Judicial review of administrative decisions: recent trends and challenges
Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions: Recent Trends and Challenges
I. Introduction
Judicial review is the process by which courts examine the legality and propriety of decisions made by administrative agencies or government bodies. It ensures that administrative decisions comply with statutory mandates, constitutional principles, and fundamental fairness.
In recent years, judicial review has evolved in response to expanding administrative powers, complex regulatory environments, and global challenges such as emergencies, technology, and human rights. The review process balances the need for efficient administration with protection of individual rights and the rule of law.
II. Recent Trends in Judicial Review
Expansion of Grounds for Review
Beyond illegality, courts increasingly consider proportionality, reasonableness, and procedural fairness.
Heightened Scrutiny of Discretionary Decisions
Courts more frequently scrutinize whether discretion was exercised reasonably and without bias.
Increased Use of Proportionality Test
Proportionality is used especially in rights-based challenges, assessing whether administrative action is appropriate and minimally restrictive.
Digital Era Challenges
Issues around automated decision-making and transparency of algorithms are emerging grounds for review.
Balancing Deference and Accountability
Courts grapple with how much deference to give administrative expertise while ensuring accountability.
III. Challenges in Judicial Review
Complexity and Technicality: Agencies handle highly technical matters that judges may not fully understand.
Emergency Situations: Courts often defer to agencies during crises, risking insufficient scrutiny.
Access to Justice: Procedural barriers and cost limit effective review.
Conflicts between National Security and Rights: Governments invoke security to limit review scope.
Transparency in Automated Decisions: Algorithmic opacity challenges fairness principles.
IV. Key Cases Illustrating Trends and Challenges
1. Khalid v. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) (Australia)
Facts:
The Australian immigration minister exercised discretion to cancel a visa based on character grounds without giving Khalid a chance to respond.
Issue:
Whether the decision breached the principles of procedural fairness.
Holding:
The High Court emphasized the necessity of procedural fairness even in discretionary administrative decisions.
The minister was required to provide the affected person with an opportunity to respond before cancellation.
Significance:
Reinforced that natural justice applies broadly to administrative decisions.
Highlighted the judicial trend toward limiting unfettered discretion.
2. UK Supreme Court – R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017)
Facts:
The government sought to trigger Article 50 (to leave the EU) without parliamentary approval.
Issue:
Whether the government’s prerogative powers included this action, and the extent of judicial review over political decisions.
Holding:
The court ruled that triggering Article 50 required parliamentary approval, reaffirming parliamentary sovereignty and legal limits on executive power.
Significance:
Demonstrated judicial willingness to review even politically sensitive executive decisions.
Highlighted the constitutional role of courts in checking administrative power.
3. Supreme Court of Canada – Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov (2019)
Facts:
The case involved a decision to revoke citizenship based on administrative discretion.
Issue:
What is the standard of review for administrative decisions?
Holding:
The Supreme Court clarified the standards:
Reasonableness is the default standard.
Correctness applies to questions of law of central importance or jurisdictional questions.
Courts must engage in structured and transparent review.
Significance:
Marked a modernized, principled approach to judicial review, balancing deference and accountability.
Emphasized clarity and consistency in standards of review.
4. United States – Department of Commerce v. New York (2019)
Facts:
The Commerce Department added a citizenship question to the census, which was challenged.
Issue:
Whether the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Holding:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the rationale given was pretextual and the decision was arbitrary.
Agency decisions must be reasoned and genuine.
Significance:
Strengthened judicial scrutiny of administrative explanations.
Demonstrated courts’ power to review factual and policy justifications behind decisions.
*5. Case on Algorithmic Decision-Making – R (Bridges) v. South Wales Police (2020) (UK)
Facts:
Use of facial recognition technology by police was challenged as violating privacy and equality rights.
Issue:
Whether the administrative use of automated facial recognition was lawful.
Holding:
Courts stressed the need for transparency, accountability, and safeguards when agencies deploy automated systems.
Significance:
Signaled emerging judicial awareness of technological challenges in administrative review.
Highlighted the need for human oversight and impact assessments in administrative decisions.
V. Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Trend/Challenge Highlighted | Outcome/Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Khalid v. Minister | Australia | Procedural fairness in discretion | Expanding natural justice principles | Emphasized right to be heard before adverse action |
| R (Miller) v. Secretary of State | UK | Limits of executive power | Review of political decisions | Reaffirmed judicial oversight of executive actions |
| Canada v. Vavilov | Canada | Standards of judicial review | Clarified reasonableness & correctness | Structured approach balancing deference & scrutiny |
| Dept. of Commerce v. New York | U.S. | Arbitrary agency decision | Scrutiny of agency rationale | Courts reject pretextual agency explanations |
| R (Bridges) v. South Wales Police | UK | Automated decision-making | Challenges of technology & transparency | Called for safeguards and human oversight |
VI. Conclusion
The judicial review of administrative decisions continues to evolve in response to new legal, political, and technological challenges. Recent trends include:
Strengthening procedural fairness even in broad discretionary decisions.
Willingness to review politically sensitive actions while respecting separation of powers.
Adoption of clear standards for reviewing administrative decisions, enhancing predictability.
Enhanced scrutiny over agency rationales to prevent arbitrariness.
Emerging focus on algorithmic transparency and accountability in administrative processes.
The challenge for courts is to maintain the delicate balance between respecting administrative expertise and safeguarding individual rights and the rule of law in an increasingly complex administrative state.
RELATED Blog
0 comments