Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction in Administrative Law

Lack or excess of jurisdiction is a fundamental ground of judicial review in Administrative Law. It is based on the principle that every administrative authority, tribunal and statutory body must act within the limits of the power conferred upon it by law.

An authority acts with lack of jurisdiction when it has no legal authority to deal with a matter. It acts with excess of jurisdiction when it has authority to deal with the matter but goes beyond the limits of that authority.

Both forms of jurisdictional error may make administrative action vulnerable to judicial review.

Meaning of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction means the legal authority of a court, tribunal or administrative authority to hear a matter, make a decision or exercise a particular statutory power.

Jurisdiction may be determined by:

• Subject matter — the type of dispute or issue the authority can decide.
• Territory — the geographical area within which the authority can act.
• Persons — the persons or entities over whom the authority has power.
• Time — the period within which a statutory power may be exercised.
• Statutory conditions — circumstances that must exist before the power can be exercised.
• Nature of power — the specific action the authority is legally permitted to take.

An authority cannot exercise a power merely because it considers the exercise desirable. There must be a lawful source for the power.

Meaning of Lack of Jurisdiction

Lack of jurisdiction occurs when an authority does not possess the legal power to deal with a particular matter or take a particular action.

Where an authority acts without jurisdiction, its action may be challenged through judicial review.

For example, if legislation gives a tribunal jurisdiction only over disputes relating to public employment, the tribunal cannot decide an unrelated private commercial dispute.

Meaning of Excess of Jurisdiction

Excess of jurisdiction occurs when an authority possesses jurisdiction over a matter but exceeds the limits of the power granted to it.

The authority therefore has some lawful authority, but the particular action goes beyond that authority.

For example, if a statute empowers an authority to suspend a licence for a maximum of six months, an order suspending the licence for two years may constitute an excess of jurisdiction.

Difference Between Lack and Excess of Jurisdiction

Lack of Jurisdiction	Excess of Jurisdiction
Authority has no legal power over the matter	Authority has power over the matter but exceeds its limits
Jurisdiction is absent from the beginning	Jurisdiction exists but is exercised beyond its permitted scope
Example: tribunal decides a matter outside its statutory subject matter	Example: authority imposes a penalty beyond the statutory maximum
Decision may be challenged as wholly without jurisdiction	Decision may be challenged to the extent it exceeds lawful power

Lack of Jurisdiction

Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

An authority may lack jurisdiction because the dispute or issue does not fall within the subject matter assigned to it.

For example, a service tribunal established to decide disputes concerning government employment cannot ordinarily assume jurisdiction over a private property dispute.

Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

An authority may be legally restricted to a particular geographical area.

If it exercises power outside that area without statutory authority, its action may be challenged.

Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

A statute may limit an authority’s power to particular persons or categories of persons.

If the authority acts against a person who does not fall within that statutory class, the exercise of power may be unlawful.

Lack of Temporal Jurisdiction

Some statutory powers must be exercised within a specified period.

If the authority attempts to exercise the power after the legally prescribed period has expired, the action may be vulnerable to challenge.

Absence of Jurisdictional Fact

Sometimes a statute permits an authority to exercise power only when a particular fact exists.

Such a fact may be called a jurisdictional fact.

If the necessary jurisdictional fact does not exist, the authority may lack the legal power to act.

Excess of Jurisdiction

Exceeding Statutory Limits

An authority may have jurisdiction but exercise it beyond the limits imposed by legislation.

For example, where a statute authorises a maximum penalty of ₹1 lakh, an authority cannot impose a penalty of ₹5 lakh merely because it considers the higher penalty appropriate.

Granting Unauthorised Relief

A tribunal or authority may have power to decide a dispute but lack authority to grant a particular type of relief.

Granting relief beyond the statutory power may amount to excess of jurisdiction.

Acting Beyond Territorial Limits

An authority may possess general jurisdiction but be restricted geographically.

Action beyond the prescribed territorial limits may constitute excess of jurisdiction.

Continuing After Jurisdiction Ends

An authority may initially have lawful jurisdiction but lose the power to continue in particular circumstances.

Continuing to exercise power after the jurisdiction has legally ended may constitute excess of jurisdiction.

Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction as Judicial Review

Judicial review provides constitutional courts with a mechanism to examine jurisdictional limits.

The court may examine:

• The source of the authority’s power.
• The statutory limits of that power.
• Whether the authority satisfied jurisdictional conditions.
• Whether the authority acted within its permitted subject matter.
• Whether it exceeded the scope of its statutory power.

The court does not ordinarily reconsider the entire merits of the case simply because a jurisdictional question is raised.

Jurisdiction and Ultra Vires

Lack or excess of jurisdiction is closely connected with the doctrine of ultra vires.

Ultra vires means “beyond the powers.”

An administrative authority acts ultra vires where it goes beyond the authority granted to it by law.

The doctrine ensures that:

Public authorities cannot exercise powers that the law has not given them.

Lack of jurisdiction represents a situation where the authority has no lawful power to act, while excess of jurisdiction concerns going beyond the limits of an existing power.

Jurisdictional Facts

A jurisdictional fact is a fact whose existence is legally necessary before an authority can exercise a particular statutory power.

For example, suppose a statute provides:

An authority may take action only if condition X exists.

If condition X does not exist, the authority may have no jurisdiction to take that action.

The court may examine whether the required jurisdictional fact existed.

Ordinary Fact vs Jurisdictional Fact

Ordinary Fact	Jurisdictional Fact
Used by an authority while deciding a matter	Its existence may be a legal condition for exercising power
Courts generally show greater restraint	Courts may examine whether the necessary condition exists
Error does not necessarily invalidate jurisdiction	Absence may prevent the authority from exercising power
Primarily concerns factual assessment	Connects facts with legal authority

Whether a particular fact is jurisdictional depends upon the interpretation of the relevant statute.

Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction and Error of Law

An error of law may sometimes result in lack or excess of jurisdiction.

For example, if an authority incorrectly interprets its enabling statute and consequently assumes a power that the statute does not confer, the error may become jurisdictional.

However, not every error of law is necessarily a jurisdictional error.

Modern judicial review has made the traditional distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors less rigid, particularly where a material legal error affects the lawful exercise of public power.

Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction and Natural Justice

A serious procedural defect may also affect the validity of administrative action.

For example, where legislation requires a tribunal to provide a hearing before exercising a particular power, failure to comply with that requirement may make the decision unlawful.

However, not every breach of procedure automatically amounts to lack of jurisdiction. The legal consequences depend upon the statutory scheme and nature of the procedural requirement.

Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction and Administrative Discretion

The existence of discretion does not give an authority unlimited power.

An authority may have discretion to choose between several lawful alternatives, but it cannot:

• Exercise a power the statute does not confer.
• Exceed a statutory limit.
• Ignore an essential jurisdictional condition.
• Use its discretion to create new powers.
• Grant relief beyond its legal authority.

Judicial review therefore maintains the boundary between lawful discretion and unlawful power.

Important Cases

Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954)

The Supreme Court emphasised the fundamental importance of jurisdiction and held that a decision made without jurisdiction cannot acquire validity merely through consent of the parties.

The case is an important authority for the general principle that jurisdiction must come from law.

Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque (1955)

The Supreme Court considered the scope of writ jurisdiction in relation to jurisdictional errors and errors of law.

The case is important for distinguishing jurisdictional defects from ordinary errors that may occur while a body is acting within its jurisdiction.

State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh (1958)

The Supreme Court recognised circumstances in which writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite the existence of another remedy where serious legal defects affect the underlying proceedings.

Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961)

The Supreme Court emphasised that statutory authorities must satisfy the legal conditions governing the exercise of their powers.

The case illustrates judicial control where an authority assumes jurisdiction without satisfying the statutory requirements for exercising it.

Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969)

The House of Lords adopted a broad approach to jurisdictional error and held that a material legal error by an administrative body could render its decision legally invalid.

The case became highly influential in the modern development of judicial review and the concept of jurisdictional error.

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional power of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 to exercise judicial review over tribunal decisions.

The case is important because tribunals, despite their specialised jurisdiction, remain subject to constitutional judicial review.

Writ Remedies

Where lack or excess of jurisdiction is established, constitutional courts may provide appropriate remedies.

Certiorari

Certiorari may be issued to quash an unlawful decision of a court, tribunal or authority exercising adjudicatory functions where the conditions for the writ are satisfied.

Prohibition

Prohibition may prevent a subordinate court or tribunal from continuing proceedings beyond its lawful jurisdiction.

The key distinction is generally:

Certiorari → Corrects or quashes an unlawful decision already made

Prohibition → Prevents continuation of unlawful proceedings

Mandamus

Mandamus may require a public authority to perform a legal or public duty where the requirements for the writ are satisfied.

Examples

Example 1: Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

A tribunal is created exclusively to decide disputes relating to public employment. It decides a private dispute concerning ownership of land.

The tribunal has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Example 2: Excess of Statutory Power

A regulatory authority is empowered to suspend a licence for up to six months. It orders suspension for three years.

The authority has jurisdiction over licensing matters but has exceeded the statutory limit.

Example 3: Lack of Jurisdictional Fact

A statute permits an authority to seize property only when a specified statutory condition exists. That condition is absent, but the authority nevertheless orders seizure.

The absence of the required jurisdictional fact may mean that the authority had no jurisdiction to take the action.

Example 4: Territorial Limitation

An authority is legally empowered to regulate activities within a particular State but exercises that power over an activity situated entirely outside its territorial jurisdiction without statutory authority.

The action may be challenged for lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Alternative Remedy

The existence of an alternative statutory remedy may influence whether a High Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 226.

However, an alternative remedy is generally not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction.

A serious jurisdictional defect is one circumstance in which a High Court may consider exercising its constitutional jurisdiction despite the availability of another remedy.

Judicial Restraint

Courts distinguish jurisdictional errors from ordinary errors in administrative decision-making.

A court does not ordinarily interfere merely because:

• It disagrees with the decision.
• Another interpretation of evidence is possible.
• The authority selected one permissible option rather than another.
• The decision appears harsh but remains within lawful power.

The focus is on whether the authority had and remained within its legal jurisdiction.

Key Points for Exams

• Lack of jurisdiction means the authority has no legal power to deal with the matter.
• Excess of jurisdiction means the authority has power over the matter but goes beyond its lawful limits.
• Jurisdiction comes from the Constitution, legislation or another valid source of law.
• Subject-matter, territorial, personal and temporal limits can determine jurisdiction.
• A jurisdictional fact may be a necessary condition for exercising statutory power.
• Lack or excess of jurisdiction is closely connected with the doctrine of ultra vires.
• Not every error of law is necessarily a jurisdictional error.
• Kiran Singh, Hari Vishnu Kamath, Calcutta Discount Co. and Anisminic are important authorities.
• Certiorari and prohibition are important writ remedies in jurisdictional matters.
• Article 226 provides an important constitutional mechanism for judicial review by High Courts.
• Judicial review of jurisdiction is not the same as an appeal on the merits.

Conclusion

Lack or excess of jurisdiction is a fundamental limitation on administrative power. Public authorities can exercise only those powers that the law has conferred upon them and must remain within the boundaries attached to those powers.

Lack of jurisdiction occurs where the authority has no legal power to act, while excess of jurisdiction occurs where an authority possessing lawful power goes beyond its permitted limits.

The doctrine therefore gives practical effect to the rule of law and the ultra vires principle, ensuring that administrative authorities cannot enlarge their own powers or exercise authority beyond what the Constitution and legislation permit.