Judicial Review of Administrative Action in India

Profile of the Author: Arpita Prakash is a 2nd year Law student pursuing B.A. LL.B (Hons) from University Law College, Gauhati University.

Introduction

A strong and impartial judiciary is a sine qua non of any government. Judiciary plays a key role in deciding the disputes between the citizens and between a citizen and state. In today’s age, the administration plays an essential role in every individual’s life. Administrative laws are also expanding to meet the demands of new conditions. Judicial review is an integral component of the rule of law.

What is Administrative Action?

Administrative action is the residuary action which is neither legislative nor judicial. It is concerned with the betterment of a particular situation. It has no procedural obligations of collecting evidence and weighing arguments. It is where the decision is based on policy and expediency, it does not decide a right but it may affect one. Although it does not necessarily mean that the principle of natural justice can be ignored while authorities exercise “administrative powers”. The principle of natural justice must always be observed depending on the fact situation of each case. [1]

Take for instance, in case of A.K. Kraipak V. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC A); the Supreme Court held that a person who sits on a Committee for the selection of candidates for a certain job must not be a candidate himself for the Job. The logic is that Judges could be impartial and neutral. He must be free from any controversy, suspicion of bias in rendering Justice. The court was of the view that in order to determine whether the action of the administrative authority is quasi-judicial or administrative. [2]

What is Judicial Review?

Judicial review has been recognised as a necessary and fundamental requirement for the construction of an advanced civilisation to safeguard the liberty and rights of the citizens. The power of judicial review in India is significantly vested upon the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. Judicial review is the court’s power to review the actions of other branches of government, especially the court’s power to deem invalid actions exercised by the legislative and executive as ‘unconstitutional’. [3]

In India, judicial review deals with:

1. Judicial Review of Legislative Actions;
2. Judicial Review of Administrative Actions;
3. Judicial review of Judicial Actions.

Grounds of Judicial Review

The grounds of judicial reviews are as follows:

1. Jurisdictional Error- A case of ‘lack of jurisdiction’ is where the tribunal or authority holds no power or jurisdiction at all to pass an order. The court may review this administrative action on the ground that the authority exercised jurisdiction which it was not supposed to.
2. Irrationality- The definition of the irrationality ground of judicial review recognises the constitutional principle of the separation of powers, in allowing for judicial control of the executive only very rarely. [4]
3. Procedural Impropriety- It is a failure to comply with the laid down procedures. Procedural Impropriety is to cover two areas which are failure to observe rules given in statute and to observe the basic common-law rule of justice. Ridge v Baldwin (1963) [5] case is an example of procedural impropriety.
4. Proportionality- Proportionality means that the concerned administrative action should not be more forceful than it requires to be. The principle of proportionality implies that the court has to necessarily go into the advantages and disadvantages of the action called into question. Unless the so-called administrative action is advantageous and in the public interest, such an action cannot be upheld. This doctrine tries to balance means with ends.

The above grounds were given by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister of Civil Service (1984) [6] case.

The concept of judicial review has been originated by the American Supreme Court. It was made very clear in Marbury v. Madison [7] case that courts had the power of judicial review, although the provision of judicial review has not been expressed in the American constitution.

Remedies

There are five types of writs for judicial review of administrative actions under Article 32 and Article 226

1. Writ of Habeas Corpus- This means “You may have the body”, this writ is issued to the release of a person from illegal detention or without legal justification.
2. Writ of Mandamus- It means “To command the public authority” to perform its public duty in India.
3. Writ of Quo Warranto- This means “What is your authority”; the court directs the concerned person that by what authority he holds the office. The court may expel a person from the office if he finds that he is not entitled to obtain such an office.
4. Writ of Prohibition- This is an extraordinary prerogative writ of prevention, it sees to prevent courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial authorities and officers from exceeding their jurisdiction.
5. Writ of Certiorari- This deals with a method to bring the record of subordinate court before the superior court for correction of jurisdiction or error of law committed by them.

Conclusion

The main purpose of judicial regulation is to ensure the obedience of laws enacted by the government with the rule of law. Judicial review of administrative actions is in our constitution based on the rule of law and separation of power. It is an effective remedy against administrative actions and is regarded as the basic features of our constitution, which cannot be abolished. It is the executive who ensures that the government fulfils its duty. In conclusion, we should look at the wise words of Andrew Jackson All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous judiciary.

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

FAQs

Q. Define administrative law.

Ans. Ivor Jennings in his “The Law and the Constitution, 1959” provided the following definition of the term “administrative law”. According to him, “Administrative law is the law relating to the administrative authorities”. Jennings has defined Administrative Law as “the law relating to the administration. It determines the organization, powers, and duties of administrative authorities”.

References

[1] https://lawtimesjournal.in/administrative-action/#:~:text=An%20administrative%20action%20is%20the,based%20on%20policy%20and%20expediency.

[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/639803/

[3] https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-review-administrative-action-2/

[4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227208755_Judicial_Review_Irrationality_and_the_Legitimacy_of_Merits-Review#:~:text=The%20definition%20of%20the%20irrationality,the%20executive%20only%20very%20rarely.

[5] https://oup-arc.com/static/5c0e79ef50eddf00160f35ad/casebook_142.htm

[6] http://www.desikanoon.co.in/2014/04/council-of-civil-service-unions-v.html

[7] https://www.britannica.com/event/Marbury-v-Madison