An analysis on modes of Judicial Review of Administrative actions
Modes of Judicial Review of Administrative Actions: An Analysis
1. Introduction
Judicial Review is a constitutional mechanism that enables courts to examine the legality of administrative actions and decisions. It ensures that administrative authorities act within the scope of their powers and adhere to principles of natural justice, fairness, and reasonableness.
The scope of judicial review is essential to uphold the rule of law and protect individuals from arbitrary, illegal, or unconstitutional administrative acts.
2. Modes of Judicial Review
The courts employ various modes or grounds to review administrative actions:
A. Writ Jurisdiction
Under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, courts can issue writs to enforce fundamental rights and maintain the rule of law. The writs applicable to administrative actions are:
Writ of Certiorari: To quash an illegal or ultra vires administrative order.
Writ of Mandamus: To compel an administrative authority to perform a public duty.
Writ of Prohibition: To prevent an administrative authority from acting beyond its jurisdiction.
Writ of Habeas Corpus: To safeguard personal liberty.
Writ of Quo Warranto: To question the authority of a person holding a public office.
B. Doctrine of Ultra Vires
Courts declare an administrative action void if it exceeds the powers granted by the statute (ultra vires), either substantively (beyond power) or procedurally (without following procedure).
C. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
Administrative authorities must act fairly if a legitimate expectation has been created through past practice or explicit assurances, even if no legal right exists.
D. Doctrine of Proportionality
Introduced to ensure that administrative decisions are proportionate to the aim pursued, avoiding excessive or unnecessary restrictions on individual rights.
E. Grounds of Natural Justice
Administrative actions must comply with principles of natural justice — right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua).
F. Reasonableness and Non-Arbitrariness
Courts ensure that administrative decisions are reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious (Wednesbury test).
3. Key Case Laws Illustrating Each Mode
(1) Writ of Certiorari – A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262
Facts:
The Union Public Service Commission conducted a selection without allowing candidates a fair hearing.
Held:
Supreme Court held that the Commission’s action was liable to be quashed as it violated the principles of natural justice.
Significance:
The writ of certiorari quashed the unlawful administrative action.
Emphasized judicial review to check arbitrariness in administrative decision-making.
(2) Doctrine of Ultra Vires – Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489
Facts:
The authority awarded a contract ignoring statutory guidelines.
Held:
The Court held the action was ultra vires the statute and therefore invalid.
Significance:
Judicial review protects against administrative excess.
Actions beyond delegated authority are liable to be struck down.
(3) Legitimate Expectation – Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) AC 374 (UK)
Although a UK case, it is authoritative and widely cited in India.
Facts:
Government changed rules on employee pensions after assurances to unions.
Held:
The Court held that legitimate expectation must be honored unless an overriding public interest exists.
Significance:
Expanded judicial review to protect fairness in administrative discretion.
(4) Proportionality – R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (2001) UKHL 26
Facts:
Prison authorities searched prisoners’ cells, infringing privacy rights.
Held:
The House of Lords applied the proportionality test to balance rights and administrative interests.
Significance:
Indian courts have since adopted proportionality as a ground for review, especially in fundamental rights cases.
(5) Natural Justice – Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without hearing.
Held:
Supreme Court held that the procedure must be fair and just, encompassing the right to be heard.
Significance:
Expanded natural justice beyond formal rules.
Administrative actions must comply with fair procedures.
(6) Reasonableness – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223 (UK)
Facts:
Local authority imposed conditions on cinema licenses.
Held:
Court held administrative decisions are reviewable if unreasonable to an absurd degree (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
Significance:
Established the test for unreasonableness.
Indian courts regularly apply this principle in judicial review.
4. Summary Table
| Mode of Review | Description | Key Case |
|---|---|---|
| Writ Jurisdiction | Court issues writs to quash or compel actions | A.K. Kraipak |
| Ultra Vires | Actions beyond statutory powers invalid | Ramana Dayaram Shetty |
| Legitimate Expectation | Fairness when expectations created | Council of Civil Service Unions (UK) |
| Proportionality | Balance between rights and administrative aims | ex parte Daly (UK) |
| Natural Justice | Fair hearing and no bias | Maneka Gandhi |
| Reasonableness | No arbitrary or capricious decisions | Wednesbury Corporation (UK) |
5. Conclusion
Judicial review of administrative actions in India is a vital constitutional safeguard ensuring that administration acts within legal limits, respects fundamental rights, and exercises powers fairly and reasonably. The courts have evolved multiple modes—writs, doctrines like ultra vires and legitimate expectation, and principles like proportionality and natural justice—to check abuse of power and maintain administrative accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments