Judicial Review under Administrative Law

Judicial review under administrative law

Written By: Naveen Talawar

Introduction

Administrative law has been recognized as a separate branch of legal discipline in the middle of the 20th century in India. Today it plays a very important role and impinges freely and deeply on every aspect of an individual’s life and it has become a major area for study and research. In recent times the administrative law has been developed to such an extent not to sanctify executive arbitrariness but to check it and protect the rights of the people against the administration’s excessive power.

Therefore to control and review administrative actions the judiciary has propounded certain principles for regulating the functioning and behavior of the administration.

Concept of judicial review

Judicial review is an essential component of the rule of law and it has been regarded as one of the basic features of the Indian Constitution, The power of judicial review has been conferred on the Supreme court and the High court under Articles 32 and 226 by Article 13 of the constitution, which can declare a law unconstitutional if it is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the fundamental law of the land.

It aims to ensure that the administrative authorities while performing their functions does not abuse their power and the individual must receive just and fair treatment. Thus the power of judicial review is exercised by the courts to prevent arbitrariness and to control discretionary powers of the administration.

Judicial review in India comprises three aspects:

Judicial review of legislative action,
Judicial review of judicial decisions
Judicial review of administrative action.

Scope of judicial review

The increase in the powers of the administrative authorities in modern times with the increased state activities has resulted in new aspects of administrative functions. As a result of the increased power of the administration, judicial control has become an important area of administrative law.

The judicial control of the administrative action provides fundamental safeguards against the abuse of power. since our constitution was built upon the deep foundations of rule of law, certain provisions in our constitution provide the courts to exercise effective control over administrative actions.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India expressly elaborated the Judicial Review over legislative actions in L. Chandra Kumar case, the Apex Court this case explained that the judicial review is the power of the Court to hold unconstitutional and hence unenforceable, any act of the State, legislative or executive, that if it finds it to be in conflict with the basic law, i.e., the Constitution. It is intended to be exercised in the large public interest and that is not exercised for any collateral purpose.

In-State of West Bengal v. Committee of Protection of Democratic Rights, the Apex Court ruled that judicial review, an integral part of basic structure, could not be curtailed by the Act of Parliament.

In-State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh, the court held that judicial review of administrative action under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian constitution are valid, judicial review of administrative action is an essential part of the rule of law.

In a Federation of Rly officers association and others v. Union of India, the apex court observed that where a policy evolved is inconsistent with the Indian constitution and the law is arbitrary or irrational or it leads to abuse of power the court will interfere with such matters because judicial review of administrative action is an essential part of rule of law.

Grounds of judicial review

The following are the grounds of the judicial review

1. Doctrine of ultravirus

The term ultra vires have been derived from the Latin phrase which means beyond the power or lack of power. It is the basic doctrine in the area of administrative law, which provides that an authority has to exercise only that much of power that has been conferred on it by law.

The doctrine has two aspects ;

Substantive ultravirus means a decision has been reached outside the powers conferred on the decision taker.
Procedural ultra virus, which means the prescribed procedures have not been properly complied with.

2. Wednesbury principles

It is one of the principles which has been pronounced in the case of Associated provincial picture houses v. Wednesbury corporation wherein the basic principles of judicial review were laid down.

Lord Greene has made the following observations

“a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his attention to a matter which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting unreasonably.

And Lord Diplock in the case Council of civil service union v. Minister of civil services classified the grounds of judicial review under three heads upon which the administrative action is subject to the control of judicial review. They are

Illegality: In the normal sense, illegality is something that is contrary to law. This ground of judicial review is based on the principle that administrative authorities must correctly understand the law and its limits before any action is taken.
Irrationality: It simply means that administrative discretion should be exercised reasonably.
Procedural impropriety: Procedural impropriety encompassed the obligation to observe procedural requirements laid down in the legislative instrument which conferred the power which is based on principles of natural justice and fair procedure.

Apart from these, there are several principles of administrative law that have been evolved by the courts, this is to control the exercise of power so that it does not lead to arbitrariness or abuse of power. These are as follows :

The doctrine of legitimate expectation

The doctrine of legitimate expectation belongs to the domain of public law and is intended to give relief to the people when they are not able to justify their claims based on a law in the strict sense of the term though they had suffered civil consequences because their legitimate expectation had been violated. It was first coined by Lord Denning in 1969. In India, the Apex Court has developed this doctrine to check the arbitrary exercise of power by the Administrative authorities.

The doctrine of Public Accountability

The doctrine of Public Accountability is one of the most important emerging facets of administrative law in recent times. The main purpose of the emergence of this doctrine is to check the growing misuse of power by the administration and to provide speedy relief to the victims of such exercise of power. The doctrine says that the power in the hands of the administrative authorities is a public trust which must be exercised in the best interest of the people, it is based on the constructive trust and principle of equity.

Doctrine of Proportionality

The principle of proportionality envisages that a public authority ought to maintain a sense of proportion between his particular goals and the means he employs to achieve those goals so that his action impinges on the individual rights to the minimum extent to preserve the public interest. This means that administrative action ought to bear a reasonable relationship to the general purpose for which the power has been conferred.

Conclusion

Judicial review is one of the important components of administrative law. It is now being considered as one of the basic features of the constitution, which cannot be abrogated even by exercising the constituent power of parliament. It is the most effective remedy available against the administrative excesses whose main objective is to keep the administration within the limits of law and to protect the rights and interests of citizens.

References