Scope of Judicial Review of Administraive Action under Art 136
✅ Judicial Review of Administrative Action under Article 136
🔷 1. Article 136 – Overview
Article 136 of the Constitution of India grants extraordinary discretionary power to the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
🔑 Text of Article 136 (simplified):
The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment or order passed by any court or tribunal, except military courts or tribunals.
🔷 2. Nature of Article 136
It is discretionary, not a right of appeal.
It is residual in nature, invoked when no other remedy is available.
It is not confined to questions of law; it can include questions of fact as well.
It applies to administrative tribunals, quasi-judicial authorities, and other statutory bodies.
🔷 3. Administrative Action – Meaning
Administrative action refers to decisions or actions taken by government officials, agencies, or administrative bodies while implementing laws or policies. It can be:
Quasi-judicial: Where rights of parties are affected after hearing (e.g., disciplinary tribunals).
Purely administrative: Day-to-day functioning of the government.
Ministerial: Routine or clerical duties under specific instructions.
🔷 4. Scope of Judicial Review under Article 136
The Supreme Court may review administrative/quasi-judicial decisions under Article 136 when:
✅ Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Action:
Violation of Natural Justice – Lack of fair hearing or bias.
Lack of Jurisdiction – Authority acts beyond its powers.
Error of Law – Misinterpretation or application of law.
Perversity of Findings – Irrational or absurd conclusions.
Abuse of Power / Mala Fide – Arbitrary or malicious use of authority.
Failure to Exercise Discretion – Mechanical or improper use of discretionary powers.
⚖️ Landmark Case Laws on Judicial Review of Administrative Action under Article 136
✅ Case 1: Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh (1954 AIR 520)
Facts:
The case involved an election petition decided by the Election Tribunal.
Issue:
Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with the Tribunal’s decision under Article 136?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that even quasi-judicial decisions by tribunals are appealable under Article 136.
The scope includes correcting errors of law and ensuring compliance with natural justice.
Significance:
Established that administrative tribunals fall within the purview of Article 136.
✅ Case 2: A. N. D'Silva v. Union of India (1962 AIR 1130)
Facts:
A government servant was dismissed following a departmental inquiry.
Issue:
Whether the Court can intervene in such disciplinary actions?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that though disciplinary proceedings are administrative in nature, the Court can intervene if there is violation of principles of natural justice or perversity in findings.
Significance:
Reinforced that disciplinary actions are subject to judicial review under Article 136.
✅ Case 3: Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985 AIR 1416)
Facts:
Government employees were dismissed without inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) due to security reasons.
Issue:
Can Article 136 be used to review executive decisions taken in public interest?
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that while national security can override procedural safeguards, the Court retains the power to ensure that such justification was genuine and not mala fide.
Significance:
Even sensitive administrative decisions can be reviewed under Article 136 for malafides or abuse of power.
✅ Case 4: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan (2006 2 SCC 373)
Facts:
Service matter related to dismissal challenged under Article 136.
Issue:
Can findings of fact by a tribunal be reviewed?
Held:
The Court reiterated that findings of fact are normally not interfered with unless they are perverse, i.e., so unreasonable that no sensible person would arrive at such conclusions.
Significance:
Clarified that Article 136 is not a general right of appeal, but can be invoked in exceptional cases.
✅ Case 5: Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees (1950 SCR 459)
Facts:
A dispute was decided by the Industrial Tribunal.
Issue:
Can Supreme Court interfere in industrial matters under Article 136?
Held:
Yes, provided there is illegality, procedural irregularity, or jurisdictional error.
Significance:
Recognized that labour tribunals’ decisions can be reviewed under Article 136 if they suffer from legal infirmities.
✅ Case 6: Pritam Singh v. The State (1950 SCR 453)
Facts:
Criminal conviction challenged under Article 136.
Held:
Though criminal cases are generally not re-examined under Article 136, the Court will intervene in miscarriage of justice, procedural irregularities, or gross errors.
Significance:
Though primarily criminal, the case shaped the understanding that Article 136 is not meant to act as a routine appellate remedy.
🔍 Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case Name | Key Point |
|---|---|
| Durga Shankar Mehta (1954) | Tribunals' decisions are reviewable under Article 136 |
| A.N. D'Silva (1962) | Disciplinary administrative actions are reviewable |
| Tulsiram Patel (1985) | National security exception is reviewable for malafide |
| Mohd. Nasrullah Khan (2006) | Perversity in findings can invite judicial review |
| Bharat Bank Ltd. (1950) | Labour tribunal decisions can be reviewed |
| Pritam Singh (1950) | Article 136 is for miscarriage of justice, not routine appeal |
🔍 Key Takeaways on Scope of Judicial Review under Article 136
| Ground | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Natural Justice Violated | No fair hearing, bias, etc. |
| Lack of Jurisdiction | Tribunal or authority exceeded legal powers |
| Error of Law | Wrong application of legal principles |
| Perversity or Irrationality | Findings unsupported by any evidence |
| Malafide or Arbitrary Action | Abuse of discretionary powers |
| Gross Miscarriage of Justice | Unfair or illegal outcomes |
📌 Conclusion
Article 136 provides a powerful supervisory jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over administrative, quasi-judicial, and tribunal decisions. However, it is meant to be used sparingly in the interest of justice, particularly when no other remedy is effective.
While the Court generally respects the autonomy of administrative authorities, it steps in when justice is at risk, ensuring that power is not abused and that citizens are treated fairly.
RELATED Blog
0 comments