Judicial review is the power of constitutional courts to examine the legality and constitutionality of legislative, executive and administrative action. In administrative law, it acts as a control mechanism to ensure that public authorities exercise their powers within the limits prescribed by law.

The scope of judicial review in India has expanded considerably, particularly through the development of Articles 14, 19 and 21, principles of natural justice, proportionality, legitimate expectation and constitutional remedies. At the same time, judicial review has important limits. Courts generally do not substitute their own views for those of administrative authorities, particularly on questions of policy, technical expertise and commercial judgment.

The central purpose of judicial review is therefore not to decide whether an administrative decision is the best decision, but whether the decision was made lawfully, fairly and within the permissible limits of power.

Meaning of Judicial Review

Judicial review refers to the examination by courts of governmental action to determine whether it conforms to:

• The Constitution.
• Statutory law.
• Principles of natural justice.
• Procedural requirements.
• Limits of administrative power.

It may apply to:

• Legislation.
• Delegated legislation.
• Administrative orders.
• Government contracts.
• Tender decisions.
• Decisions of tribunals.
• Administrative policies.
• Disciplinary decisions.
• Regulatory decisions.

Where a decision suffers from a recognised legal defect, the court may provide an appropriate constitutional or judicial remedy.

Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review

The power of judicial review is distributed across several constitutional provisions.

Article 13

Article 13 provides constitutional control over laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights.

Article 32

Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights through appropriate writs and directions.

Article 226

Article 226 gives High Courts power to issue writs for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for other purposes.

Article 227

Article 227 gives High Courts supervisory jurisdiction over courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction, subject to constitutional limitations.

Article 136

Article 136 gives the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from judgments, decrees, determinations, sentences or orders of courts and tribunals.

Judicial review also forms part of the broader constitutional structure of India.

Scope of Judicial Review

The scope of judicial review is extensive, but it is not unlimited.

Courts may examine the following aspects of administrative action.

Review of Jurisdiction

Courts can determine whether an authority had legal power to take a particular decision.

Judicial review may arise where an authority:

• Has no jurisdiction.
• Exceeds its jurisdiction.
• Fails to exercise jurisdiction.
• Acts beyond statutory powers.
• Misunderstands the limits of its authority.

An action taken without lawful authority may be invalid.

Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954)

The Supreme Court recognised the importance of jurisdiction and held that a decree or decision made without jurisdiction cannot ordinarily acquire validity merely because of procedural circumstances.

Review of Illegality

A public authority must understand and correctly apply the law governing its powers.

Illegality may arise where an authority:

• Acts contrary to statute.
• Exercises power for an improper purpose.
• Takes irrelevant considerations into account.
• Ignores relevant considerations.
• Acts under dictation.
• Fails to exercise discretion independently.
• Exceeds delegated authority.

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

The traditional grounds of judicial review were identified as illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.

Review of Administrative Discretion

Administrative authorities frequently possess discretion.

Judicial review does not eliminate that discretion.

Instead, courts examine whether the discretion was exercised:

• Lawfully.
• For the proper purpose.
• On relevant considerations.
• Without mala fides.
• Without arbitrariness.
• In accordance with procedural requirements.

The court ordinarily does not replace the administrator’s lawful discretion with its own.

Review of Relevant and Irrelevant Considerations

An administrative authority must generally consider factors that the law requires or permits it to consider.

A decision may be challenged where:

• A mandatory relevant factor was ignored.
• An irrelevant consideration materially influenced the decision.
• The authority relied upon considerations unrelated to the statutory purpose.

This principle ensures that administrative discretion remains connected with the purpose for which the power was granted.

Review of Mala Fides

Courts may review administrative action alleged to have been taken in bad faith.

Mala fide exercise of power may involve:

• Personal hostility.
• Dishonest exercise of power.
• Use of power for an ulterior purpose.
• Deliberate misuse of statutory authority.

Because allegations of mala fides are serious, courts generally require adequate factual material before reaching such a conclusion.

State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980)

The Supreme Court examined the use of statutory power for an improper purpose and emphasised that public power must be exercised for the purpose for which it is conferred.

Review of Arbitrariness

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

Judicial review may intervene where administrative action is:

• Manifestly arbitrary.
• Discriminatory.
• Irrational.
• Unreasonably unequal.
• Unsupported by a rational basis.

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

The Supreme Court developed the relationship between equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14.

Review of Natural Justice

Administrative decisions affecting rights or causing civil consequences may be subject to requirements of procedural fairness, depending upon the governing law and circumstances.

Judicial review may examine whether:

• Adequate notice was given.
• The affected person received a fair opportunity to respond.
• The decision-maker was free from disqualifying bias.
• Applicable procedural safeguards were followed.
• Reasons were required and properly provided.

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

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

Review of Procedural Impropriety

Even where an authority has substantive power to make a decision, the decision may be challenged if mandatory procedural requirements were not followed.

The court may examine:

• Statutory procedure.
• Rules governing the decision.
• Natural justice.
• Procedural safeguards.
• Requirements to provide reasons where legally applicable.

Not every procedural irregularity automatically invalidates administrative action. Its legal effect depends upon the relevant statute, the nature of the requirement and the circumstances of the case.

Review of Irrationality

Judicial review may apply where an administrative decision is so irrational that it crosses the applicable threshold of judicial intervention.

The classic doctrine is associated with Wednesbury unreasonableness.

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

The English decision established the traditional Wednesbury standard, under which a court could intervene where an administrative decision was so unreasonable that it fell outside the range of lawful administrative decision-making.

Indian courts have adopted and developed this principle within the Indian constitutional framework.

Review of Proportionality

Proportionality has become particularly significant where State action restricts constitutional rights.

The court may examine whether the measure bears an appropriate relationship between:

• The governmental objective.
• The means adopted.
• The impact on the affected right.

Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001)

The Supreme Court discussed the relationship between proportionality and Wednesbury review in administrative law.

Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016)

The Supreme Court applied structured proportionality in the context of constitutional rights.

Review of Fundamental Rights

Administrative action cannot ordinarily violate constitutionally protected Fundamental Rights.

Judicial review may therefore examine State action under provisions including:

• Article 14.
• Article 19.
• Article 21.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

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

Review of Delegated Legislation

Courts may examine delegated legislation to determine whether it remains within the authority granted by the parent statute and the Constitution.

Delegated legislation may be invalid where it is:

• Substantively ultra vires.
• Procedurally ultra vires.
• Contrary to Fundamental Rights.
• Beyond the scope of the enabling Act.
• Inconsistent with constitutional requirements.

Review of Administrative Policy

Courts generally show considerable restraint in reviewing policy decisions.

However, policy may be examined where it is:

• Unconstitutional.
• Arbitrary.
• Mala fide.
• Contrary to statute.
• Based on irrelevant considerations.
• Manifestly unreasonable within the applicable standard of review.

BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India (2002)

The Supreme Court emphasised judicial restraint in matters of economic and policy decision-making and recognised that courts should not ordinarily substitute their views for those of the executive on matters falling within executive policy.

Review of Government Contracts and Tenders

Government contracts and procurement decisions may be reviewed where public law principles are implicated.

Courts may examine:

• Arbitrariness.
• Discrimination.
• Mala fides.
• Procedural illegality.
• Violation of tender conditions.
• Improper exercise of public power.

Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994)

The Supreme Court held that judicial review of government contracts primarily examines the decision-making process, rather than acting as an appeal over the commercial merits of the decision.

Review of Tribunal Decisions

Tribunal decisions are also subject to constitutional judicial review within the framework established by the Supreme Court.

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

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

Tribunals may act as courts of first instance in their specialised fields, but their decisions remain subject to the constitutionally prescribed judicial review framework.

Limits of Judicial Review

The existence of judicial review does not mean that courts function as general appellate authorities over administration.

Several important limitations have developed.

Courts Do Not Normally Substitute Their Own Decision

The primary limitation is that judicial review is generally concerned with the legality of the decision-making process, rather than the merits of the decision itself.

If two legally permissible decisions are available, the court will ordinarily not choose one merely because it prefers it.

No Reappreciation of Evidence as an Appellate Court

In judicial review, courts ordinarily do not undertake a complete reappreciation of evidence.

Where an administrative authority has considered evidence within its lawful jurisdiction, intervention generally requires a recognised legal defect.

Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (1964)

The Supreme Court explained the limitations of writ jurisdiction in relation to findings of fact and emphasised that a writ court does not ordinarily function as an appellate court for reappreciating evidence.

Policy Decisions

Policy formulation is primarily an executive and legislative function.

Courts generally avoid determining:

• Which economic policy is preferable.
• Which administrative policy would be more effective.
• Which commercial strategy should be adopted.

Judicial intervention may nevertheless occur where policy violates the Constitution, statute or recognised principles of administrative law.

Economic Decisions

Economic decisions often involve complex technical and policy considerations.

Courts therefore exercise considerable restraint unless the decision suffers from a recognised constitutional or legal defect.

R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981)

The Supreme Court recognised that economic legislation may require greater judicial latitude because economic matters involve complex considerations and experimentation.

Technical and Expert Decisions

Where an authority or expert committee possesses specialised knowledge, courts generally do not substitute their own technical assessment.

This is particularly relevant to:

• Infrastructure projects.
• Environmental regulation.
• Public procurement.
• Financial regulation.
• Engineering decisions.
• Medical and scientific matters.

Judicial intervention may still occur where the expert decision is legally flawed, arbitrary or procedurally defective.

Alternative Remedy

Where an effective statutory remedy such as an appeal or revision exists, High Courts may ordinarily consider whether the petitioner should first pursue that remedy.

However, the existence of an alternative remedy does not invariably eliminate the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226.

Intervention may be considered in recognised situations, including serious jurisdictional errors, violations of Fundamental Rights or principles of natural justice, and other exceptional circumstances.

Separation of Powers

Judicial review must operate within the constitutional distribution of institutional functions.

Courts interpret and enforce the law but ordinarily do not assume the functions of:

• Legislatures.
• Administrative agencies.
• Expert bodies.
• Government policy-makers.

This principle supports judicial restraint while preserving constitutional review.

Judicial Review Is Not Judicial Appeal

Judicial Review	Judicial Appeal
Examines legality	Reconsiders merits
Focuses on decision-making process	May reconsider the entire decision
Checks jurisdiction	May reassess factual and legal conclusions
Examines procedural fairness	Can substitute its own conclusion
Limited grounds of intervention	Generally broader appellate powers

This distinction is central to understanding the limits of judicial review.

Important Cases

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

Established the classic principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness and judicial restraint in administrative decision-making.

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

Strengthened the application of natural justice to administrative action and emphasised fairness in administrative decision-making.

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

Connected Article 14 with the principle of non-arbitrariness and expanded constitutional review of State action.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 and strengthened the relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21.

Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994)

Established important principles governing judicial review of government contracts and tenders, emphasising review of the decision-making process rather than commercial merits.

Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001)

Explained the application of proportionality and Wednesbury principles in administrative law.

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

Recognised constitutional judicial review under Articles 226, 227 and 32 as part of the basic structure.

BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India (2002)

Emphasised judicial restraint in economic and policy matters.

Scope and Limits at a Glance

Scope of Review	Corresponding Limitation
Jurisdiction	Court does not ordinarily exercise administrative power itself
Illegality	Court does not decide which lawful policy is preferable
Arbitrariness	Court does not interfere merely because another decision is possible
Natural justice	Not every procedural irregularity invalidates an action
Irrationality	Wednesbury review has a high threshold
Proportionality	Application depends upon the constitutional and legal context
Policy review	Courts generally respect legislative and executive policy choices
Technical decisions	Courts generally defer to specialised expertise
Tender review	Courts do not normally re-evaluate commercial bids
Tribunal review	High Courts do not ordinarily act as unrestricted appellate bodies
Findings of fact	Reappreciation of evidence is generally limited

Key Points for Exams

• Judicial review ensures that public authorities act within constitutional and legal limits.
• Its scope includes jurisdiction, illegality, procedural impropriety, natural justice, arbitrariness, irrationality, proportionality and constitutional rights.
• Article 14 is an important basis for reviewing arbitrary State action.
• Articles 32 and 226 provide important constitutional remedies.
• Judicial review is different from an appeal on merits.
• Courts generally review the decision-making process, not the wisdom of every administrative decision.
• Policy, economic and technical decisions receive considerable judicial restraint.
• Alternative statutory remedies may influence the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
• Tata Cellular is important for judicial review of government contracts.
• L. Chandra Kumar is important for the constitutional status of judicial review.
• Wednesbury, Om Kumar, E.P. Royappa and Maneka Gandhi are important for understanding different dimensions of judicial review.

Conclusion

The scope of judicial review in India is broad enough to ensure that public authorities remain within the Constitution and the law. Courts can examine jurisdiction, legality, procedural fairness, arbitrariness, mala fides, irrationality, proportionality and violations of Fundamental Rights.

At the same time, judicial review has clear institutional limits. Courts generally do not substitute their own administrative, technical, economic or policy preferences for those of competent authorities. They are primarily concerned with whether the decision was lawful, fair, rational and made within the limits of the power conferred.

Thus, judicial review represents a balance between constitutional accountability and administrative autonomy.