Ultra Vires as a ground for Judicial Review of Administrative Action
Ultra Vires as a Ground for Judicial Review of Administrative Action
What is Ultra Vires?
Ultra Vires is a Latin term meaning “beyond the powers.” It refers to actions taken by a government authority or administrative agency that exceed the scope of power granted to it by law or statute. When an administrative body acts beyond its legal authority, such action is said to be ultra vires and is liable to be quashed by the courts through judicial review.
Why is Ultra Vires Important in Administrative Law?
Limits Administrative Power: It prevents abuse or misuse of administrative authority.
Ensures Rule of Law: Every administrative action must have legal backing.
Protects Individual Rights: Stops administrative authorities from acting arbitrarily.
Maintains Separation of Powers: Prevents executive overreach beyond legislative intent.
Types of Ultra Vires
Substantive Ultra Vires: When the authority acts beyond the jurisdiction conferred by law (e.g., making decisions outside its domain).
Procedural Ultra Vires: When the authority fails to follow prescribed procedures or violates principles of natural justice.
Constitutional Ultra Vires: When the action contravenes constitutional provisions.
Excessive Delegation: When powers are delegated in a manner not allowed by statute.
Judicial Review on Grounds of Ultra Vires
Courts can declare administrative acts null and void if they are ultra vires. This doctrine is fundamental in administrative law and acts as a check on arbitrary exercise of power.
Detailed Case Law Analysis on Ultra Vires
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) [UK]
Facts: The local authority imposed a condition that no children under 15 could be admitted on Sundays.
Issue: Whether the decision was ultra vires.
Holding: The court introduced the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness, a standard to test whether a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it, thus rendering it ultra vires.
Significance: Established the test for substantive ultra vires based on reasonableness in administrative decisions.
2. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) [UK House of Lords]
Facts: A chief constable was dismissed without a proper hearing.
Issue: Whether the dismissal was ultra vires.
Holding: The court held that failure to observe the rules of natural justice made the dismissal ultra vires and void.
Significance: Strengthened procedural ultra vires by requiring adherence to natural justice in administrative decisions.
3. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) [Supreme Court of India]
Facts: The selection committee for appointing forest officers was accused of bias.
Issue: Whether the committee’s action was ultra vires due to bias and failure to follow fair procedure.
Holding: The Court held that the committee violated principles of natural justice, making the action ultra vires.
Significance: Emphasized that administrative bodies must act fairly and without bias; failure amounts to ultra vires.
4. Khanna v. Union of India (1984) [Supreme Court of India]
Facts: The Railway Minister superseded a committee without giving reasons.
Issue: Whether such arbitrary action was ultra vires.
Holding: The court ruled that the Minister acted beyond power without reason, thus ultra vires.
Significance: Highlighted limits on executive discretion; arbitrariness can render administrative acts ultra vires.
5. Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. (1980) [Supreme Court of India]
Facts: The Customs department imposed penalties without following prescribed procedures.
Issue: Whether such action was ultra vires.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that failure to follow mandatory procedures made the actions ultra vires.
Significance: Reinforced procedural ultra vires as a ground for judicial review.
6. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) [Supreme Court of India]
Facts: Eviction of pavement dwellers without proper hearing.
Issue: Whether the eviction was ultra vires the authority’s powers.
Holding: The court held that the eviction without due process was ultra vires and violated constitutional rights.
Significance: Established that administrative action violating fundamental rights can be ultra vires.
7. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995) [UK]
Facts: The Home Secretary failed to implement a statutory compensation scheme.
Issue: Whether the failure was ultra vires.
Holding: The court found the Home Secretary’s refusal to implement statutory law was ultra vires.
Significance: Reinforces that administrative authorities must act within statutory powers and cannot frustrate legislation.
8. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) [Supreme Court of India]
Facts: The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without proper reasons.
Issue: Whether this action was ultra vires.
Holding: The Court ruled that arbitrary executive action without following due process is ultra vires and violates Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
Significance: Expanded the concept of procedural ultra vires and due process requirements in administrative action.
Summary
| Key Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Substantive Ultra Vires | Acting beyond the powers granted by statute |
| Procedural Ultra Vires | Failure to follow prescribed procedures or natural justice |
| Judicial Review Objective | To ensure legality, fairness, and constitutionality of administrative actions |
| Remedies | Quashing orders, injunctions, or declarations of invalidity |
Conclusion
The doctrine of Ultra Vires is a cornerstone of administrative law that ensures administrative authorities act within their legal limits. Courts scrutinize administrative actions for legality, reasonableness, and fairness. Any act found to be ultra vires is subject to being quashed to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens from arbitrary power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments