Judicial Review and Rule of Law

Judicial review and the rule of law are closely connected principles of constitutional and administrative law. The rule of law requires public authorities to exercise power according to law, while judicial review provides an institutional mechanism for courts to examine whether public power has been exercised lawfully.

In India, judicial review enables constitutional courts to control administrative action that exceeds legal authority, violates constitutional provisions, disregards applicable procedural requirements or infringes legal and fundamental rights. It therefore gives practical effect to the principle that government is subject to law.

Meaning of Rule of Law

The rule of law is the principle that all persons and institutions, including the government, are subject to law.

It requires that public power should not be exercised according to arbitrary will. Government authorities must act within the powers granted to them by the Constitution and legislation.

The rule of law generally involves:

• Supremacy of law.
• Equality before law.
• Absence of arbitrary exercise of public power.
• Government according to law.
• Protection of legal and constitutional rights.
• Availability of legal remedies against unlawful State action.

A.V. Dicey’s Concept of Rule of Law

A.V. Dicey is closely associated with the classical formulation of the rule of law. He identified three principal aspects.

Supremacy of Law

No person should be punished or deprived of rights except according to law.

Government authorities cannot exercise public power merely on the basis of arbitrary discretion.

Equality Before Law

All persons are subject to the ordinary law administered by ordinary courts.

The principle emphasises equality and the absence of special privileges based merely on official position.

Predominance of Legal Spirit

Dicey also associated the rule of law with the role of courts in protecting individual rights and ensuring that governmental power remains subject to legal control.

The Indian constitutional system has developed beyond Dicey’s classical formulation and incorporates constitutional supremacy, fundamental rights and judicial review.

Rule of Law under the Indian Constitution

The rule of law is reflected in several provisions of the Constitution.

Article 14

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

It has become an important constitutional basis for controlling arbitrary State action.

Article 21

Article 21 protects life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Constitutional interpretation has significantly expanded the requirement of fairness in State action affecting personal liberty.

Article 32

Article 32 provides a constitutional remedy before the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.

Article 226

Article 226 gives High Courts broad writ jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights and for other legal purposes.

These provisions provide important mechanisms through which the rule of law can be enforced against public authorities.

Meaning of Judicial Review

Judicial review refers to the power of constitutional courts to examine the legality and constitutional validity of actions taken by public authorities.

In administrative law, judicial review may examine whether an authority:

• Possessed jurisdiction to act.
• Exceeded its statutory powers.
• Exercised power for a proper purpose.
• Considered relevant factors.
• Ignored relevant considerations.
• Relied upon irrelevant considerations.
• Followed mandatory procedures.
• Complied with applicable principles of natural justice.
• Acted consistently with constitutional rights.
• Exercised discretion lawfully.

Judicial review therefore operates as an important mechanism for enforcing the rule of law.

Relationship Between Judicial Review and Rule of Law

The connection can be understood simply:

Rule of Law → Public authorities must act according to law

Judicial Review → Courts examine whether public authorities have acted according to law

Judicial review therefore provides a practical means of enforcing the rule of law.

Without judicial control, legal limitations on administrative power could become ineffective where authorities disregard those limitations.

Judicial Review as a Control Over Administrative Power

Modern administration involves extensive discretionary powers.

Authorities may grant licences, impose penalties, regulate businesses, make employment decisions, administer welfare schemes and exercise other statutory functions.

Judicial review ensures that these powers are not exercised outside the limits established by law.

For example, if legislation gives an authority power to grant a licence subject to specified conditions, the authority cannot impose conditions that have no legal basis merely because it considers them desirable.

The court may examine whether the authority remained within the statutory framework.

Rule of Law and Administrative Discretion

The existence of administrative discretion does not contradict the rule of law.

Discretion is often necessary because legislation cannot anticipate every factual situation.

However, discretion must be structured and legally controlled.

Judicial review may intervene where discretion is exercised:

• Arbitrarily.
• Mala fide.
• For an improper purpose.
• On irrelevant considerations.
• By ignoring relevant considerations.
• Beyond statutory limits.
• In violation of applicable procedural requirements.

Thus, judicial review seeks to ensure that discretion does not become uncontrolled power.

Rule of Law and Natural Justice

Natural justice is an important component of fairness in administrative decision-making.

Where applicable, principles of natural justice may require:

• Adequate notice.
• Opportunity to be heard.
• Impartial decision-making.
• Consideration of the affected person’s case.
• Disclosure of relevant material where required.
• Reasons for decisions where legally necessary.

Judicial review allows courts to examine administrative decisions affected by violations of applicable procedural fairness.

The requirements of natural justice, however, depend upon the nature of the power, governing law and circumstances of the case.

Rule of Law and Constitutional Supremacy

In India, the Constitution is the supreme law.

The legislature, executive and administrative authorities must exercise their powers consistently with constitutional requirements.

Judicial review helps maintain constitutional supremacy by enabling courts to invalidate State action that is inconsistent with constitutional provisions.

This is broader than merely ensuring compliance with ordinary legislation.

Rule of Law and Article 14

Article 14 has become a particularly important constitutional safeguard against arbitrary State action.

The development of Article 14 jurisprudence has established that State action cannot be arbitrary merely because it falls within the formal authority of the government.

Administrative power must be exercised consistently with constitutional standards of equality and non-arbitrariness.

Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights

Fundamental rights place substantive limits on governmental power.

Administrative action may therefore be reviewed where it infringes applicable fundamental rights.

Depending on the nature of the action, Articles 14, 19 and 21 may be particularly relevant.

Judicial review ensures that administrative convenience cannot automatically override constitutional limitations.

Rule of Law and Delegated Legislation

The rule of law also applies to delegated legislation.

Administrative authorities exercising delegated legislative powers must remain within the limits established by the parent legislation and Constitution.

Courts may review delegated legislation where it:

• Exceeds the authority granted by the parent Act.
• Contradicts the enabling statute.
• Violates constitutional provisions.
• Fails to comply with mandatory procedural requirements.

This prevents delegated legislative power from becoming an unrestricted source of governmental authority.

Rule of Law and Judicial Review of Policy

Government must have substantial freedom to formulate public policy.

The rule of law does not require courts to decide whether every governmental policy is wise or desirable.

Judicial review generally focuses on the legality of policy, rather than its policy merits.

Courts may intervene where a policy is inconsistent with constitutional provisions, legislation or other recognised legal limitations.

Rule of Law and Separation of Powers

Judicial review must also operate within the constitutional separation of functions.

The judiciary does not ordinarily formulate administrative policy or perform executive functions.

Its role is to determine whether public authorities have acted within constitutional and legal boundaries.

This creates a balance between:

Administrative autonomy and legal accountability.

Important Cases

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

The Supreme Court established the basic structure doctrine, holding that Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution does not extend to destroying its basic structure.

The decision is important to the constitutional framework within which judicial review operates.

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

The Supreme Court connected equality under Article 14 with the principle against arbitrariness. The decision strengthened constitutional scrutiny of arbitrary State action.

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.

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

The Court emphasised fairness and natural justice in administrative decision-making and demonstrated the importance of judicial control over administrative power.

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

The Supreme Court held that judicial review exercised by the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and by the Supreme Court under Article 32 forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

The decision is central to understanding the constitutional status of judicial review in India.

Judicial Review as Part of the Basic Structure

Judicial review occupies a special position in the Indian constitutional system.

In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional significance of judicial review by the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and by the Supreme Court under Article 32.

This ensures that constitutional and legal limitations on public power cannot simply be removed by ordinary legislative action.

Importance of Judicial Review for the Rule of Law

Judicial review contributes to the rule of law by:

Preventing Excess of Power

Authorities cannot lawfully exercise powers beyond those granted by the Constitution or legislation.

Controlling Arbitrary Action

Judicial review provides a mechanism for examining arbitrary administrative action.

Protecting Rights

Individuals can challenge unlawful State action affecting constitutional and legal rights.

Ensuring Administrative Accountability

Public authorities remain accountable for the manner in which statutory powers are exercised.

Maintaining Constitutional Supremacy

Judicial review helps ensure that executive and administrative action conforms to the Constitution.

Ensuring Procedural Fairness

Where applicable, courts can intervene when administrative authorities fail to follow legally required procedures or principles of natural justice.

Limitations of Judicial Review

Judicial review does not mean that courts supervise every administrative decision in the same manner as an appellate authority.

Courts generally exercise restraint where:

• The decision involves specialised administrative expertise.
• The matter concerns economic or technical policy.
• The authority has acted within its lawful discretion.
• The challenge merely seeks reconsideration of the merits.
• An alternative statutory remedy exists, subject to recognised exceptions.

The purpose of judicial review is therefore legal control rather than administrative substitution.

Judicial Review and Rule of Law: Difference

Judicial Review	Rule of Law
A mechanism exercised primarily by courts	A broader constitutional and legal principle
Examines legality of public action	Requires government and individuals to be governed by law
Provides remedies against unlawful State action	Establishes the principle that public power is subject to law
Can invalidate unlawful administrative action	Provides the normative foundation for controlling arbitrary power
Operates through constitutional and legal jurisdiction	Operates as a fundamental principle of constitutional governance

Key Points for Exams

• Rule of law means that public power must be exercised according to law.
• Judicial review provides an important mechanism for enforcing the rule of law.
• Article 14 is central to controlling arbitrary State action.
• Articles 32 and 226 provide important constitutional remedies.
• Judicial review controls excess of jurisdiction and unlawful exercise of discretion.
• Natural justice is an important aspect of procedural fairness.
• Delegated legislation is also subject to judicial review.
• Judicial review protects constitutional supremacy.
• L. Chandra Kumar (1997) recognised judicial review under Articles 226/227 and Article 32 as part of the basic structure.
• Judicial review generally examines legality rather than substituting judicial judgment for administrative judgment.

Conclusion

The rule of law requires every exercise of public power to remain subject to legal and constitutional limitations. Judicial review gives this principle practical effect by allowing courts to examine whether administrative authorities have acted within their jurisdiction and according to law.

The relationship is therefore fundamental: the rule of law establishes the requirement that government must act according to law, while judicial review provides an important judicial mechanism for enforcing that requirement. At the same time, judicial review operates with judicial restraint so that courts control illegality without ordinarily taking over legitimate administrative functions.