Judicial review of administrative actions: a critical assessment
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions: A Critical Assessment
1. Introduction
Judicial review is the process by which courts examine the actions, decisions, or regulations of administrative authorities to ensure they conform to the law. It is a fundamental check on executive or administrative power, ensuring legality, fairness, and reasonableness.
The scope and limits of judicial review vary by jurisdiction, but it typically covers whether:
The administrative body has acted within its jurisdiction (ultra vires doctrine).
The decision-making process was fair and just (procedural fairness).
The decision was reasonable and not arbitrary or irrational.
The decision complies with constitutional provisions and statutory mandates.
2. Grounds for Judicial Review
The major grounds include:
Illegality: Decision-maker exceeded legal authority.
Irrationality/Unreasonableness: Decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make it (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
Procedural Impropriety: Failure to follow fair procedures.
Proportionality: Measures must be proportionate to objectives (especially in constitutional contexts).
3. Critical Assessment
Importance:
Ensures administrative accountability.
Protects individual rights against arbitrary power.
Upholds rule of law.
Challenges:
Courts must balance between intervention and respecting administrative discretion.
Over-interference can undermine efficiency and expertise.
Under-interference can lead to unchecked administrative power.
4. Key Cases Explained
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (UK)
Facts:
The Wednesbury Corporation imposed a condition that no children under 15 were allowed on Sundays at a cinema. The cinema owners challenged this as unreasonable.
Issue:
Is the decision by the local authority so unreasonable that it should be overturned?
Holding:
The Court held that a decision would be overturned only if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Reasoning:
The Wednesbury principle sets a high threshold for irrationality. Courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the administrative body unless the decision is absurd or perverse.
Significance:
Established the standard of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Courts are generally deferential to administrative decisions unless clearly irrational.
Critical Point:
While providing stability, this standard has been criticized as being too deferential, limiting effective judicial control.
2. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (UK) (GCHQ case)
Facts:
The government banned trade union membership among GCHQ employees without consulting unions. The unions challenged the ban for breach of natural justice.
Issue:
Could the government’s prerogative decision be subject to judicial review?
Holding:
The House of Lords held that even prerogative powers are subject to judicial review except where national security is concerned.
Reasoning:
The case introduced the concept that natural justice applies in administrative actions, and courts may review decisions for procedural fairness unless there are overriding national security concerns.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of judicial review to prerogative powers.
Emphasized procedural fairness as a key ground.
Critical Point:
Judicial review protects procedural rights but recognizes limits where executive discretion is justified (e.g., national security).
3. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513 (UK)
Facts:
The Home Secretary promised compensation to victims of criminal injuries but later introduced a different scheme. The Fire Brigades Union challenged this decision.
Issue:
Was the Secretary’s decision lawful and reviewable?
Holding:
The House of Lords ruled that failure to implement the promised scheme was unlawful because it frustrated Parliament’s intent.
Reasoning:
Judicial review can control executive action when it frustrates or ignores statutory mandates.
Significance:
Affirmed that courts ensure administrative actions comply with statutory duties.
Executives cannot simply ignore or change parliamentary policy without lawful authority.
Critical Point:
Shows judicial review’s role in preserving parliamentary supremacy and legal accountability.
4. Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (UK)
Facts:
Anisminic challenged the Foreign Compensation Commission’s decision refusing compensation, arguing that the Commission made an error of law.
Issue:
Is an error of law by an administrative body subject to judicial review even if a statutory ouster clause tries to exclude review?
Holding:
The House of Lords held that any error of law made by the Commission renders the decision a nullity and subject to judicial review, despite ouster clauses.
Reasoning:
Courts interpreted ouster clauses narrowly and held that a jurisdictional error allows for review.
Significance:
Expanded judicial review by limiting the effect of ouster clauses.
Affirmed that courts can review errors of law even if statutes attempt to restrict review.
Critical Point:
Key case for the principle of legality, emphasizing courts’ role in upholding legal standards.
5. Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997 (UK)
Facts:
Farmers complained about milk pricing. The Minister had discretion to refer complaints to a committee but refused to do so.
Issue:
Could the Minister’s refusal be judicially reviewed?
Holding:
The Minister must exercise discretion to promote the policy and objects of the Act. A refusal to act in line with the statute’s purpose can be quashed.
Reasoning:
Discretion must be exercised for the purpose intended by Parliament and not for improper motives.
Significance:
Established that abuse of discretion or acting for improper purposes is reviewable.
Emphasized purposive approach to administrative discretion.
Critical Point:
Promotes accountability and prevents arbitrary or bad-faith decision-making.
5. Overall Critical Assessment
Judicial Review protects legality, fairness, and rationality, but courts generally respect administrative expertise and discretion.
The Wednesbury test can be too deferential; modern courts increasingly use proportionality, especially in constitutional rights contexts.
The balance between effective oversight and executive freedom remains delicate.
Ouster clauses limiting review are narrowly construed.
Procedural fairness is fundamental but subject to exceptions (e.g., national security).
Courts emphasize purpose and intent behind statutes to ensure proper exercise of discretion.
6. Conclusion
Judicial review of administrative actions is a crucial mechanism to ensure that public authorities act within the law and do not abuse their power. While the scope and intensity of review vary, case law has developed principles of legality, fairness, rationality, and proportionality to guide courts. Critical challenges remain in maintaining a proper balance between preventing arbitrary decisions and allowing administrative autonomy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments