Grounds of Judicial Review

Judicial review is a mechanism through which constitutional courts examine the legality of administrative action. It ensures that public authorities exercise their powers within the limits of the Constitution, legislation and principles of administrative law.

The grounds of judicial review identify the circumstances in which a court may intervene in an administrative decision. Indian courts have developed these grounds through constitutional provisions, statutory principles and judicial decisions.

Judicial review is generally concerned with legality, procedural fairness and lawful exercise of administrative power, rather than allowing the court to substitute its own decision on the merits.

Main Grounds of Judicial Review

The principal grounds of judicial review include:

1. Lack or excess of jurisdiction
2. Error of law
3. Improper purpose
4. Relevant and irrelevant considerations
5. Mala fide exercise of power
6. Arbitrariness and unreasonableness
7. Violation of natural justice
8. Procedural impropriety
9. Proportionality
10. Violation of fundamental rights
11. Failure to exercise discretion
12. Fettering of discretion
13. Acting under dictation

Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction

An administrative authority can exercise only those powers that have been conferred upon it by law.

Where an authority acts without legal authority, its action may be challenged for lack of jurisdiction.

Similarly, an authority may possess jurisdiction but exceed the limits of that jurisdiction.

For example, if a statute empowers an authority to impose a particular penalty but the authority imposes a penalty that the statute does not permit, the action may be challenged as being beyond jurisdiction.

Judicial review therefore ensures that administrative authorities remain within their legally defined powers.

Error of Law

An administrative authority must correctly understand and apply the law governing its powers.

An error of law may arise where the authority:

• Misinterprets the statute.
• Applies the wrong legal test.
• Exercises a power that the law does not confer.
• Misunderstands the legal limits of its jurisdiction.

Where the legal error materially affects the decision, judicial review may be available.

Improper Purpose

A statutory power must be exercised for the purpose for which it was granted.

An authority cannot use a lawful power as a means of achieving an unrelated or prohibited objective.

For example, if a statutory power is granted to regulate a particular activity but is used primarily to punish an individual for an unrelated reason, the exercise of power may be challenged.

The principle ensures that the existence of power does not justify its use for every possible purpose.

Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations

Administrative authorities must generally consider matters that the law requires them to consider.

They must also avoid allowing irrelevant considerations to materially influence their decision.

Judicial review may therefore arise where an authority:

• Ignores a legally relevant consideration.
• Takes into account an irrelevant consideration.
• Misunderstands an important statutory factor.
• Fails to consider a mandatory factor.

The court does not normally reassess every factual consideration itself. It examines whether the authority’s decision-making was legally structured.

Mala Fide Exercise of Power

Administrative power must be exercised in good faith.

Where an authority deliberately uses its power for an improper or ulterior purpose, the action may be challenged on the ground of mala fides.

Mala fide exercise may involve:

• Personal hostility.
• Dishonest purpose.
• Political or personal objectives unrelated to the statutory purpose.
• Deliberate misuse of statutory authority.

However, mala fides is a serious allegation and requires an adequate factual foundation.

Arbitrariness

Arbitrary State action can be challenged particularly through Article 14 of the Constitution.

An administrative decision may attract judicial review where it is based on no rational legal basis or is inconsistent with constitutional requirements of equality and non-arbitrariness.

The principle is especially important because administrative discretion cannot become unrestricted personal choice.

Unreasonableness

Courts may review administrative decisions for legal unreasonableness.

The traditional Wednesbury principle is associated with the idea that courts should not interfere merely because they would have reached a different conclusion.

Intervention may be justified where the decision is so unreasonable that it falls outside the range of lawful administrative decision-making.

Indian courts have applied the principle of reasonableness in conjunction with constitutional and administrative law standards.

Violation of Natural Justice

Natural justice is an important ground of judicial review where its requirements are applicable.

The principal components include:

• Nemo judex in causa sua — rule against bias.
• Audi alteram partem — right to a fair opportunity of hearing.
• Requirement of a fair and impartial decision-making process.

A decision may be challenged where an authority fails to provide the procedural safeguards required by the governing law and circumstances.

Natural justice, however, is not identical in every administrative proceeding. Its application depends upon the nature of the power, statutory framework and consequences of the decision.

Procedural Impropriety

Administrative authorities must comply with mandatory statutory procedures.

Procedural impropriety may arise where an authority:

• Fails to follow a mandatory procedure.
• Denies a legally required hearing.
• Violates prescribed procedural safeguards.
• Fails to follow the procedure that the law requires.

The court examines the statutory scheme to determine whether the procedural requirement is mandatory or directory.

Proportionality

The doctrine of proportionality examines whether the means adopted by an administrative authority bear a proper relationship to the legitimate objective pursued.

It is particularly significant where administrative action affects fundamental rights.

The court may consider whether the measure:

• Pursues a legitimate objective.
• Has a rational connection with that objective.
• Goes further than necessary in the circumstances.
• Maintains an appropriate balance where proportionality review is applicable.

The intensity of proportionality review depends upon the nature of the decision and the rights involved.

Violation of Fundamental Rights

Administrative action must comply with the Constitution.

Where an administrative decision violates a fundamental right, constitutional courts may exercise their powers of judicial review.

Article 14 is particularly important in administrative law because it provides protection against arbitrary State action.

Articles 19 and 21 may also become relevant depending on the nature of the administrative action.

Failure to Exercise Discretion

Sometimes legislation gives an authority discretionary power but the authority fails to exercise that discretion.

This may happen where the authority:

• Refuses to consider an application.
• Treats itself as having no discretion when the law gives it discretion.
• Automatically follows a predetermined approach.
• Refuses to consider relevant individual circumstances.

A statutory authority must ordinarily apply its own lawful judgment where the statute entrusts that judgment to it.

Fettering of Discretion

An authority may unlawfully restrict its own discretion by adopting a rigid policy and refusing to consider individual cases.

Policies and guidelines can be useful for ensuring consistency, but they cannot ordinarily be applied so rigidly that the authority refuses to consider circumstances that the law requires it to consider.

The authority must remain willing to exercise the discretion that the legislature has entrusted to it.

Acting Under Dictation

A statutory authority must exercise its own discretion where the law requires it to do so.

If the authority simply acts according to the instructions of another person or authority without independently considering the matter, the decision may be vulnerable to judicial review.

This principle prevents the formal decision-maker from becoming merely an instrument for someone else’s decision.

Legitimate Expectation

A legitimate expectation may arise from consistent administrative practice, representation or established procedure.

Where such an expectation is legally relevant, an authority may be required to consider it before departing from an established practice or representation.

Legitimate expectation does not automatically create a substantive legal right. Its effect depends upon the circumstances and the nature of the expectation.

Improper Delegation

An authority must exercise powers in accordance with the statutory scheme governing delegation.

Where a statute requires a particular authority to exercise a power and that authority improperly transfers the decision-making function to another person, the action may be challenged.

The principle is related to the broader doctrine that statutory powers must be exercised by the person or body legally entrusted with them.

Important Cases

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

The case established the traditional Wednesbury principle of administrative unreasonableness. It is an important foundation for understanding judicial review of unreasonable administrative decisions.

Ridge v. Baldwin (1964)

The House of Lords reaffirmed the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice in administrative decision-making.

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

The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of natural justice and fairness in administrative decision-making and highlighted the significance of avoiding bias.

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

The Supreme Court linked Article 14 with the principle against arbitrary State action, strengthening constitutional control over administrative discretion.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

The Supreme Court developed the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21 and emphasised fairness in State action affecting personal liberty.

Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994)

The Supreme Court explained the principles governing judicial review of government contractual decisions and emphasised that judicial review is primarily concerned with the legality of the decision-making process rather than substituting judicial judgment for administrative judgment.

Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001)

The Supreme Court discussed proportionality and the distinction between different standards of judicial review applicable to administrative action.

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

The GCHQ case identified the traditional grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety in judicial review. These concepts have significantly influenced administrative law discussions in common-law jurisdictions.

Grounds of Judicial Review: Summary

Ground	Basic Principle
Lack of jurisdiction	Authority has no legal power to act
Excess of jurisdiction	Authority exceeds the limits of its legal power
Error of law	Authority acts on an incorrect understanding of law
Improper purpose	Power is used for a purpose not authorised by law
Irrelevant considerations	Decision is materially influenced by irrelevant factors
Failure to consider relevant matters	Legally relevant factors are ignored
Mala fides	Power is exercised in bad faith or for an ulterior purpose
Arbitrariness	Action lacks lawful and rational basis
Unreasonableness	Decision falls outside lawful administrative discretion
Natural justice	Applicable requirements of fair procedure are violated
Procedural impropriety	Mandatory procedural requirements are not followed
Proportionality	Measure is disproportionate where proportionality review applies
Fundamental rights	Administrative action violates constitutional rights
Failure to exercise discretion	Authority refuses or fails to exercise a discretion entrusted to it
Fettering discretion	Authority rigidly limits a discretion it is legally required to exercise
Acting under dictation	Authority does not independently exercise its statutory power

Limitations on the Grounds of Judicial Review

The existence of a possible ground does not automatically mean that a court will invalidate every administrative decision.

Courts generally consider:

• The statutory framework.
• The nature of the administrative power.
• The seriousness of the alleged illegality.
• The rights and interests affected.
• The availability of alternative remedies.
• The degree of administrative expertise involved.
• Whether the alleged defect materially affected the decision.

Judicial review is therefore exercised according to established legal principles rather than as an unrestricted appeal against administrative decisions.

Judicial Review vs Appeal

The grounds of judicial review should be distinguished from appellate review.

In judicial review, the principal question is generally:

Was the decision made lawfully?

In an appeal, the applicable appellate authority may have power to ask:

Was the decision correct on the merits?

The precise scope of an appeal depends upon the statute creating the appellate jurisdiction.

Key Points for Exams

• Grounds of judicial review identify circumstances in which courts may intervene in administrative action.
• Illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety are traditional categories of judicial review.
• Indian administrative law also places significant emphasis on Article 14, natural justice and proportionality.
• Lack of jurisdiction and excess of jurisdiction are important grounds.
• Administrative discretion must be exercised for a proper purpose.
• Relevant considerations must be taken into account and irrelevant considerations must not improperly influence the decision.
• Mala fide exercise of power can invalidate administrative action.
• Violation of natural justice may provide a ground of review.
• Judicial review is generally not a full appeal on the merits.
• Courts ordinarily exercise restraint in technical, commercial and policy matters.

Conclusion

The grounds of judicial review provide the legal framework through which courts control unlawful administrative action. They ensure that public authorities remain within their jurisdiction, exercise discretion for proper purposes, follow applicable procedures and respect constitutional and legal rights.

At the same time, judicial review is not intended to replace administrative decision-making. Its central purpose is to ensure that public power is exercised lawfully, fairly and within the limits imposed by the Constitution and law.