Judicial Review of Administrative Actions by Writs
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions by Writs
What is Judicial Review by Writs?
Judicial review is the process by which courts supervise and control administrative actions to ensure they comply with the law. One of the primary methods of judicial review is the issuance of writs — formal orders issued by courts commanding or prohibiting a party from doing an act.
The writs traditionally used for judicial review of administrative actions are:
Writ of Certiorari
Writ of Mandamus
Writ of Prohibition
Writ of Quo Warranto
Writ of Habeas Corpus
Each writ serves a specific function in curbing administrative excesses or protecting individual rights.
Detailed Explanation of Each Writ in Judicial Review
1. Writ of Certiorari
Purpose: To quash or annul an order, decision, or judgment made by a lower authority or administrative agency.
Used when an authority acts without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or commits an error of law.
Example: If an administrative agency passes an ultra vires order, courts issue certiorari to nullify it.
2. Writ of Mandamus
Purpose: To command a public official or authority to perform a mandatory duty they are legally obliged to perform.
Used when an authority fails or refuses to act where the law requires action.
Example: Compelling a public officer to issue a license or to hear a case.
3. Writ of Prohibition
Purpose: To prevent a lower court or tribunal or administrative authority from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting unlawfully.
Issued before or during the illegal action.
Example: Stopping an administrative body from hearing a case it has no jurisdiction over.
4. Writ of Quo Warranto
Purpose: To challenge a person holding a public office without legal authority.
Used to question the legality of a person’s claim to a public office.
5. Writ of Habeas Corpus
Purpose: To secure the release of a person unlawfully detained.
Protects individual liberty against unlawful administrative detention.
Key Case Laws Illustrating Judicial Review by Writs
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts:
The local authority imposed conditions on a cinema license. The cinema challenged the decision as unreasonable.
Writ Used:
Certiorari (to quash the decision)
Holding:
The court introduced the concept of “Wednesbury unreasonableness” — a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make it.
Importance:
Certiorari can quash decisions that are arbitrary or irrational.
Set the standard for judicial review of administrative discretion.
2. R v. Commission of Police of the Metropolis, ex parte Blackburn (1968)
Facts:
An applicant sought to compel the police to disclose information affecting his case.
Writ Used:
Mandamus (to compel a public authority to act)
Holding:
Mandamus is granted only when there is a clear legal duty to act.
Importance:
Reinforces that mandamus compels only mandatory duties.
Protects citizens when authorities refuse to perform statutory duties.
3. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008)
Facts:
Petition challenged the implementation of reservation policies in educational institutions.
Writ Used:
Prohibition (to prevent unlawful action)
Holding:
The court used writ jurisdiction to ensure administrative bodies acted within constitutional limits.
Importance:
Prohibition prevents authorities from exceeding powers.
Ensures constitutional boundaries in administrative actions.
4. K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. Orissa (1953)
Facts:
Dispute over appointment to a public office.
Writ Used:
Quo Warranto (to question authority to hold office)
Holding:
The court held that a person must show valid authority to hold public office, or be removed.
Importance:
Protects public offices from unlawful occupancy.
Maintains legality in public administration.
5. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts:
Detention without trial challenged as unconstitutional.
Writ Used:
Habeas Corpus (to challenge unlawful detention)
Holding:
Although the court upheld detention in this case, the writ remains the primary remedy against illegal detention.
Importance:
Habeas corpus safeguards personal liberty.
Vital check on administrative detention powers.
Summary Table of Writs in Judicial Review
| Writ | Purpose | When Used | Example Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Certiorari | Quash unlawful orders/decisions | When authority acts without or beyond jurisdiction or arbitrarily | Associated Provincial Picture Houses |
| Mandamus | Compel performance of a mandatory duty | When public authority refuses or neglects to act | R v. Commission of Police |
| Prohibition | Prevent excess or unlawful jurisdiction | To stop illegal proceedings or actions | Ashoka Kumar Thakur |
| Quo Warranto | Challenge unlawful holding of office | When person holds public office illegally | K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo |
| Habeas Corpus | Release from unlawful detention | When a person is illegally detained | A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras |
Conclusion
Judicial review through writs is a powerful tool to keep administrative authorities within the law.
Writs protect fundamental rights, legality, and procedural fairness.
Courts have developed principles to apply writs carefully, balancing agency discretion with rule of law.
Each writ has a distinct function, ensuring comprehensive judicial control over administrative actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments