Judicial Review of Administrative Actions - Progressive and Remedial Step towards Welfare State
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions: A Progressive and Remedial Step Towards Welfare State
Introduction
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the actions, decisions, or laws enacted by the executive or administrative agencies to ensure they comply with the Constitution and established legal principles. In the context of administrative actions, judicial review acts as a safeguard against arbitrary, illegal, or oppressive use of administrative power.
In the welfare state model, the government plays a vital role in ensuring social justice, equality, and protection of fundamental rights. Administrative agencies, as extensions of the executive, carry out welfare programs, regulate activities, and make decisions affecting citizens’ rights. However, without proper checks, administrative powers may be misused, leading to violations of rights and injustice.
Judicial review, thus, emerges as a progressive and remedial tool to balance the authority of administrative agencies with citizens’ rights, ensuring the welfare state functions effectively and fairly.
Significance of Judicial Review in a Welfare State
Protection of Fundamental Rights: Ensures that administrative actions do not infringe constitutional rights.
Enforcement of Legal Limits: Prevents abuse of discretionary powers by administrative agencies.
Promotion of Fairness: Guarantees procedural fairness and reasoned decision-making.
Correcting Errors: Provides a mechanism to rectify administrative mistakes.
Encouraging Accountability: Makes administration accountable to law and citizens.
Ensuring Transparency: Promotes openness in administrative processes.
Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
Judicial review is generally invoked on the following grounds:
Illegality: Action beyond legal authority (ultra vires).
Irrationality or Arbitrariness: Decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make it.
Procedural Impropriety: Violation of principles of natural justice (e.g., no hearing).
Proportionality: Excessive or disproportionate use of power.
Violation of Fundamental Rights: Administrative action infringing constitutional guarantees.
Landmark Case Laws Illustrating Judicial Review as a Progressive Step
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
Facts: This case primarily dealt with the constitutional amendments but also affirmed the basic structure doctrine and the scope of judicial review.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be abrogated.
Significance: Established that judicial review is fundamental to the Constitution, safeguarding citizens’ rights and limiting government powers — critical in a welfare state context.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts: The government impounded Maneka Gandhi's passport without providing reasons or opportunity to be heard.
Judgment: The Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and held that any administrative action depriving liberty must follow fair, just, and reasonable procedure.
Significance: A landmark case where judicial review ensured administrative action complied with fundamental rights, emphasizing procedural fairness, vital for welfare governance.
3. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (Judges Transfer Case), AIR 1982 SC 149
Facts: The case involved issues of transfer and appointment of judges, raising concerns about executive interference.
Judgment: The Court held that judicial review extends to administrative actions affecting judiciary independence, reinforcing checks and balances.
Significance: Demonstrates judicial review’s role in protecting institutional integrity, critical for a functioning welfare state.
4. R.K. Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1115
Facts: Government imposed restrictions on the press under the Official Secrets Act.
Judgment: The Court held that administrative action must be reasonable and non-arbitrary; if it affects fundamental rights, strict scrutiny applies.
Significance: Judicial review protects freedoms essential for a democratic welfare state, limiting executive overreach.
5. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555
Facts: The petitioner was dismissed from service in an arbitrary manner.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that arbitrariness is inconsistent with the rule of law and hence subject to judicial review.
Significance: Established arbitrariness as a ground for judicial review, reinforcing fairness in administrative action.
6. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180
Facts: The eviction of pavement dwellers without rehabilitation.
Judgment: The Court held that right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21 and administrative action cannot be arbitrary.
Significance: Judicial review was used to protect the vulnerable, illustrating welfare state’s protective role through courts.
7. State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, AIR 2010 SC 1476
Facts: Issue of police violence and unlawful administrative action.
Judgment: The Court emphasized that administrative action must conform to constitutional morality and be subject to judicial scrutiny.
Significance: Reinforces judicial review as a check on administrative excess, ensuring rule of law in welfare governance.
Conclusion
Judicial review of administrative actions is a vital mechanism in the evolution of the welfare state. It acts as a progressive and remedial step by:
Ensuring administrative agencies function within legal limits.
Protecting citizens’ fundamental rights.
Providing a forum to challenge arbitrary or unfair decisions.
Reinforcing accountability and transparency.
Strengthening the rule of law and constitutional governance.
The cases discussed demonstrate how judicial review has been used by courts to check administrative excess, expand rights, and uphold justice — essential for the realization of welfare state ideals.
RELATED Blog
0 comments