Judicial review of administrative action and grounds of judicial review

Theoretical overview 

Judicial review has been recognized as a necessary and basic requirement for the construction of an advanced civilization to safeguard the liberty and rights of the citizens. The powers of judicial review in India are 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 b the legislative and executive as unconstitutional. The judicial review ensures the legality of administrative actions.

Grounds of judicial review

The doctrine ultra vires is the basic structure of administrative law. It is considered as the foundation of judicial review to control the actions of the administration. Ultra vires refers to the action which is made in an excessive manner or outside the ambit of the acting party.

Generally, the grounds for judicial review in India are as follows: –

1. Abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error
2. Failure to exercise discretion
3. Illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
4. Legitimate expectation

1. Abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error

The term jurisdiction means the power to decide. There might be a lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction or the abuse of jurisdiction. The court may reject an administrative action on the ground of ultra vires in all these three situations. A case of lack of jurisdiction is where the tribunal or authority holds no power at all to pass an order. The court may review the administrative actions on the ground that the authority exercised jurisdiction which it was not supposed to.

The power of review may be exercised on following three grounds: –

• That the law under which the authority is constituted is itself unconstitutional
• That the authority is not constituted as the law requires
• That the authority has mistakenly decided a jurisdictional fact

2. Failure to exercise discretion

It simply means the failure to make choices between the courses of action where such power to make a choice was vested upon the public authority by a statue.

3. Illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety

• Irrationality (Wednesbury test)

A general established principle is that the discretionary power conferred on an administrative authority should be exercised reasonably. A decision of an administrative authority can be held to be unreasonable if it is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or prevalent moral standards that no reasonable person who had applied his mind to the subject could have arrived at it. Irrationality was developed as a ground of judicial review in the Associated Provincial Picture House vs. Wednesbury (1947) case which later came to be known as Wednesbury test. The court held that it could not intervene to change the decision simply because it disagreed with it.

• 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.

4. Legitimate expectations

This doctrine serves as a ground for judicial review to protect the interest when a public authority rescinds from a representation made to a person. A legitimate expectation arises in the mind of the complainant who has been led to understand expressly or impliedly that certain procedures will  be followed in reaching a decision.

Remedies

Five types of writs are available for judicial review of administrative actions given under article 32 and article 226 of the constitution of India.

• Habeas corpus

It means have “the body”. This writ is issued as an order calling upon the person who has detained another person to produce the detained before the court of law. If the court finds out that the detention has been illegal or without legal justification, it will order for the immediate release of the detainee. The main objective of this writ is to punish the detainee but to release the detainee from wrongful detention.

• Mandamus

It means “to command the public authority” to perform its duty. It is a command given by the higher court to the government, inferior courts, tribunals, corporations, authorities or any other persons to do any act or refrain from doing an illegal act. The purpose of this writ is to compel the performance of public duties and to keep control over the activities of the administration

• Quo Warranto

The word quo warranto means by what authority. Such writ is issued against the person who usurps a public office. The court directs the concerned person to show by what authority he holds that office.

• Prohibition

Prohibition is issued by the superior court to an inferior court or tribunal or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions to prevent them from exceeding their jurisdiction. It is based upon the maxim “prevention is better than cure”.

• Certiorari

This writ is issued by the superior courts to the inferior which may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions, for the correction of jurisdiction or error of law committed by them. If any order passed by them is illegal, then the superior court quash or demolish it.

Judicial review of administrative action is, in a sense, the heart of administrative law. It is an excellent way of inquiring into the legal competence of a public authority. Judicial review is considered to be the basic feature of our constitution. With the tremendous increase in powers of the administrative authorities, judicial review has become an important area of administrative law. The main purpose of judicial review is to protect the interest of its citizens from the excessive powers or illegal actions of the administrative authorities.

Important sections 

1. Article 226 – a writ petition can be filed before any high court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises, either wholly or in part. 
2. Article 32 – Art 32 gives the right to individuals to move to the supreme court to seek justice when they feel that their right has been unduly deprived

Important case laws

1. Associated Provincial Picture House vs. Wednesbury (1947) – this case has later came to be known as Wednesbury test. The court held that it could not intervene to change the decision of the defendant simply because it disagreed with it.
2. A.P vs Me Dowell & Co. – it was held that, in case of administrative actions, the scope of judicial review was limited to three reasons: –

• Unreasonableness which is more appropriately called irrationality
• Unlawfulness
• Unfairness of actions

3. Tata Cellular vs Union of India – the supreme court stipulated that judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decisions but the decision-making process itself.
4. Gopalan vs Government of India – the supreme court ruled that the earliest date with reference to which the legality of detention may be examined is the date on which the application for the same is made to the court.

Important legal maxims

1. Ultra vires – it means beyond the powers.

Points to remember

• The powers of judicial review in India are 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 b the legislative and executive as unconstitutional.
• The judicial review ensures the legality of administrative actions.
• The doctrine ultra vires is the basic structure of administrative law
• Five types of writs are available for judicial review of administrative actions given under article 32 and article 226 of the constitution of India.