Judicial Review of Adminisrative Action on the ground of Violation of Fundamental Rights
⚖️ Judicial Review of Administrative Action on the Ground of Violation of Fundamental Rights
🔹 Overview
In India, the Constitution guarantees Fundamental Rights under Part III, such as the right to equality (Article 14), right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), freedom of speech and expression (Article 19), etc.
When administrative actions (executive decisions, policies, or orders) violate or infringe upon these rights, such actions are subject to judicial review by the courts, mainly the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 226.
The judiciary acts as the protector and enforcer of Fundamental Rights, ensuring the State does not exercise arbitrary power.
🔹 Key Grounds for Judicial Review on Fundamental Rights Violation
Arbitrariness or unreasonableness (violates Article 14 - Equality)
Denial of procedure established by law (Article 21 - Life and Personal Liberty)
Excessive restriction on freedom (Article 19 - Freedom of speech, movement, etc.)
Discrimination and denial of equality (Article 15, 16)
🧾 Important Case Laws Explained
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving her an opportunity to be heard.
Issue:
Whether the procedure followed violated her right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) and freedom of movement (Article 19).
Held:
The Supreme Court expanded Article 21 by holding that any “procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable and not arbitrary or oppressive.
Significance:
Established that due process is implicit in Article 21.
Laid down the principle of proportionality and linked Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Strengthened the scope of judicial review against arbitrary administrative action.
2. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Facts:
Eviction of pavement dwellers without adequate alternative accommodation.
Issue:
Whether the right to livelihood is part of Article 21 and whether the administrative eviction violated this right.
Held:
The Court held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life and any administrative action depriving livelihood must follow due process and cannot be arbitrary.
Significance:
Expanded the ambit of Article 21 to include the right to livelihood.
Reinforced judicial review against administrative action violating fundamental rights.
3. Kharak Singh v. State of UP (1963)
Facts:
The UP government issued domiciliary visitation orders to Kharak Singh, violating his privacy.
Issue:
Whether this violated the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Held:
The Court ruled that such administrative action was a violation of the right to privacy, which is a facet of Article 21.
Significance:
Recognized privacy as a fundamental right.
Judicial review protected against administrative overreach infringing privacy.
4. A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982)
Facts:
The government imposed detention without trial under preventive detention laws.
Issue:
Whether detention violated the fundamental rights of liberty and due process.
Held:
The Court emphasized that even administrative actions like detention must comply with constitutional safeguards and cannot be arbitrary.
Significance:
Judicial review can strike down detention orders violating constitutional rights.
Reinforced the protection against arbitrary detention.
5. Right to Privacy Judgment (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017)
Facts:
Petition challenging government surveillance and data collection practices.
Issue:
Whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution and whether administrative surveillance violated it.
Held:
The Court unanimously held that right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 and any administrative action infringing it must meet strict constitutional scrutiny.
Significance:
Landmark decision expanding judicial review in protecting fundamental rights.
Set high standards for the legality and proportionality of administrative actions affecting privacy.
🔍 Analysis and Impact
The scope of judicial review has expanded substantially to protect fundamental rights against executive or administrative excesses.
The “fair, just and reasonable” procedure test ensures administrative actions are not arbitrary or oppressive.
Courts have broadened the scope of Article 21 beyond mere physical liberty to include privacy, livelihood, and dignity.
Administrative actions restricting freedom of speech, movement, religion, etc. (Article 19) are subject to strict scrutiny.
Preventive detention and other extraordinary administrative powers must comply with due process.
Judicial review acts as a bulwark against abuse of power and enforces accountability.
📌 Summary Table of Cases
| Case Name | Key Issue | Judicial Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Due process under Article 21 | Procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable |
| Olga Tellis (1985) | Right to livelihood under Article 21 | Livelihood is part of right to life |
| Kharak Singh (1963) | Right to privacy | Privacy protected as part of personal liberty |
| A.K. Roy (1982) | Arbitrary detention | Detention must meet constitutional safeguards |
| Puttaswamy (2017) | Right to privacy & data protection | Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 |
✅ Conclusion
Judicial review of administrative action on the ground of violation of fundamental rights is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. Courts safeguard citizens from arbitrary, unjust, or oppressive executive action by enforcing constitutional guarantees. The judiciary's evolving interpretation, especially of Article 21, has greatly enhanced the protection of individual liberties and reinforced the Rule of Law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments