Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
1. Introduction
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the actions, decisions, or orders of administrative authorities to ensure they comply with the law. It acts as a check on the exercise of administrative power, safeguarding citizens from abuse, arbitrariness, and illegality.
Judicial review ensures that administrative bodies act:
Within the scope of their authority (legality),
Follow fair procedures (procedural fairness),
Make reasonable decisions (reasonableness),
Respect fundamental rights (constitutional safeguards).
2. Grounds of Judicial Review
The courts can set aside administrative actions on several grounds:
Illegality: Acting beyond legal authority (ultra vires).
Irrationality or unreasonableness: Decisions so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make them.
Procedural impropriety: Failure to observe fair procedures, natural justice.
Error of law: Misinterpretation or misapplication of the law.
Violation of fundamental rights: Actions infringing constitutional rights.
3. Important Indian Cases on Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
(A) A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 129
Facts:
The selection committee for public service appointments allegedly acted with bias and did not follow fair procedures.
Issue:
Whether the committee’s decision could be challenged on grounds of procedural unfairness.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that administrative authorities must act fairly and not arbitrarily, introducing natural justice as an essential requirement in administrative decisions.
Significance:
Established that principles of natural justice apply to administrative actions.
Administrative decisions without fair hearing are liable to be quashed.
(B) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her reasons or opportunity to be heard.
Issue:
Whether such administrative action violated the right to personal liberty and fair procedure.
Held:
The court held that any administrative action affecting fundamental rights must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of procedural fairness.
Reinforced due process as part of judicial review.
(C) Union of India v. S.L. Kapoor AIR 1980 SC 95
Facts:
A government decision was challenged on grounds of unreasonableness.
Issue:
What is the test of reasonableness in judicial review?
Held:
The Court held that a decision must be one that a reasonable authority could have made, affirming the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness.
Significance:
Established reasonableness as a key ground for judicial review.
Courts do not substitute their own decision but check for arbitrariness.
(D) Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Baburao T. More AIR 1978 SC 1800
Facts:
An administrative order was challenged as being beyond the scope of delegated power.
Issue:
Whether the order was ultra vires the enabling statute.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that actions beyond the statutory authority are void and subject to judicial review.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle of legality.
Delegated powers must be exercised within the limits set by law.
(E) L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1125
Facts:
The validity of tribunals excluding judicial review was challenged.
Issue:
Whether the ouster clauses barring judicial review are valid.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be excluded.
Significance:
Affirmed the inalienability of judicial review.
Ensured courts remain the ultimate authority to supervise administrative actions.
4. Summary of Judicial Review in Administrative Law
| Case | Key Principle | Impact on Administrative Law |
|---|---|---|
| A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India | Natural justice and procedural fairness | Fair hearing mandatory in administrative actions |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | Due process and fundamental rights protection | Expanded procedural fairness and reasonableness |
| Union of India v. S.L. Kapoor | Reasonableness test for administrative decisions | Prevents arbitrary decisions |
| Secretary Ministry of Defence v. More | Ultra vires doctrine | Actions beyond statutory power are void |
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India | Judicial review is a constitutional mandate | Courts retain power to review all administrative actions |
5. Conclusion
Judicial review serves as the cornerstone of accountability in administrative law, ensuring government and administrative agencies operate within legal boundaries and respect individual rights.
It protects citizens against:
Abuse of power,
Arbitrary decisions,
Unfair administrative practices.
Through judicial review, courts maintain the rule of law and uphold constitutional governance by scrutinizing administrative actions rigorously.
RELATED Blog
0 comments