The grounds upon which judicial review may be obtained, including illegality, procedural impropriety, irrationality and legitimate expectation and the development of these grounds Exclusion of judicial review
⚖️ Judicial Review in Administrative Law: Grounds and Development
🔹 What is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is the process by which courts examine the legality of actions or decisions taken by public bodies or administrative authorities. It ensures checks and balances in governance and that public power is used lawfully, fairly, and reasonably.
It is not an appeal but a review of the decision-making process.
📌 Grounds of Judicial Review
The traditional grounds of judicial review were laid down in the landmark UK case:
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) – also known as the GCHQ Case.
The House of Lords identified three core grounds:
Illegality
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness)
Procedural Impropriety
Later, Indian and UK courts added:
Legitimate Expectation
Proportionality (emerging ground)
Let’s now explain each with detailed case law.
1. ⚖️ Illegality
🔸 Meaning:
A public authority must understand the law correctly and must act within the scope of its powers. Acting beyond power (ultra vires) renders the action illegal.
🔸 Key Case: R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995)
Facts:
The Home Secretary refused to bring into force a compensation scheme passed by Parliament and instead introduced a new non-statutory scheme.
Held:
He acted beyond his legal authority, making the decision illegal.
🔸 Indian Case: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970)
Facts:
A selection board included a member who was also a candidate.
Held:
The decision was quashed due to illegality, as the body acted in excess of its jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice.
Significance:
Blurred the line between administrative and quasi-judicial powers and affirmed the application of judicial review to both.
2. ⚖️ Procedural Impropriety
🔸 Meaning:
Failure to follow the procedure prescribed by law or the principles of natural justice, such as audi alteram partem (hear the other side).
🔸 Key Case: Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) (UK)
Facts:
Chief Constable was dismissed without being heard.
Held:
The decision was invalid due to violation of natural justice.
🔸 Indian Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Her passport was impounded without being given an opportunity to be heard.
Held:
The Court held that procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable, and denial of hearing was a breach of Article 21.
Significance:
Elevated natural justice to a constitutional requirement.
3. ⚖️ Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness)
🔸 Meaning:
A decision is irrational if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it.
🔸 Key Case: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Facts:
A cinema license was granted with unreasonable conditions (no children under 15 on Sundays).
Held:
Court laid down the “Wednesbury Test” — irrationality must be outrageous in defiance of logic.
🔸 Indian Case: State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell & Co. (1996)
Facts:
Challenged the reasonableness of prohibition laws.
Held:
Laws or executive actions can be struck down if they are arbitrary, capricious, or not based on reason.
Significance:
Adopted Wednesbury principles in Indian jurisprudence.
4. ⚖️ Legitimate Expectation
🔸 Meaning:
When a public authority creates an expectation (by policy or conduct), it must honour that expectation unless it has justifiable reasons not to.
🔸 Key Case: Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case, 1985)
Facts:
Government removed union rights of civil servants without consultation.
Held:
Although the decision involved national security, the concept of legitimate expectation was recognized.
🔸 Indian Case: Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India (1992)
Facts:
The government changed the policy regarding priority allotment of land without notice.
Held:
The change violated the petitioners' legitimate expectation, and was set aside.
Significance:
Indian courts have consistently protected reasonable administrative expectations of citizens.
5. ⚖️ Proportionality (Emerging Ground)
🔸 Meaning:
A measure taken by an authority must be proportionate to the objective pursued. This ground is more prevalent in EU and Indian human rights law.
🔸 Indian Case: Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001)
Facts:
Concerned the applicability of proportionality test in administrative actions.
Held:
In cases affecting fundamental rights, the proportionality test applies. In non-rights matters, Wednesbury test is used.
🚫 Exclusion of Judicial Review
Despite the wide scope of judicial review, certain matters are excluded or limited:
🔸 Categories Excluded:
Policy decisions (e.g., economic policy, defence).
National security (GCHQ case).
Political questions (e.g., impeachment, elections).
Matters covered by statutory finality clauses — though subject to review in case of jurisdictional error (see Anisminic case).
🔸 Indian Case: S.T. Fernandes v. State of Mysore (1969)
Facts:
Administrative action was challenged despite being under a statute that excluded court’s jurisdiction.
Held:
Court ruled that even where review is excluded, actions can be challenged for jurisdictional errors or mala fide intent.
🔸 Indian Case: A.V. Venkateswaran v. R.S. Wadhwani (1961)
Held:
Writ jurisdiction is not barred merely because alternative remedies exist. Courts may refuse to exercise jurisdiction on discretionary grounds, but exclusion cannot be absolute.
🧠 Summary Table of Grounds
| Ground | Meaning | Leading Cases (India) |
|---|---|---|
| Illegality | Acting outside the scope of powers | A.K. Kraipak, Fire Brigades Union |
| Procedural Impropriety | Breach of prescribed procedures or natural justice | Maneka Gandhi, Ridge v. Baldwin (UK) |
| Irrationality | Decision is outrageously unreasonable | McDowell & Co., Wednesbury Case (UK) |
| Legitimate Expectation | Promise or policy gives rise to fair expectation | Navjyoti Coop. Housing, GCHQ Case (UK) |
| Proportionality | Action must be proportionate to objective | Om Kumar v. Union of India |
✅ Conclusion
The doctrine of judicial review is essential to the Rule of Law in a constitutional democracy like India. The courts have developed a rich jurisprudence on the various grounds of judicial review—illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and legitimate expectation—and have used them to control abuse of power by administrative authorities.
At the same time, courts exercise self-restraint and exclude review in cases involving policy decisions, national security, and political matters, thereby maintaining a balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint.
RELATED Blog
0 comments