Judicial Review of Administrative Actions by Writs
📘 Judicial Review of Administrative Actions by Writs
📌 Introduction
Judicial Review is the process by which courts examine the actions, decisions, or omissions of administrative bodies or public officials to ensure legality, fairness, and reasonableness. It acts as a safeguard against abuse of power, ensuring administrative authorities act within their jurisdiction and follow due process.
In common law jurisdictions, writs are traditional legal instruments that courts issue to supervise administrative actions. The principal writs used in judicial review are:
Certiorari
Mandamus
Prohibition
Habeas Corpus
Each writ serves a distinct function to keep administrative actions in check.
⚖️ Types of Writs and Their Role in Judicial Review
| Writ | Purpose | Application in Administrative Law |
|---|---|---|
| Certiorari | Quashes or nullifies decisions made without jurisdiction or in violation of law. | Used to invalidate illegal administrative orders or decisions. |
| Mandamus | Commands a public authority to perform a duty they are legally bound to perform. | Enforces performance of statutory or legal duties by administrators. |
| Prohibition | Prevents a lower court or tribunal or administrative authority from acting beyond jurisdiction. | Stops unlawful actions before they occur. |
| Habeas Corpus | Protects against illegal detention or imprisonment. | Ensures liberty by ordering a detained person’s production before the court. |
📚 Key Case Laws (Detailed Explanation)
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
Facts:
Wednesbury Corporation imposed a condition restricting cinema opening times.
The cinema company challenged the decision as unreasonable and beyond the power of the corporation.
Issue:
Could the court review the administrative decision and quash it on grounds of unreasonableness?
Holding:
The court affirmed the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard and quashed the decision.
Role of Writ:
Certiorari was used to quash the corporation’s decision.
The case laid down the principle that a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make it can be quashed.
Significance:
Established the threshold for judicial review on grounds of reasonableness.
Provided a clear role for certiorari in supervising administrative actions.
2. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Padfield [1968] AC 997
Facts:
The Home Secretary refused to refer a complaint to a commission despite a statutory obligation.
The applicant challenged the refusal.
Issue:
Could the court compel the Secretary to act where he had a legal duty?
Holding:
The House of Lords held that the Secretary must perform the duty and quashed the refusal.
Role of Writ:
Mandamus was issued to compel the official to fulfill his legal duty.
The case clarified that discretion must be exercised according to the statute’s purpose.
Significance:
Reinforced that public officials cannot refuse to exercise discretion arbitrarily.
Mandamus is a powerful tool to enforce duties.
3. R v. Horncastle and others [2009] UKSC 14
Facts:
The case involved the use of hearsay evidence in administrative and judicial decisions.
The challenge concerned procedural fairness and legality.
Issue:
Could the courts prohibit the use of certain evidence unlawfully in administrative hearings?
Holding:
The court emphasized the need for procedural fairness.
Role of Writ:
Prohibition writ was relevant to restrain unlawful proceedings before tribunals.
Courts have jurisdiction to issue prohibition if an authority acts outside its jurisdiction or breaches natural justice.
Significance:
Showcased prohibition’s preventive role.
Emphasized courts’ supervision of fairness in administrative processes.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving reasons or opportunity to be heard.
She challenged the action as illegal.
Issue:
Was the impounding of passport without procedure violative of natural justice and fundamental rights?
Holding:
The Supreme Court of India expanded the scope of due process and ruled the action invalid.
Role of Writ:
Habeas Corpus is not directly applicable, but the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 (India’s Constitution) operates like writ jurisdiction to enforce fundamental rights.
The writ of certiorari or mandamus could quash or compel respectively.
Significance:
Expanded the concept of procedural fairness in administrative action.
Judicial review under writ jurisdiction protects fundamental rights.
5. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213
Facts:
A public authority terminated the services of employees arbitrarily.
The employees sought judicial review of the termination.
Issue:
Did the termination violate principles of natural justice and was it subject to judicial review?
Holding:
The court held that administrative actions affecting rights must be fair and reasonable.
Role of Writ:
Certiorari was used to quash arbitrary administrative orders.
Mandamus could compel public authorities to act fairly.
Significance:
Established that administrative decisions impacting rights are reviewable.
Highlighted writs as tools to protect employees’ rights against administrative excess.
🔍 Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Jurisdiction | Writ Used | Core Issue | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury | UK | Certiorari | Unreasonable administrative decision | Decision quashed for unreasonableness |
| R v. Home Secretary, ex parte Padfield | UK | Mandamus | Failure to perform statutory duty | Duty enforced by mandamus |
| R v. Horncastle | UK | Prohibition | Unlawful evidence in proceedings | Proceedings restrained |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | India | Certiorari, Writs of Fundamental Rights | Violation of procedural fairness | Action invalidated |
| Bangalore Water Supply Board v. Rajappa | India | Certiorari | Arbitrary termination | Administrative order quashed |
🔑 Principles Established through Writs in Judicial Review
Certiorari quashes ultra vires or unlawful administrative decisions.
Mandamus enforces the performance of public duties.
Prohibition prevents authorities from acting beyond their jurisdiction.
Habeas Corpus protects individual liberty from unlawful detention.
Courts uphold natural justice, legality, and reasonableness through writ jurisdiction.
Judicial review under writs maintains the balance of power between administration and citizen.
✅ Conclusion
The writs system forms the backbone of judicial review in administrative law. By issuing certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and habeas corpus, courts:
Protect citizens from unlawful administrative acts,
Ensure public authorities act within their legal bounds,
Enforce procedural fairness and natural justice,
Provide timely remedies for administrative overreach.
Writs remain essential to maintain accountability, legality, and fairness in administrative governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments