due process of law into Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
3. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts: Concerned administrative restrictions on cinema operations.
Held: Introduced the test of “Wednesbury unreasonableness” — administrative decisions will be quashed if they are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made them.
Significance: Set a standard for judicial review of administrative decisions based on reasonableness.
4. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) (also called the S.R. Bommai case)
Facts: Related to the use of Article 356 (President’s Rule).
Held: The Supreme Court held that administrative and executive actions under Article 356 are subject to judicial review, and misuse can be struck down.
Significance: Reinforced judicial control over executive powers and protected federalism.
5. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the administrative decision of transfer without hearing.
Held: The Supreme Court reiterated that the principles of natural justice apply to all administrative decisions affecting rights.
Significance: Affirmed the importance of audi alteram partem in administrative actions.
6. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Facts: Challenged the finality of tribunal decisions without judicial review.
Held: The Supreme Court held that judicial review of administrative and quasi-judicial decisions is a basic feature of the Constitution.
Significance: Reaffirmed the role of courts in supervising administrative actions.
Summary Table of Grounds & Case Law
| Ground for Review | Case Law | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Natural Justice | A.K. Kraipak | Administrative authorities must follow fair procedure |
| Due Process of Law | Maneka Gandhi | Administrative action affecting rights must be just and fair |
| Reasonableness | Associated Provincial Picture Houses | Decisions must not be irrational or perverse |
| Jurisdictional Error | L. Chandra Kumar | Courts can review ultra vires administrative acts |
| Review of Executive Power | S.R. Bommai | Judicial review of Article 356 proclamation |
Conclusion
Judicial review of administrative action is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law that ensures administrative authorities act within legal limits, fairly, and reasonably. The courts act as a guardian of citizens’ rights against arbitrary, illegal, or unfair administrative actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments