Judicial review is the process through which courts examine the legality of governmental and administrative action. It is a fundamental mechanism for maintaining the Rule of Law because it prevents public authorities from exercising power beyond their legal or constitutional limits.

Judicial review exists in the United Kingdom, United States and India, but its constitutional foundations and scope differ significantly. The UK developed judicial review largely through common law, the USA through constitutional judicial review within a written Constitution, and India through an extensive system of constitutional judicial review under the written Constitution.

Meaning of Judicial Review

Judicial review means judicial examination of the legality of action taken by:

• Government;
• Ministers;
• Administrative authorities;
• Regulatory agencies;
• Tribunals;
• Local authorities; and
• Other public bodies.

The court generally asks whether the authority:

• Had legal authority to act;
• Exercised its power for a lawful purpose;
• Followed the required procedure;
• Considered relevant matters;
• Avoided arbitrary or irrational action; and
• Complied with constitutional or statutory requirements.

Judicial review is generally different from an appeal.

An appellate court may reconsider whether the decision was correct on its merits. Judicial review primarily examines whether the decision-making process and exercise of power were lawful.

Objectives of Judicial Review

Judicial review serves several purposes.

Control of Public Power

It prevents government authorities from exceeding their legal powers.

Protection of Individual Rights

It provides a mechanism for challenging unlawful interference with legally protected interests.

Maintenance of Rule of Law

It ensures that public authorities remain subject to law.

Administrative Accountability

It requires administrative authorities to justify their actions within the applicable legal framework.

Constitutional Control

In jurisdictions such as the USA and India, judicial review also allows courts to examine governmental action against constitutional requirements.

Judicial Review in the United Kingdom

The UK is the classical common-law model of judicial review.

Judicial review developed primarily through common law, although modern judicial review is also governed by statutes and procedural rules.

Constitutional Foundation

The UK does not have a single codified constitutional document.

Judicial review therefore developed through:

• Common-law principles;
• Acts of Parliament;
• Constitutional principles;
• Judicial decisions; and
• The Rule of Law.

A central feature of the British system is the relationship between Parliamentary Sovereignty and judicial review.

Courts generally review executive and administrative action but do not ordinarily invalidate an Act of Parliament merely because it conflicts with common-law constitutional principles.

Development of Judicial Review

The roots of judicial review can be traced to the common law’s control over inferior courts, public officials and administrative authorities.

Over time, the courts developed principles allowing them to examine whether public authorities had acted within the powers granted to them.

The doctrine of ultra vires became central to this development.

Grounds of Judicial Review in the UK

The traditional classification is associated with the GCHQ case.

The three principal grounds are:

1. Illegality;
2. Irrationality; and
3. Procedural impropriety.

Modern UK public law has also developed doctrines such as:

• Legitimate expectation;
• Proportionality;
• Human-rights review; and
• Constitutional review of executive power.

Illegality

A public authority acts illegally when it misunderstands or exceeds the legal limits of its power.

Examples include:

• Acting without jurisdiction;
• Acting for an improper purpose;
• Taking irrelevant considerations into account;
• Ignoring relevant considerations; and
• Failing to understand the governing statute.

Irrationality

Irrationality traditionally refers to decisions that are so unreasonable that they fall outside the range of lawful administrative decision-making.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)

The case established the traditional Wednesbury unreasonableness standard.

A court may intervene where an administrative decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority properly directing itself in law could have made it.

Procedural Impropriety

A public authority must comply with legally required procedures and principles of procedural fairness.

Procedural impropriety may involve:

• Failure to comply with a statutory procedure;
• Denial of a fair hearing;
• Bias;
• Failure to undertake required consultation; or
• Failure to follow legally established procedural requirements.

GCHQ Case

Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985)

The House of Lords identified the traditional grounds of judicial review as:

• Illegality;
• Irrationality; and
• Procedural impropriety.

The case also established that the fact that a power derives from the royal prerogative does not automatically make its exercise immune from judicial review.

However, the court recognised that certain subject matters, particularly national security, may be unsuitable for judicial determination.

Legitimate Expectation

UK judicial review also protects legitimate expectations created by public authorities in appropriate circumstances.

The expectation may arise from:

• An express representation;
• A promise;
• An established administrative practice; or
• A consistent procedure.

R v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan (2000)

The case is an important authority on substantive legitimate expectation.

The court considered a clear representation made by a public authority and the circumstances in which fairness could require the authority to honour the resulting expectation.

Proportionality

Proportionality has become particularly important in UK public law in cases involving rights.

The court may examine whether:

• The objective is sufficiently important;
• The measure is connected to the objective;
• Less restrictive alternatives were available; and
• A fair balance has been maintained.

Its precise role depends upon the legal context.

Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 strengthened rights-based judicial review in the UK.

Public authorities must generally act compatibly with Convention rights within the framework established by the Act.

This has expanded the role of courts in reviewing administrative decisions affecting protected rights.

Remedies in the UK

Judicial review may result in remedies including:

• Quashing orders;
• Prohibiting orders;
• Mandatory orders;
• Declarations; and
• Injunctions in appropriate cases.

A quashing order sets aside an unlawful decision.

A prohibiting order prevents an authority from proceeding unlawfully.

A mandatory order requires performance of a public duty where appropriate.

Judicial Review in the United States

The United States developed judicial review within a written Constitution based on constitutional supremacy, separation of powers and federalism.

Judicial review therefore has both constitutional and statutory dimensions.

Constitutional Foundation

The US Constitution establishes limits on governmental power.

Judicial review allows courts to determine whether governmental action is consistent with:

• The Constitution;
• Federal statutes;
• Administrative law;
• Procedural requirements; and
• Other applicable legal rules.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Marbury v. Madison is a foundational case in American judicial review.

The Supreme Court established the principle that courts can review governmental action for consistency with the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned that it is the province of the judiciary to determine the governing law.

The case became a central foundation of American constitutional judicial review.

Administrative Procedure Act

The Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 (APA) provides the principal general federal statutory framework for judicial review of administrative action.

The APA permits review of qualifying agency action, subject to statutory limitations.

Courts may examine whether agency action is:

• Contrary to law;
• Arbitrary or capricious;
• Procedurally defective;
• Beyond statutory authority; or
• Constitutionally invalid.

Arbitrary and Capricious Review

The APA permits courts to set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.

This standard focuses on whether the agency engaged in reasoned decision-making.

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm (1983)

The Supreme Court examined the rescission of an automobile safety regulation.

The Court held that an agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.

The case remains an important authority on arbitrary-and-capricious review.

Judicial Review of Agency Interpretation

A major issue in American Administrative Law has been the extent to which courts should defer to agency interpretations of statutes.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984)

Chevron historically established a framework under which courts could defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes in certain circumstances.

However, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron in 2024.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)

The Supreme Court held that courts must exercise their own independent judgment when interpreting statutes.

Courts may consider an agency’s views because of the agency’s expertise or persuasive reasoning where appropriate, but an agency does not receive automatic Chevron deference merely because statutory language is ambiguous.

This is an important current feature of US judicial review.

Major Questions Doctrine

Judicial review also includes scrutiny of significant agency assertions of regulatory authority.

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)

The Supreme Court applied the major questions doctrine in reviewing the EPA’s claimed regulatory authority over greenhouse-gas emissions.

The decision emphasised the importance of clear congressional authorisation when agencies claim powers of major economic or political significance.

Constitutional Judicial Review

American courts may also examine administrative action under constitutional provisions.

Relevant constitutional protections may include:

• Due process;
• Equal protection;
• Freedom of speech;
• Property rights; and
• Other constitutional rights.

Due Process Review

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide important procedural safeguards.

Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)

The Supreme Court recognised procedural due-process protections concerning termination of certain welfare benefits.

Mathews v. Eldridge (1976)

The Court developed a balancing framework for determining the procedural safeguards required by due process.

The framework considers:

• The private interest affected;
• The risk of erroneous deprivation;
• The probable value of additional safeguards; and
• The government’s interests and administrative burdens.

Standing and Judicial Review

Federal courts require a claimant to satisfy constitutional standing requirements.

Generally, the claimant must demonstrate:

• Concrete and particularised injury;
• Actual or imminent harm;
• Causation; and
• Redressability.

This can significantly affect who may bring a federal challenge to administrative action.

Exhaustion

In appropriate circumstances, a claimant may be required to pursue available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review.

The requirement depends upon the applicable statute and judicial doctrine.

Ripeness

Courts may refuse to decide disputes that are premature.

The doctrine of ripeness prevents judicial intervention where the administrative dispute has not developed sufficiently for meaningful judicial determination.

Judicial Review in India

India has developed one of the strongest constitutional systems of judicial review among the three jurisdictions.

Judicial review operates through the Constitution, Fundamental Rights, constitutional remedies and administrative-law principles.

Constitutional Foundation

Important provisions include:

• Article 13;
• Article 32;
• Article 136;
• Article 226;
• Article 227;
• Article 14;
• Article 19; and
• Article 21.

These provisions allow courts to control unconstitutional legislation and unlawful administrative action.

Article 13

Article 13 provides an important constitutional basis for judicial review of laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights.

It establishes the constitutional limitation that laws violating applicable Fundamental Rights are subject to constitutional scrutiny.

Article 32

Article 32 gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to enforce Fundamental Rights.

The Supreme Court may issue appropriate writs, including:

• Habeas corpus;
• Mandamus;
• Certiorari;
• Prohibition; and
• Quo warranto.

Article 226

High Courts possess broad writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Article 226 is wider than Article 32 because it can be invoked not only for enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for other legal rights.

This makes Article 226 particularly important in administrative-law disputes.

Article 136

Article 136 gives the Supreme Court a discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from judgments, orders or determinations of courts and tribunals within its constitutional scope.

It is an important avenue of Supreme Court intervention but is distinct from ordinary judicial review under Articles 32 and 226.

Grounds of Judicial Review in India

Indian courts may review administrative action on grounds including:

• Illegality;
• Lack or excess of jurisdiction;
• Arbitrariness;
• Mala fides;
• Improper purpose;
• Relevant and irrelevant considerations;
• Irrationality;
• Procedural impropriety;
• Violation of natural justice;
• Proportionality; and
• Violation of Fundamental Rights.

Illegality

An authority must act within the powers granted to it by law.

Action taken:

• Without jurisdiction;
• Beyond jurisdiction;
• Contrary to statutory provisions; or
• For an unauthorised purpose

may be struck down.

Arbitrariness

Article 14 provides an important constitutional basis for controlling arbitrary State action.

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)

The Supreme Court developed the relationship between equality and arbitrariness.

The case became an important foundation for the principle that arbitrary State action is inconsistent with Article 14.

Natural Justice

Administrative decisions may be reviewed where failure to observe natural justice results in legally significant unfairness, subject to the applicable statutory framework and recognised exceptions.

A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)

The Court emphasised the importance of natural justice in administrative decision-making and rejected an overly rigid distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions.

Proportionality

Indian courts increasingly apply proportionality, particularly where administrative action affects Fundamental Rights.

The court may examine whether the measure:

• Pursues a legitimate objective;
• Is suitable for achieving that objective;
• Is necessary in the circumstances; and
• Maintains an appropriate balance between the rights affected and the governmental objective.

The precise intensity of review depends upon the constitutional and legal context.

Mala Fides

Administrative action may be challenged where power is exercised in bad faith or for an improper motive.

Because allegations of mala fides are serious, courts generally require appropriate factual foundation.

Improper Purpose

Statutory powers must be used for the purpose for which they were conferred.

If an authority uses a power for an unrelated or improper purpose, the action may be invalid.

Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations

Administrative authorities must generally consider relevant factors and avoid allowing irrelevant considerations to determine their decisions.

This principle ensures that discretion remains connected with the statutory purpose.

Important Indian Cases

State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei (1967)

The Supreme Court recognised the importance of fair procedure where administrative action has civil consequences.

A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)

Strengthened natural justice in administrative decision-making.

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)

Linked Article 14 with protection against arbitrary State action.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Expanded the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21 and strengthened constitutional requirements of fair and non-arbitrary procedure.

Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994)

The Supreme Court explained the principles governing judicial review of government contracts and emphasised that judicial review is concerned primarily with the decision-making process rather than substituting the court’s own commercial judgment.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)

Held that judicial review under Articles 226/227 and Article 32 forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001)

Discussed proportionality and its relationship with traditional Wednesbury principles in Indian administrative law.

State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (2006)

Explained important grounds for judicial review of subordinate legislation.

Comparative Position

Feature	UK	USA	India
Constitutional basis	Common law, statutes and constitutional principles	Written Constitution and statutes	Written Constitution
Constitutional supremacy	Parliamentary Sovereignty remains central	Yes	Yes
Judicial review of legislation	Traditionally limited by Parliamentary Sovereignty	Strong	Strong
Judicial review of administration	Common law and statutes	Constitution and APA	Constitution and statutes
Main administrative-law standard	Illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety	APA standards including arbitrary-and-capricious review	Illegality, arbitrariness, natural justice, proportionality and others
Constitutional rights review	Human Rights Act framework	Bill of Rights and other constitutional provisions	Fundamental Rights
Due process	Common-law fairness	Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments	Articles 14 and 21
Public law remedies	Quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders	Injunctions, declarations, remand and other remedies	Constitutional writs and other remedies
Standing	Sufficient interest framework	Constitutional standing requirements	Broad writ/PIL framework subject to applicable rules
Judicial review of agency interpretation	Common-law principles	Chevron historically; overruled by Loper Bright in 2024	Courts interpret statutes under Indian constitutional principles
Administrative procedure	Statutes and common law	Administrative Procedure Act	Multiple statutes and administrative rules

Judicial Review: UK, USA and India

UK Model

The British model developed primarily through common law.

Its central concern is whether public authorities have acted within the legal limits imposed upon them.

The traditional grounds are:

• Illegality;
• Irrationality; and
• Procedural impropriety.

USA Model

The American model combines:

• Constitutional judicial review;
• Administrative Procedure Act review;
• Separation-of-powers principles;
• Due process; and
• Federalism.

It therefore involves both constitutional and statutory control of administrative agencies.

Indian Model

The Indian model combines:

• Constitutional judicial review;
• Fundamental Rights;
• Administrative-law principles;
• Writ jurisdiction;
• Judicial review of legislation;
• Judicial review of delegated legislation; and
• Public Interest Litigation.

India therefore provides a particularly extensive constitutional framework for judicial control of public power.

Judicial Review and Separation of Powers

The relationship between courts and administrative authorities differs in each jurisdiction.

United Kingdom

Courts review executive action while recognising Parliamentary Sovereignty.

United States

Judicial review operates within a strong separation-of-powers framework.

Courts must balance judicial oversight with the constitutional roles of Congress and the executive.

India

The Constitution does not establish a rigid separation of powers.

Courts nevertheless exercise extensive judicial review to maintain constitutional limitations and protect Fundamental Rights.

Judicial Review and Administrative Discretion

Administrative discretion is necessary for effective governance but must remain legally controlled.

Jurisdiction	Major Controls
UK	Ultra vires, Wednesbury, procedural fairness, legitimate expectation, proportionality in appropriate contexts
USA	APA review, arbitrary-and-capricious review, statutory limits, constitutional review
India	Article 14, natural justice, mala fides, improper purpose, relevant considerations, proportionality, constitutional review

Judicial Review and Fundamental Rights

The three systems differ considerably.

UK

Rights-based review operates through common law, legislation and particularly the Human Rights Act 1998 framework.

USA

Constitutional rights provide direct limits on government action.

India

Fundamental Rights provide extensive constitutional limitations on State action.

Articles 14, 19 and 21 are particularly important in administrative-law review.

Limits of Judicial Review

Judicial review is not unlimited.

Courts generally exercise restraint where the matter involves:

• Political questions;
• National security;
• Administrative expertise;
• Complex economic policy;
• Legislative choices; or
• Questions committed by law to another institution.

The extent of restraint differs according to jurisdiction and subject matter.

Judicial review ordinarily does not mean that judges substitute their preferred policy for that of the legally authorised decision-maker.

Judicial Review and Policy Decisions

Courts generally distinguish between the legality of a policy and its wisdom or desirability.

A policy may be challenged where it:

• Violates the Constitution;
• Exceeds statutory authority;
• Is adopted for an improper purpose;
• Is arbitrary or otherwise unlawful; or
• Violates applicable procedural requirements.

But courts generally do not substitute their own policy preferences for those of the executive or legislature merely because another policy might be considered preferable.

Comparative Significance

The three systems demonstrate three different constitutional approaches to judicial review.

United Kingdom: judicial review developed primarily as a common-law control over executive and administrative power.

United States: judicial review operates within a written Constitution and a strong separation-of-powers framework, supplemented by the Administrative Procedure Act.

India: judicial review operates within a written Constitution and combines administrative-law principles with Fundamental Rights and constitutional remedies.

The Indian system has therefore developed a particularly strong connection between judicial review, constitutional supremacy and Fundamental Rights.

Key Points for Examination

• Judicial review means judicial examination of the legality of governmental action.
• It is an important mechanism for enforcing the Rule of Law.
• The UK developed judicial review primarily through common law.
• Wednesbury is associated with irrationality in UK judicial review.
• GCHQ (1985) identified the traditional grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
• The US system is based on constitutional judicial review and the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Marbury v. Madison (1803) is foundational to US judicial review.
• State Farm (1983) is important for arbitrary-and-capricious review.
• Loper Bright (2024) overruled Chevron deference.
• India has a strong constitutional framework for judicial review under Articles 32 and 226, along with Article 13 and other provisions.
• E.P. Royappa linked Article 14 with protection against arbitrary State action.
• Maneka Gandhi strengthened constitutional requirements of fair procedure.
• L. Chandra Kumar recognised judicial review under Articles 226/227 and Article 32 as part of the basic structure.
• Judicial review is generally concerned with legality rather than substituting judicial views on administrative merits.
• The scope and intensity of judicial review vary according to the constitutional structure and subject matter.

Conclusion

Judicial review performs a common constitutional function in the UK, USA and India: it provides a mechanism for ensuring that public authorities remain within the limits of law.

The UK model is rooted primarily in common law and the doctrine of ultra vires, operating alongside Parliamentary Sovereignty. The US model combines constitutional judicial review with statutory administrative review under the Administrative Procedure Act and operates within a strong separation-of-powers framework. The Indian model combines common-law administrative principles with a comprehensive system of constitutional judicial review, Fundamental Rights and writ jurisdiction.

Despite these differences, judicial review in all three systems reflects the fundamental principle that public power must be exercised according to law and within legally recognised limits.