Avenues of judicial review of:
⚖️ Avenues of Judicial Review in Administrative Law
📘 1. What is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine the actions of the executive and legislature to ensure they do not violate the Constitution or legal principles.
In administrative law, judicial review allows courts to scrutinize administrative actions (like orders, rules, decisions, detentions, etc.) to ensure:
They are within legal limits (jurisdiction)
Not arbitrary or unreasonable
Follow procedural fairness (natural justice)
🛣️ Avenues (Grounds) of Judicial Review
Here are the primary grounds/avenues through which courts review administrative actions:
| No. | Ground | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| 1️⃣ | Illegality | Acting outside legal powers or jurisdiction |
| 2️⃣ | Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness) | Decision so unreasonable that no sensible person would make it |
| 3️⃣ | Procedural Impropriety | Violation of natural justice or procedural rules |
| 4️⃣ | Proportionality | Excessive punishment or administrative action that outweighs the purpose |
| 5️⃣ | Mala fides | Action taken with bad faith or improper motive |
| 6️⃣ | Violation of Fundamental Rights | Breach of Articles 14, 19, 21, etc. |
| 7️⃣ | Error of law apparent on the face of record | Clear legal mistake in decision-making |
📚 Important Case Laws on Judicial Review (Explained in Detail)
1. Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651
Facts:
Challenge to the award of a telecom contract to a private company by the government. The petitioner alleged arbitrariness in the tendering process.
Issue:
Can courts review policy decisions or contract awards by the government?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that:
Courts can review administrative decisions for illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
However, courts should not interfere with government policy unless it is arbitrary or mala fide.
Principle:
This case defined the scope of judicial review, particularly in contractual and policy matters.
Significance:
Established the famous "Triple Test" of:
Illegality
Irrationality
Procedural impropriety
2. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (UK case – 1948)
(Though foreign, it's heavily used in Indian law)
Facts:
Cinema licence was granted with a condition that no children under 15 could be admitted on Sundays.
Issue:
Was the condition imposed by the licensing authority unreasonable?
Held:
Court held that:
Judicial review is not about merits, but about legality and fairness.
A decision is unreasonable only if it's "so absurd that no reasonable authority would ever impose it."
Principle:
Origin of the “Wednesbury unreasonableness” test – still followed in India.
Significance:
Helps courts avoid interfering with reasonable administrative discretion, while still allowing checks on absurd or oppressive actions.
3. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262
Facts:
One of the selection board members was also a candidate for the Indian Forest Service. He participated in the selection process.
Issue:
Was there a violation of natural justice (bias rule)?
Held:
Yes. The decision was quashed due to conflict of interest and bias. Even administrative actions must follow natural justice.
Principle:
Blurred the line between administrative and quasi-judicial actions. All actions affecting rights must follow fair procedure.
Significance:
Huge shift — now administrative discretion is also subject to procedural fairness.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her a chance to be heard. She challenged this as a violation of Article 21.
Held:
The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 and held that:
"Procedure established by law" must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Arbitrary administrative actions that affect life or liberty are unconstitutional.
Principle:
Introduced substantive due process in India. Now, administrative actions must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and follow natural justice.
Significance:
Foundational case for judicial review of administrative discretion under fundamental rights.
5. Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463
Facts:
A government servant was dismissed after a disciplinary inquiry. He challenged the punishment as disproportionate.
Issue:
Can courts review the quantum of punishment in administrative actions?
Held:
Court held:
While proportionality is not fully applicable to administrative law yet, it can be used in constitutional cases (e.g., FR violations).
In service matters, courts may interfere if punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
Principle:
Opened the door for proportionality review in Indian law, especially under Article 14 and 21.
Significance:
Important case linking administrative law with fundamental rights and fairness in punishment.
🧾 Summary Table: Case Laws on Judicial Review
| Case | Key Issue | Principle Established | Avenue of Judicial Review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tata Cellular (1994) | Govt contracts & policy | Triple test: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety | Limits of review in policy decisions |
| Wednesbury (1948) | Irrational licensing condition | Irrationality = no reasonable authority would decide so | Irrationality |
| A.K. Kraipak (1969) | Bias in selection | Administrative decisions must follow natural justice | Procedural impropriety |
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Arbitrary passport seizure | Procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable | Fundamental rights, procedural fairness |
| Ganayutham (1997) | Disproportionate punishment | Courts can interfere if punishment is arbitrary or excessive | Proportionality |
✅ Conclusion
The avenues of judicial review empower courts to:
Check executive abuse
Ensure legality, fairness, and reasonableness
Protect individual rights against administrative excess
These principles make sure that public power is not absolute, and citizens have remedies against arbitrary and unfair decisions.
Judicial review is thus the cornerstone of administrative law and ensures that the rule of law prevails in all government actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments