Introduction
Judicial review of administrative actions refers to the power of the judiciary to examine the decisions and actions of administrative authorities to ensure that they comply with the Constitution, statutes, and principles of natural justice. It acts as a check against arbitrary, unreasonable, and unlawful exercises of power by administrative bodies.
In India, judicial review is primarily based on Article 13 (laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights), Article 32 (writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court), and Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of the High Courts). It ensures that the rule of law prevails and that executive and administrative authorities do not exceed their legal powers.
Definition of Judicial Review
Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine the legality, rationality, and procedural propriety of administrative actions. It does not involve reviewing the merits of a decision but ensures that the process followed was fair, reasonable, and within legal limits.
Objectives of Judicial Review
- To ensure legality in administrative actions.
- To prevent abuse of power by authorities.
- To protect fundamental rights of individuals.
- To uphold constitutional supremacy over executive actions.
- To ensure fairness and reasonableness in decision-making.
Scope of Judicial Review in Administrative Actions
Judicial review of administrative actions is primarily exercised on three broad grounds:
1. Illegality
An administrative action is illegal when:
- The authority acts beyond its statutory powers (ultra vires).
- The decision is based on irrelevant considerations.
- There is misinterpretation of law.
Case Law: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
- The Supreme Court held that administrative actions must comply with the law and cannot exceed their prescribed limits.
2. Irrationality (Wednesbury Principle)
An administrative decision is irrational if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it. This principle was established in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) in the UK and is widely followed in India.
Case Law: Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001)
- The Supreme Court applied the Wednesbury test, holding that an administrative decision should not be arbitrary or grossly unreasonable.
3. Procedural Impropriety
An administrative action is procedurally improper if:
- It violates the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem and rule against bias).
- There is failure to follow due process as prescribed by law.
Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- The Supreme Court ruled that administrative actions affecting fundamental rights must follow fair procedures.
Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
1. Doctrine of Ultra Vires
Administrative authorities must act within the scope of their powers. Any action beyond statutory authority is considered ultra vires (beyond powers) and is struck down by courts.
Types of Ultra Vires
- Substantive Ultra Vires – When an administrative body exercises powers not granted by law.
- Procedural Ultra Vires – When an administrative body does not follow the procedure prescribed by law.
Case Law: State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
- The Supreme Court held that administrative decisions violating constitutional provisions are ultra vires and void.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights
If an administrative action violates Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression), or Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), it can be struck down.
Case Law: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
- The Supreme Court held that administrative actions infringing on the right to privacy must be subject to judicial review.
3. Unreasonableness and Arbitrary Actions
The court intervenes when an administrative action is arbitrary, unfair, or unreasonable.
Case Law: Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981)
- The Supreme Court held that arbitrary conditions in employment policies violate Article 14.
4. Proportionality Principle
The proportionality principle ensures that administrative actions must be proportionate to the objective they seek to achieve. This is commonly applied in cases involving fundamental rights.
Case Law: Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001)
- The Supreme Court applied the principle of proportionality to assess whether administrative penalties were excessive.
Judicial Review vs. Appeal
Judicial review differs from an appeal in the following ways:
| Feature | Judicial Review | Appeal |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Examines legality of decision | Reviews merits of the case |
| Focus | Procedural fairness, abuse of power | Whether the decision was right or wrong |
| Power of Court | Can invalidate the decision | Can modify, affirm, or reverse the decision |
| Examples | Review of administrative orders | Appeal against a lower court decision |
Limitations of Judicial Review
Although judicial review is an essential safeguard, it has certain limitations:
- Separation of Powers – Courts cannot interfere in policy decisions unless they violate the Constitution.
- Judicial Restraint – Courts generally avoid interfering in technical or expert administrative decisions.
- Alternative Remedies – If a statute provides a mechanism for redress, courts may refuse to entertain judicial review petitions.
- Doctrine of Non-Interference – Some matters, such as national security or foreign policy, are beyond judicial scrutiny.
Case Law: Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994)
- The Supreme Court ruled that courts should not interfere in administrative decisions unless there is a violation of law or constitutional provisions.
Judicial Review Under the Indian Constitution
In India, judicial review is exercised under the following provisions:
1. Article 13 – Judicial Review of Laws
- Ensures that laws violating fundamental rights are declared void.
2. Article 32 – Supreme Court’s Writ Jurisdiction
- Allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
3. Article 226 – High Courts’ Writ Jurisdiction
- Grants High Courts the power to issue writs (mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, habeas corpus) to review administrative actions.
4. Article 136 – Special Leave Petition (SLP)
- The Supreme Court can grant special leave to appeal against any judgment, including administrative decisions.
Judicial Review in the USA vs. India
| Feature | USA | India |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Established in Marbury v. Madison (1803) | Provided under Articles 13, 32, 226 |
| Scope | Mainly constitutional review | Covers laws, administrative actions, and executive orders |
| Writs | Not commonly used | Five writs (Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, Habeas Corpus) available |
| Judicial Activism | Courts play an active role | Courts follow judicial restraint but intervene when necessary |
Conclusion
Judicial review of administrative actions is an essential mechanism to ensure that government authorities act within their powers, follow due process, and respect fundamental rights. While courts exercise self-restraint in administrative matters, they intervene when actions are illegal, irrational, or procedurally unfair. The Supreme Court and High Courts act as guardians of constitutional principles, ensuring that administrative decisions do not infringe on justice, fairness, and individual rights.
