Judicial review of administrative legislation
Judicial Review of Administrative Legislation
What is Judicial Review of Administrative Legislation?
Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the legality and constitutionality of laws, rules, regulations, or orders made by administrative agencies or authorities.
When administrative bodies exercise legislative powers (e.g., making rules or regulations), courts ensure that these powers are exercised within the limits set by the parent statute and the Constitution.
The review aims to check whether administrative legislation:
Has exceeded delegated authority.
Violates constitutional provisions.
Is arbitrary, unreasonable, or violates natural justice.
Is procedurally improper.
Why is Judicial Review Important?
It preserves the rule of law by holding administrative agencies accountable.
It protects fundamental rights and constitutional supremacy.
It maintains the separation of powers by preventing administrative overreach.
Ensures fairness, transparency, and reasoned decision-making.
Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Legislation
Ultra Vires (Beyond powers): When the agency acts beyond the powers delegated by the legislature.
Constitutional Violation: If the rule or regulation violates constitutional provisions.
Procedural Impropriety: Failure to follow required procedures, such as public notice or consultation.
Unreasonableness/Arbitrariness: The rule is irrational or arbitrary.
Violation of Natural Justice: Denial of fair hearing or due process.
Landmark Cases on Judicial Review of Administrative Legislation
1. A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982 AIR 710)
Facts: The government passed an ordinance declaring certain areas as “disturbed” and allowed detention without trial.
Issue: Whether the ordinance was valid administrative legislation.
Held: The Supreme Court held that delegated legislation is subject to judicial review and must be reasonable, not arbitrary.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that administrative legislation cannot violate fundamental rights.
Courts will strike down delegated legislation that is unreasonable or arbitrary.
2. Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989 AIR 190)
Facts: The question was about the validity of certain rules framed by administrative authorities.
Issue: Whether rules made by administrative agencies could be judicially reviewed for legality.
Held: The Supreme Court held that administrative legislation is subject to the same standards of judicial review as ordinary legislation.
Significance:
Clarified that rules and regulations are not immune from judicial scrutiny.
Emphasized the ultra vires doctrine.
3. K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. Orissa (1953 AIR 130)
Facts: The Orissa legislature passed a law regulating estates, which was challenged as beyond the state’s power.
Issue: Whether the law was an ultra vires exercise of legislative power.
Held: The court struck down the law as it was beyond the legislative competence of the state legislature.
Significance:
Applied judicial review to state legislative acts, showing similar principles apply to administrative legislation.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597)
Facts: The government issued a passport impounding order without a hearing.
Issue: Whether the administrative action violated Article 21 and due process principles.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that administrative actions and regulations affecting fundamental rights must comply with due process and reasonableness.
Significance:
Extended judicial review to procedural fairness in administrative regulations.
Established that administrative legislation affecting rights must be reasonable and just.
5. State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963 AIR 1241)
Facts: Certain rules framed by state authorities were challenged on grounds of procedural irregularities.
Issue: Whether the administrative rules were valid despite procedural defects.
Held: The Supreme Court held that failure to follow mandatory procedural requirements can invalidate administrative legislation.
Significance:
Stressed the importance of procedural compliance.
Court held that procedure is integral to the validity of delegated legislation.
6. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987 AIR 1086)
Facts: Rules framed by pollution control boards were challenged.
Issue: Whether these administrative rules complied with statutory mandates and principles of natural justice.
Held: The Supreme Court invalidated rules that failed to meet statutory requirements and principles of fairness.
Significance:
Demonstrated judicial review protects public interest and environmental regulation against arbitrary administrative rules.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|---|
| A.K. Roy v. Union of India | 1982 | Reasonableness of delegated legislation | Delegated legislation must be reasonable, not arbitrary |
| Union of India v. Raghubir Singh | 1989 | Judicial review of administrative rules | Rules subject to ultra vires and legality tests |
| K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. Orissa | 1953 | Legislative competence | Ultra vires laws struck down |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India | 1978 | Due process and fundamental rights | Administrative regulations must be just and reasonable |
| State of West Bengal v. Union of India | 1963 | Procedural compliance in rulemaking | Failure to follow procedures invalidates rules |
| M.C. Mehta v. Union of India | 1987 | Validity of pollution control rules | Rules must comply with statutory mandate and fairness |
Conclusion
Judicial review of administrative legislation ensures that agencies exercise delegated powers within legal and constitutional limits.
Courts examine whether administrative rules and regulations are ultra vires, arbitrary, unconstitutional, or procedurally defective.
This review mechanism is essential for protecting fundamental rights, maintaining checks and balances, and ensuring good governance.
Judicial review reinforces the rule of law by scrutinizing both the substance and form of administrative legislation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments