A study on understanding the grounds for judicial review of adminsitrative action
🔹 Understanding the Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Action
1. What is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the actions, decisions, or orders of administrative authorities to ensure they conform to law. It acts as a check on administrative discretion and protects citizens from arbitrary or illegal use of power.
2. Why Judicial Review of Administrative Action?
To ensure rule of law is upheld
To prevent abuse of power
To guarantee fairness and justice
To ensure administrative actions comply with constitutional and legal provisions
🔹 Grounds for Judicial Review
Indian courts have recognized several key grounds on which administrative actions can be challenged and reviewed:
| Ground | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Illegality | Action taken without or beyond jurisdiction, or violating statutory provisions |
| Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness) | Action so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it |
| Procedural Impropriety | Failure to follow fair procedure or natural justice, such as right to be heard |
| Proportionality | Action disproportionate to the objective sought (developing ground in some jurisdictions) |
| Bad Faith | Decision taken with malice or improper motives |
| Violation of Fundamental Rights | Administrative action infringing constitutional rights |
| Error of Law | Misinterpretation or non-application of law |
| Fettering of Discretion | When an authority rigidly adheres to a policy without considering individual merits |
| Non-application of Mind | When decision-maker fails to consider relevant facts or exercise discretion |
🔹 Important Case Laws Explaining These Grounds
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Citation: [1948] 1 KB 223 (UK case, highly influential)
Principle:
Established the test of “Wednesbury unreasonableness”, i.e., an administrative decision can be quashed if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts:
Government impounded Maneka Gandhi's passport without giving reasons or opportunity to be heard.
Held:
The Court emphasized that administrative action affecting fundamental rights must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Ground:
Due process and procedural fairness are mandatory; violation amounts to illegality and procedural impropriety.
3. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)
Citation: AIR 1979 SC 1628
Facts:
Airport Authority refused to award a contract arbitrarily.
Held:
Court held that administrative action must be non-arbitrary, fair, and based on relevant criteria.
Ground:
Illegality, bad faith, and fettering discretion.
4. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (1975)
Citation: AIR 1975 SC 1331
Facts:
Petitioner challenged arbitrary detention under preventive detention laws.
Held:
Court held that administrative discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or mala fide.
Ground:
Bad faith and violation of constitutional rights.
5. Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya (2019)
Citation: AIR 2019 SC 3569
Facts:
Challenge against denial of entry into defense services on alleged grounds without opportunity of hearing.
Held:
Court emphasized principles of natural justice and directed that fair hearing must be provided before adverse action.
Ground:
Procedural impropriety.
6. In Re Kerala Education Bill (1958)
Citation: AIR 1958 SC 956
Facts:
Challenge to administrative rules restricting minority educational rights.
Held:
The Court struck down rules as illegal and unreasonable interference with constitutional rights.
Ground:
Illegality and violation of constitutional provisions.
7. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)
Citation: AIR 2007 SC 71
Facts:
Challenge to government policy on reservation for SC/ST.
Held:
Court held that administrative action on reservations must adhere to the principle of reasonableness and proportionality.
Ground:
Proportionality emerging as a ground for review.
🔹 Summary Table of Grounds and Cases
| Ground | Case Law | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Illegality | Ramana Shetty | Exceeding jurisdiction or violating laws |
| Irrationality | Wednesbury | Decision so unreasonable it defies logic |
| Procedural Impropriety | Maneka Gandhi, Babita Puniya | Failure to observe natural justice |
| Bad Faith | Sukhdev Singh | Malicious or mala fide decision-making |
| Violation of Rights | Kerala Education Bill, Maneka Gandhi | Breach of fundamental rights |
| Proportionality | Nagaraj | Actions must be proportionate and reasonable |
🔹 Conclusion
The grounds for judicial review of administrative action in India ensure that government and administrative agencies act within legal limits, fairly, rationally, and in good faith. These principles safeguard citizens’ rights and uphold the rule of law in administrative governance.
Over time, the judiciary has expanded and refined these grounds to meet the demands of justice in a complex welfare state.
RELATED Blog
0 comments