Critical Analysis of Judicial Review of Administrative Action
⚖️ Critical Analysis of Judicial Review of Administrative Action
I. Introduction
Judicial Review of Administrative Action is the process by which courts supervise the actions of administrative agencies or authorities to ensure legality, fairness, and constitutional compliance. It acts as a check on the arbitrary or unlawful exercise of administrative power.
Administrative actions affect citizens' rights and obligations, hence courts intervene to protect rule of law, fairness, and accountability.
II. Purpose of Judicial Review
Ensure legality: Administrative actions must conform to law.
Maintain procedural fairness: Actions should respect natural justice.
Prevent abuse of power or arbitrariness.
Uphold fundamental rights and constitutional principles.
Enforce reasonableness and proportionality.
III. Grounds for Judicial Review
Courts generally review administrative actions on the following grounds:
Illegality: Acting beyond jurisdiction or without legal authority (ultra vires).
Irrationality or Unreasonableness: Actions are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would take them.
Procedural Impropriety: Failure to follow fair procedure or principles of natural justice.
Proportionality: Disproportionate or excessive use of power.
Violation of Fundamental Rights.
IV. Critical Analysis of Judicial Review
Strengths
Promotes accountability: Keeps administration within legal limits.
Protects citizens’ rights: Prevents arbitrary decisions.
Ensures fairness: Mandates adherence to natural justice.
Preserves constitutional balance: Acts as a control on executive.
Limitations and Challenges
Judicial Overreach: Sometimes courts substitute their own decisions for administrative expertise.
Delay and Expense: Judicial review can cause delays in administrative processes.
Technical Complexity: Courts may lack technical expertise to evaluate certain administrative decisions.
Scope Ambiguity: The boundaries between policy decisions and administrative discretion are sometimes blurred.
V. Landmark Case Laws on Judicial Review of Administrative Action
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1948) 1 KB 223 (UK Case but influential in India)
Facts:
The local authority imposed a condition restricting children under 15 from attending cinemas on Sundays. The cinema challenged the decision as unreasonable.
Held:
The court held that a decision is unreasonable (Wednesbury unreasonableness) if it is so absurd that no reasonable person could have made it.
Significance:
Established the "Wednesbury test" for irrationality.
Forms a key ground for judicial review: unreasonableness.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts:
The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving her reasons or an opportunity to be heard.
Held:
Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), holding that any administrative action depriving a person of liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable, adhering to due process.
Significance:
Strengthened procedural fairness in administrative action.
Broadened the scope of judicial review by linking it to fundamental rights.
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
Facts:
Although primarily a constitutional case on the basic structure doctrine, it also discussed limits of administrative and legislative powers.
Held:
Court recognized the doctrine of basic structure and held judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution.
Significance:
Judicial review is fundamental and cannot be ousted.
Upholds judiciary’s authority to review administrative actions impacting constitutional structure.
4. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628
Facts:
The Airport Authority cancelled a contract without giving the contractor an opportunity to be heard.
Held:
Court ruled that natural justice applies to administrative actions affecting rights; the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) must be followed.
Significance:
Affirmed principles of natural justice in administrative decisions.
Expanded judicial review to include procedural fairness.
5. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361
Facts:
Concerned arbitrary use of power by the executive during emergency.
Held:
Court held that even during emergency, administrative actions must not violate fundamental rights without valid legal authority.
Significance:
Limits executive discretion.
Judicial review protects fundamental rights even in exceptional situations.
VI. Critical Observations on Case Law
The Wednesbury case introduces the restrictive standard of irrationality; courts defer to administrative expertise unless decisions are extreme.
Maneka Gandhi revolutionized judicial review by linking it closely to fundamental rights and procedural fairness.
The Kesavananda Bharati ruling solidifies judicial review as essential to constitutional governance.
The emphasis on natural justice in cases like Ramana Dayaram Shetty ensures fairness in administrative processes.
Courts tread a fine line between intervening to prevent abuse and respecting administrative discretion.
VII. Conclusion
Judicial review serves as a vital safeguard against excesses and abuses in administrative action, upholding the rule of law and fundamental rights. However, its effectiveness depends on a balanced approach where courts respect administrative expertise while ensuring legality, reasonableness, and fairness.
The case laws analyzed reflect evolving judicial attitudes— from a narrow review of rationality to broader protection of procedural rights and constitutional principles—demonstrating judicial review’s dynamic and complex nature.
RELATED Blog
0 comments