Analysing the role of judiciary in controlling arbitrary administrative action
Analyzing the Role of Judiciary in Controlling Arbitrary Administrative Action
1. Introduction
Arbitrariness in administrative action refers to decisions made without reason, fairness, or justice — often reflecting bias, caprice, or improper motives. The judiciary acts as a crucial guardian of the rule of law by scrutinizing administrative actions to prevent misuse of power and protect individual rights.
2. Why Control Arbitrary Administrative Action?
Administrative authorities wield significant power, impacting citizens' rights and liberties.
Arbitrariness undermines principles of fairness, equality, and justice.
Preventing arbitrary action ensures accountability, transparency, and good governance.
Protects individuals from executive excesses and promotes legal certainty.
3. Judicial Control Mechanisms
Judicial Review: Courts examine administrative actions for legality, reasonableness, and adherence to natural justice.
Doctrine of Ultra Vires: Courts invalidate acts beyond or outside the legal authority of administrative bodies.
Principles of Natural Justice: Ensuring fair hearing and absence of bias.
Doctrine of Proportionality: Evaluates whether administrative action is proportional to the objective.
Reasonableness (Wednesbury Principle): Courts intervene if decisions are irrational or unreasonable.
4. Key Case Laws Demonstrating Judicial Role
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without providing reasons or hearing.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the procedure must be “fair, just, and reasonable” under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Principle: Administrative action that is arbitrary or unfair violates fundamental rights.
Significance: Expanded scope of judicial review; arbitrariness is incompatible with constitutional rights.
2. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
Facts: Royappa was dismissed from service; he challenged the dismissal as arbitrary.
Held: Supreme Court stated that “arbitrariness” is the negation of equality and fairness.
Principle: Arbitrariness violates Article 14 (Equality before law); all administrative actions must conform to reason and justice.
Significance: Elevated anti-arbitrariness as a core constitutional principle.
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts: Challenge to constitutional amendments.
Held: While the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be amended, arbitrary legislative or executive actions are subject to judicial review.
Principle: Judicial review protects constitutionalism against arbitrary state action.
Significance: Reinforced the judiciary’s role as a protector against arbitrary exercise of power.
4. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007)
Facts: Challenge to the validity of laws placed under the Ninth Schedule, which protected them from judicial review.
Held: The Supreme Court held that laws violating fundamental rights, especially those causing arbitrariness, can be reviewed even if under Ninth Schedule.
Principle: Judicial review is paramount to prevent arbitrary legislation and executive action.
Significance: Ensured continuous judicial check on arbitrary laws and administrative orders.
5. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
Facts: Right to clean environment and protection from pollution.
Held: The Court declared that arbitrary actions causing environmental harm violate fundamental rights.
Principle: Administrative decisions causing arbitrary harm to environment and public health are subject to judicial intervention.
Significance: Expanded the ambit of judicial review to include environmental protection against arbitrary administrative acts.
5. Analysis
The judiciary functions as the watchdog against arbitrariness.
It ensures that administrative decisions comply with statutory mandates, constitutional guarantees, and principles of fairness.
Judicial review is not interference with policy but correction of illegality or unfairness.
Courts differentiate between policy decisions (non-justiciable) and administrative decisions (justiciable if arbitrary).
Through these decisions, the judiciary has developed doctrines like proportionality, legitimate expectation, and natural justice to curb arbitrariness.
6. Challenges in Judicial Control
Balancing judicial restraint and intervention.
Maintaining separation of powers; courts avoid policy matters.
Ensuring timely justice in complex administrative cases.
Conclusion
The judiciary plays an indispensable role in controlling arbitrary administrative action by safeguarding the rule of law, protecting citizens' rights, and maintaining the constitutional balance. Through judicial review and adherence to principles like natural justice and reasonableness, the courts act as a bulwark against abuse of administrative power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments