Grounds for judicial Review of Administrative Action:An Overview
✅ Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Action: An Overview
⚖️ 1. Introduction
Judicial review is a process by which the judiciary supervises the actions of administrative authorities to ensure they act within the limits of their legal powers. It ensures accountability, legality, and protection of fundamental rights.
The judiciary does not act as an appellate body—it does not assess the merits of the decision but the legality of the decision-making process.
🔍 2. Key Grounds for Judicial Review
I. Illegality (Ultra Vires Action)
When an authority acts beyond the scope of its powers, the action is called ultra vires and becomes illegal.
If administrative authorities misinterpret statutes, act without jurisdiction, or exceed their lawful authority, judicial review is allowed.
II. Irrationality / Wednesbury Unreasonableness
An action is irrational if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made such a decision.
The standard comes from the UK case Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corp., which has been applied in India too.
III. Procedural Impropriety
If authorities fail to follow the prescribed procedure, including principles of natural justice, the decision can be reviewed.
This includes:
Right to be heard (audi alteram partem)
No bias (nemo judex in causa sua)
IV. Proportionality
The administrative action must not be excessive and should be proportionate to the objective.
This is especially relevant in cases involving fundamental rights.
V. Mala Fide (Bad Faith)
If an authority acts with bad intention, dishonest motive, or personal bias, the action can be quashed.
VI. Violation of Fundamental Rights
When administrative decisions infringe upon fundamental rights, courts step in to ensure constitutional compliance.
📚 Important Case Laws
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150)
Facts:
A selection board included a member who was also a candidate for the post being decided.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that the selection was vitiated by bias, violating the principle of natural justice.
Ground:
Procedural Impropriety (Bias)
Significance:
Established that even administrative actions must follow natural justice. The line between administrative and quasi-judicial actions was blurred.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)
Facts:
Her passport was impounded without giving her any reason or chance to be heard.
Held:
The action violated Article 21 and principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the due process of law.
Grounds:
Violation of Fundamental Rights
Procedural Impropriety
Proportionality
Significance:
Expanded the interpretation of “procedure established by law” to include fairness and reasonableness.
3. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (AIR 1975 SC 2299)
Facts:
The 39th Amendment was passed to bar judicial review of the election of the Prime Minister.
Held:
The Supreme Court struck down the amendment as violating the basic structure of the Constitution.
Grounds:
Illegality (Unconstitutional)
Violation of Fundamental Rights
Significance:
Reaffirmed that judicial review is part of the basic structure and cannot be taken away.
4. Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651
Facts:
Dispute over government’s decision-making in granting telecom licenses.
Held:
Courts can review administrative decisions to ensure they are not arbitrary, but they will not interfere in policy matters unless illegal.
Grounds:
Irrationality
Unreasonableness
Significance:
Laid down principles on judicial review in contractual and policy matters, emphasizing limited judicial interference.
5. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (AIR 1979 SC 1628)
Facts:
Contract was denied to a party despite them meeting all qualifications.
Held:
The Court held that arbitrariness violates Article 14, and public authorities must act fairly even in contract matters.
Grounds:
Illegality
Arbitrariness
Violation of Article 14
Significance:
Extended judicial review to government contracts and tenders, demanding fairness and transparency.
6. Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463
Facts:
The case dealt with the proportionality of punishment in disciplinary proceedings.
Held:
Indian courts recognized proportionality as a test, especially when fundamental rights are affected.
Grounds:
Proportionality
Irrationality
Significance:
Introduced the doctrine of proportionality in administrative law in India.
7. State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (AIR 1980 SC 319)
Facts:
Land acquisition was challenged on the ground of malafide intentions.
Held:
The Supreme Court invalidated the action as it was taken with malicious intent.
Ground:
Mala Fide (Bad Faith)
Significance:
Affirmed that malicious use of power is a valid ground for judicial review.
🧾 Summary Table of Grounds and Cases
| Ground | Key Cases | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Illegality | R.D. Shetty, Indira Gandhi | No power beyond law or Constitution |
| Irrationality | Tata Cellular, Ganayutham | Decisions must not be absurd or unreasonable |
| Procedural Impropriety | A.K. Kraipak, Maneka Gandhi | Natural justice must be followed |
| Proportionality | Maneka Gandhi, Ganayutham | Response must be proportional to the objective |
| Mala Fide | Gurdial Singh | Abuse of power for personal motives not allowed |
| Violation of Rights | Maneka Gandhi, Indira Gandhi | Fundamental rights must be upheld |
✅ Conclusion
Judicial review is a core function of administrative law, ensuring that administrative authorities act legally, fairly, and reasonably. The grounds of judicial review—illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, proportionality, malafide intention, and violation of fundamental rights—serve as safeguards against misuse of power.
It preserves the rule of law and protects citizens from arbitrary or unjust administrative actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments