Judicial review of administrative decisions, including:
📘 Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
🔷 What is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is the power of the judiciary (mainly the High Courts and Supreme Court) to examine the legality and constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
🔷 In Administrative Law:
Judicial review of administrative action means scrutinizing the actions/decisions of public authorities to ensure they are:
Legal
Rational
Fair
Within the scope of their powers
⚖️ Legal Basis in India
| Provision | Description |
|---|---|
| Article 32 | Supreme Court's power to enforce Fundamental Rights |
| Article 226 | High Court's power to issue writs for legal and fundamental rights |
| Doctrine of Basic Structure | Judicial review is a part of the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati case) |
✅ Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
Judicial review is not an appeal. Courts do not assess the merits of a decision, but examine how the decision was made. The main grounds are:
Illegality – Authority acted beyond its powers (ultra vires)
Irrationality – Wednesbury unreasonableness
Procedural Impropriety – Violation of natural justice
Proportionality – Decision is more drastic than needed
Malafide – Decision made with bad faith or improper motive
🔍 Key Case Laws on Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
1. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964, UK case followed in India)
Facts:
A police officer was dismissed without being given a chance to be heard.
Held:
The House of Lords held the dismissal void due to violation of natural justice.
Significance in India:
This principle was later adopted in Indian jurisprudence: even administrative decisions must follow natural justice when affecting rights.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Her passport was impounded by the government without furnishing reasons or providing a hearing.
Issue:
Was it a violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty)?
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that procedure must be "right, just and fair". An administrative order affecting personal liberty must follow natural justice.
Key Principle:
Expanded the scope of judicial review to procedural fairness, not just legality.
3. Smt. Alpana Mehta v. Union of India (1994)
Facts:
A government employee was transferred arbitrarily without explanation.
Held:
The court held that while transfers are administrative, they must not be arbitrary or punitive in disguise. Absence of transparency invites judicial scrutiny.
Key Principle:
Even routine administrative decisions like transfers can be reviewed if they are malafide or arbitrary.
4. Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997)
Facts:
A public servant challenged the punishment imposed on him after disciplinary proceedings.
Held:
The Supreme Court applied the Wednesbury test of unreasonableness and held that courts can interfere if the punishment is so disproportionate that no reasonable person would impose it.
Key Principle:
Introduced the principle of proportionality in Indian administrative law, especially in service matters.
5. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Facts:
A member of a selection committee was also a candidate for the post.
Held:
Court held that such a selection violated natural justice due to bias (nemo judex in causa sua – no one should be a judge in his own cause).
Key Principle:
Administrative actions affecting civil rights must follow natural justice, even if no formal trial is conducted.
📊 Summary Table
| Case | Ground of Review | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Ridge v. Baldwin (UK) | Procedural Impropriety | Natural justice applies to administrative decisions |
| Maneka Gandhi (1978) | Fair Procedure (Art. 21) | Administrative procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable |
| Alpana Mehta (1994) | Malafide / Arbitrary Transfer | Routine actions like transfer subject to judicial review |
| G. Ganayutham (1997) | Proportionality | Penalty must not be shockingly disproportionate |
| A.K. Kraipak (1969) | Bias / Natural Justice | Administrative decisions must be free from bias |
✅ Conclusion
Judicial review is the cornerstone of constitutional democracy. In the context of administrative law:
It does not substitute the decision of the authority but ensures that decisions are taken lawfully, rationally, and fairly.
Courts maintain a delicate balance between allowing administrative discretion and preventing abuse of power.
It ensures that public officials remain accountable and decisions respect individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments