Merits review;
I. What is Merits Review?
Merits review refers to the process of re-evaluating the facts, law, and policy aspects of an administrative decision to determine whether it was the correct or preferable decision in the circumstances. It goes beyond judicial review, which only assesses the legality or fairness of the decision.
II. Key Features of Merits Review
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Focus | Correctness or preferability of the decision |
| Conducted by | Appellate tribunals, statutory authorities, or administrative appellate bodies |
| Scope | Full re-hearing – facts, evidence, legal standards |
| Outcome | Can substitute the original decision with a new one |
| Applicable To | Decisions under welfare, taxation, employment, immigration, licenses, etc. |
III. Merits Review vs Judicial Review
| Basis | Merits Review | Judicial Review |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Substantive re-evaluation | Procedural and legal review |
| Body | Tribunal or appellate authority | High Court or Supreme Court |
| Can change decision? | Yes | No (can only quash, not replace) |
| Evidence re-evaluated? | Yes | No (relies on record of original decision) |
IV. Legal Recognition in India
In India, merits review is not directly provided by the Constitution but is recognized and implemented through statutory tribunals under various laws such as:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
National Green Tribunal (NGT)
Appellate Tribunals under RERA, SEBI, etc.
V. Case Laws on Merits Review (India)
Here are five key Indian cases where merits review principles were explained or applied:
1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125
Facts:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of tribunals like CAT and SAT, especially regarding the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction.
Held:
Tribunals perform both judicial and merits review functions.
The High Court’s power of judicial review is part of the basic structure, and cannot be excluded.
Tribunals can review facts and law, i.e., merits, but judicial review by courts remains final.
Significance:
Recognized that tribunals conduct merits review, distinct from judicial review.
Upheld the role of tribunals in specialised merits review in administrative law.
2. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416
Facts:
Government employees were dismissed without inquiry under Article 311(2)(b), citing security concerns.
Held:
Supreme Court allowed dismissal without inquiry in exceptional cases.
However, tribunals and appellate authorities could still review the merits of the disciplinary action.
Significance:
Reinforced that merits review of disciplinary actions is possible by administrative appellate authorities.
3. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, AIR 1975 SC 1331
Facts:
Employees of statutory corporations challenged their dismissal and sought relief.
Held:
Even though corporations are separate entities, their decisions affecting rights can be reviewed on merits by tribunals under relevant statutes.
Significance:
Tribunal's jurisdiction to review administrative actions on merits was confirmed.
4. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487
Facts:
Admission to a government-aided college was challenged as unfair and arbitrary.
Held:
While the court focused on Article 14 and fairness, it noted that in admissions, selection committees must also consider the merits of candidates.
Courts can review whether merit was properly assessed.
Significance:
Indirectly recognized merits-based evaluation in administrative decision-making.
Showed overlap between judicial and merits review in public employment and admissions.
5. State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269
Facts:
An employee’s date of birth was unilaterally changed by the government, affecting retirement.
Held:
The government must give notice and opportunity to be heard if it wants to change facts affecting service.
The correctness of the factual determination (like date of birth) is subject to merits review.
Significance:
A classic case of merits vs procedural fairness—not just whether a hearing was given, but also whether the factual conclusion was right.
VI. Importance of Merits Review in Administrative Law
| Benefit | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Ensures Correct Decision-Making | Reassesses errors in facts, evidence, or law |
| Improves Accountability | Acts as a second-level safeguard for executive actions |
| Promotes Public Confidence | Citizens feel they have a real chance to challenge wrong decisions |
| Reduces Burden on Courts | Keeps courts focused on legality while tribunals decide merits |
VII. Conclusion
Merits review plays a vital role in administrative law by providing a comprehensive reconsideration of administrative decisions. It ensures that not only are decisions legal and fair, but also factually and substantively correct. While courts perform judicial review, tribunals and appellate authorities are the main venues for merits review.
In India, although not explicitly constitutional, statutory tribunals have grown in importance and provide effective relief and redress through merits review.
RELATED Blog
0 comments