Judicial Review Of Administrative Action In India - Safeguarding Fundamental Rights And Ensuring Accountability
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Constitutional & Human Rights
Published:
Updated:
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IN
INDIA: SAFEGUARDING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY Rashiqa Akhtar, B.A. LL.B., Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi Mohd Rehbar khan, B.A.LL.B., Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
ABSTRACT
Administrative law has emerged as an increasingly important and evolving field within the legal luminaries, especially in India, where it has gained significance since the mid-20th century. This branch of law addresses the increasing role of the state in regulating various aspects of public life and welfare. In earlier times, where state intervention was primarily limited to maintaining public order and managing foreign affairs, but in today's world, the government plays a far more active role in addressing a wide range of social and economic issues, which often requires intervention in the everyday lives of citizens. These actions, which are distinct from judicial or legislative actions, are categorized as administrative actions and are performed by public administrative bodies within the framework of law.
However, as the state increasingly assumes a more active role, granting discretionary powers to administrative bodies, the potential for misuse of these powers grows. , That's where the concept of administrative discretion becomes important which ensures decisions are made based on reason and justice. Yet, without checks and balances, such discretion could result in arbitrary decisions and discrimination. Judicial review becomes essential in this perspective, serving as a safeguard to ensure that administrative actions align with constitutional principles and legal standards. Judicial review of administrative actions is vital in ensuring accountability and legality in the functioning of discretionary powers, addressing concerns such as irrationality, procedural errors, and disproportionate actions.
Further it also upholds the principles of natural justice, thereby protecting the rights of individuals and adhering to the rule of law. The necessity of judicial review lies in striking a balance between empowering administrative bodies to function effectively and holding them accountable to the Constitution, this balance is crucial for the functioning of a democratic society and ensures that the rule of law is maintained, protecting the rights of individuals while allowing the government to act in the public interest.
Keywords: Administrative law, judicial review, rule of law, separation of power CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW Independent and impartial judiciary is the indispensable requisite in the democratic and welfare society which work towards fostering fair adjudication, promote the rule of law, guarantee fundamental human rights of citizens, abolish arbitrary and unfair power of government, deterrent crime in the society, and secure economic expansion and investments. Fabrication and sustaining robust independent judiciary seem a culture of civilized nations. 1. In resolving conflicts between citizens and between a citizen and the state, the judiciary is an effective tool. In the modern day, the administration is vital to each person's existence. Administrative laws are always evolving and undergoing significant revisions to satisfy the needs of new circumstances.
Maintaining the idea of the rule of law requires judicial oversight. ORIGIN OF JUDICIAL REVIEW In India, the government is divided into its three branches namely legislature, the executive branch and judiciary. The legislature’s function is to make the laws, the executive function is to execute/ implement the laws and the. The judiciary's role is to ensure that legislation proposed and carried out do not go ultra vires India’s constitution. To make these organs works in their own domain and not overlapping each other’s function our constitution has been embedded with the doctrine of separation of power. Article 50 of the Indian Constitution puts forth this doctrine, separation of power as constitutional mandate. This concept isn’t followed as strictly here as it is in the U. S. , where it originally came from Additionally, the concept of judicial review has its origins there.
" According to which the judiciary has the power to set aside any law passed by the parliament if it intrudes the constitution of India. Any law passed by the legislature which infringe the constitution might be declared null and void by the Judiciary. Under Article 13(2) of the constitution, any law made by the parliament that infringes upon the right conferred to the people under part 3 of the constitution is void-ab-initio. The power to interpret the constitution of India to its extent lies within the functions of judiciary. "It serves as the guardian of the Indian Constitution. " Power of judicial review has been deeply engrained in many articles such as 13, 32, 131-136, 143, 1 Islam M. S. "Is the independent judiciary important in Bangladesh? A legal and economic study”. International Journal of Law, Volume 5, Issue 3,Pages 38-49,(2019).
226, 145, 246, 251, 254 and 372. Article 372(1) talks about judicial review of the preconstitutional laws that were in force before the commencement of the Constitution of India. The supreme court and high court are the guarantors of fundamental right mentioned the part
3 of the Indian constitution. If any individual’s fundamental right is violated, they can directly
approach the supreme court and concerned high court under article 32 or article 226 of the Indian constitution respectively.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
GOVERNING JUDICIAL REVIEW Constitutional Basis for Judicial Review "Judicial review in India is rooted in key principles such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the need to maintain checks and balances among the different branches of government. ". These concepts are well established as basic structure of the constitution which can’t be amended even through the amendment procedure. The Constitution’s supremacy means that every law, policy, or government action must align with what the Constitution says. Judicial review is backed by the core principles of constitutional governance. It operates on the idea of 'ultra vires,' making sure that legislative and administrative actions don’t overstep constitutional limits.
Unlike Britain, where judicial review is based on common law, and is, thus, subject to the vicissitudes of legislation, judicial review in India is Constitutionally guaranteed. It is now considered as a basic Structure of the Constitution. This means that the reach and ambit of judicial review as laid down in the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed by any legislation. 2 When reviewing administrative actions, courts focus solely on whether the authority has acted within the bounds of the law. As de Smith puts it, judicial review in this area tends to be limited and occasional. 3 It undertakes the scrutiny of the administrative actions under the concept of the doctrine of ultra vires. Which means that the powers given to the administrative authorities by the various statutes must be exercised within the limits drawn upon them by the statutes.
Administrative action refers to a residual category of actions that are distinct from legislative and judicial functions. It primarily aims to improve specific situations and typically does not
2 Halsbury's Laws of India (Administrative Law), 2nd Edn, LexisNexis, 2023.
3 De Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 4th Edn, 1980, Stevens & Sons.
involve procedural formalities like gathering evidence or evaluating arguments. Decisions in this domain are guided by considerations of policy and practicality, and while they may influence rights, they do not determine them directly. In contrast, judicial review is the authority granted to courts to examine and assess the legality of actions taken by other branches of government. "Judicial review particularly empowers the courts to declare actions taken by the legislative or executive branches as 'unconstitutional' if they violate the Constitution. Thus, any governmental act that goes against the core constitutional values is considered void. This framework for reviewing administrative actions has its roots in the British legal system.
It is viewed as a crucial element of constitutionalism, intended to uphold fundamental rights and prevent misuse of power by the executive or legislature. The principles governing judicial review of administrative actions have largely evolved through judicial interpretations and rulings in numerous cases. As a result, the concept still carries certain ambiguities. Nonetheless, recent judicial trends show a clear movement toward expanding the scope of judicial review, while limiting exceptions to specific areas like military deployment and international treatymaking. "4 Articles providing constitutional basis for Judicial review
1. Article 32
Article 32 of the Indian constitution often regarded as the heart and soul of the constitution by Dr. BR Ambedkar, aims to grant the Supreme Court, the highest judicial authority in the country, the power of judicial review. Article 32(1) ensures that any individual can directly approach the apex court to seek constitutional remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights in case there is a breach of fundamental right and, article 32(2) empowers the court to issue writs, direction, orders for the enforcement of the fundamental rights. If a fundamental right is shown to have been violated, the court is obligated to provide a suitable remedy and cannot deny it based on its own discretion. 5 Where no fundamental right of person is violated court can decline jurisdiction.
6 Judicial review isn’t about questioning the actual decision made by an administrative authority, but rather about examining how that decision was reached. Courts
4 Indian railway construction co. ltd. V. Ajaykumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579.
5 N. Masthan sahib v. chief commr., Pondicherry, AIR 1962 SCC 797.
6 Federation of bar assn. v. union of India (2000) 6 SCC 715.
can step in on their own or act on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), even if the affected person hasn’t directly approached them.7
2. Article 226 and 227
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants High Courts the authority to issue directions, orders, or writs not only for the protection of fundamental rights but also for other legal purposes, including the enforcement of legal rights. As a result, the scope of judicial review available to High Courts under this article is broader than the power conferred upon the Supreme Court under Article 32. The phrase 'for any other purpose' allows High Courts to use judicial review not just for protecting fundamental rights, but also for enforcing regular legal rights that aren't classified as fundamental. The jurisdiction of the high court under article 226 for the enforcement of fundamental right is mandatory, whereas for the enforcement of ordinary legal rights it is discretionary.
8 The authority of High Courts to conduct judicial review under Article 226 is rooted in the Constitution itself, which means that no legislative declaration of finality can override or eliminate this power. 9 . A High Court has the authority to issue a writ against any person or authority located within its territorial limits, or if the cause of action arises, in whole or in part, within that area. “Therefore, a high court can issue a writ even if the person or authority is located outside its territorial jurisdiction. Thus, in Kalyan Banerjee v. Mohd Iqbal10, the Supreme Court ruled that if an employee was hired and dismissed in Jharkhand—and the termination didn’t need approval from the company's head office in West Bengal—then the West Bengal High Court wouldn’t have jurisdiction, just because the head office was based there. The jurisdiction is supervisory in nature.
It can strike down an impugned rule and direct the authorities to reframe it, but cannot itself frame it. 11 The power of judicial review under article
226 is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process.12
3. Article 136
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution serves as a residuary reserve of judicial review
7 Bodhisatwa Gautam v. subhra Chakraborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490.
8 Kailash chander sharma v. state of Haryana, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 696.
9 Kihoto hollohan v. zachillbu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651.
10 Kalyan Banerjee v. Mohd Iqbal, 1981 Supp SCC 65.
11 Swapan kumar Choudhary v. tapas chakarvorty, (1995) 4 SCC 478.
12 HUDA v. Roochira ceramics, (1996) 6 SCC 584.
empowering the Supreme Court to exercise its discretion in granting special leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order rendered by any court or tribunal in any cause or matter. This provision does not confer an inherent right of appeal upon any party but vests a discretionary authority in the Supreme Court to intervene in appropriate cases to further the ends of justice. 13(mathai gerge) The power conferred under Article 136 of the Constitution is, on one hand, an extraordinary jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly, with utmost caution and care, intended to provide relief in exceptional cases involving grave miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, it embodies an overriding authority, enabling the Court to intervene liberally in order to deliver justice and rectify injustice.
As the Supreme Court is empowered to grant special leave to appeal against decisions of administrative tribunals and other quasi-judicial bodies, Article 136 has evolved into a significant instrument for judicial review of administrative adjudications. 14 A "Tribunal" within the meaning of Article 136 encompasses entities such as industrial tribunals, the Election Commission, the Railway Rates Tribunal, the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the Custodian General of Evacuee Property, as well as authorities under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. However, a conciliation officer under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not considered a tribunal under Article 136, as he does not exercise the powers of a civil court15. The Supreme Court's discretion to grant special leave under Article 136 cannot be exhaustively defined.
Special leave to appeal may only be granted against a judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order of a court or tribunal; if the authority in question is neither a court nor a tribunal, no special leave can be granted.
4. Article 13
The article 13 of the Indian constitution helps in judicial review of administrative action by declaring laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights as void and ensuring that the judicial review serves as a safeguard against unconstitutional legislation. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK SUPPORTING JUDICIAL REVIEW While the judicial review in India primarily derives it authority from the constitution there are several other statutory laws which upholds this concept by embedding rules regulation for the
13 Mathai v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358.
14 I.P. Massey, Administrative Law, 8th Edn, 2012, Eastern Book Company.
15 Jaswant sugar mills ltd. V. Lakshmi chand, AIR 1963 SCC 677.
reinforcement of this power. These statutes establish administrative bodies and give basic framework its legal procedure, often subjected to the limitations of judicial review over their decisions
1. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
The Act was enacted to reduce the burden on regular courts by establishing tribunals to handle service matters related to government employees through the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and various State Administrative Tribunals, etc. These tribunals function as quasijudicial bodies, and their decisions can be subject to judicial review. In the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India16 The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of administrative tribunals must be subject to review by the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 136.
2. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
This law governs alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms like arbitration to settle disputes efficiently without going to regular courts. Courts generally do not interfere with arbitration awards, but judicial review is allowed in specific cases. Judicial Review under Section 34 empowers Courts to review an arbitration award if it is Contrary to public policy (e.g., fraud, corruption), Unfair or biased in decision-making, Violates principles of natural justice (e.g., one party was not given a fair hearing).
3. The Environment Protection Act, 1986
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA) serves as a comprehensive framework for environmental governance in India, granting the central government broad powers to regulate and mitigate environmental pollution. Under this Act, courts are empowered to review administrative decisions that may contravene environmental laws, ensuring adherence to statutory mandates and the safeguarding of environmental interests. Empowering courts to review administrative decisions that violate environmental laws.
16 L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997 AIR 1125 SC.
4. The Competition Act, 2002
The Competition Act, 2002 establishes the legal framework for promoting competition and preventing anti-competitive practices in India. Under this Act, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is empowered to investigate and adjudicate issues related to anti-competitive agreements, regulating mergers and acquisitions, that may adversely affect competition within country and also includes conducting inquiries, imposing penalties. While the CCI functions as a quasi-judicial body, its decisions are subject to judicial scrutiny to uphold legal norms and ensure procedural fairness. 17 The Act provides mechanisms for appealing CCI orders, thereby facilitating judicial review. These are just a few cited example, and there are various other statutes and principles that contribute to the statutory basis for judicial review of administrative actions in India.
18 WHEN JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION CAN BE DONE?
Judicial review is centrally concerned with when there is some malignancy done in the exercise of administrative power. The law which deals with judicial review of administrative action is largely judge led and judge-induced. Upon researching the spectrum of judicial review it is found that the fundamentals on which courts base their decisions include Rule of law, administrative efficiency, fairness and accountability. Mainly judicial review of any administrative action can be exercised on four grounds
1. Illegality/jurisdictional error
Judicial review of any administrative action can be exercised An administrative action cn be subjected to judicial review when the exercising administrative authority exceeds its statutory powers or acts without jurisdiction. The term ‘lack of jurisdiction’ denotes where the tribunal or authority holds no power or jurisdiction to pass an order on the subject matter. The court is competent to review such an administrative action on the ground that the authority
17 Mondaq,
Are Proceedings Before the CCI Judicial in Nature? (2023), available at: https://www.mondaq.com/india/antitrust-eu-competition/1326824/are-proceedings-beforethe-cci-judicial-in- nature. (last visited on 30th march, 2025).
18 Nandish CD “ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
THROUGH WRITS: GROUND OF REVIEW", Vol.7, Issue 2, page no.112-120(2020). exercised jurisdiction where it did not have the power to.
2. Irrationality
It is a well established principle that where an administrative authority has been provided with discretionary power, such an power must be exercised reasonably. This is also known as wednesbury principle which evolved in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation19 It also establishes irrationality as a ground for judicial review of administrative action wherein the court held that when a person is vested with discretion, he must exercise the same on only reasonable grounds. In the case of Neha jain vs University of Delhi20 the court held that if a decision made is mala fide or found unreasonable or is found to be in violating Indian constitution or is made ultra vires in regard to jurisdiction must be subjected to judicial review.
3. Procedural impropriety
The concept of procedural impropriety can be explained as procedural failure. which is when a decision fails to adhere to the procedural requirements/particular law it ought to follow or even if the principle of natural justice are not adhered to.
4. Proportionality
Application of proportionality in administrative actions means that the administrative actions must match the desired result which means that there should be balance means with the ends. The principle of proportionality requires the court to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the administrative action under scrutiny. Such action must demonstrate a legitimate benefit and also be in the public interest. In GCHQ Case21, Lord DIPLOCK’s opined "That it is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds." This remark had substantial effect on the future course of development of judicial review. Thus, it means that judicial
19 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation, 1948 1 KB 223.
20 Neha Jain v. University of Delhi, AIR 2002 DELHI 403.
21 Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 WLR 1174.
review is not static and further grounds of judicial review may develop in course of time.22 ROLE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN SAFEGAURDING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS Judicial review acts as an pivotal point for the protection of fundamental rights by ensuring that the administrative actions does not violate the constitutional mandates. Courts plays the role of the watchdog in preventing executive overreach, enforcement of principle of natural justice, preserving rule of law, arbitrary decision-making and procedural unfairness that could infringe upon the rights of the citizens.
1. Protection against the executive overreach
The Doctrine of separation of power has been incorporated within the framework of Indian constitution through its various articles, but there are instances where the executive authorities exceeds their power in this case the concept of judicial review steps in to ensure that these administrative authorities acts well within the bounds of their legal authority. In the landmark judgement of kesavananda Bharti v. state of Kerala23 the basic structure doctrine was propounded, and the judicial review was also considered to be forming basic structure of the constitution. The President’s rule under article 356 is also subjected to judicial review to prevent the misuse of the executive powers24
2. Enforcement of principles of natural justice
Judicial review also ensures that all the administrative decisions comply wel within the principles of natural justice which primarily constitutes of-
2.1. Audi Alteram Partem
Which translates to “right to be heard” according to this principle no person should be punished without being given an opportunity to represent or defend themselves during the proceeding.
2.2. Nemo Judex In Causa Sua
This principle essentially means that “no one should be judge in his own case” which put much
22 M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, LexisNexis (2021).
23 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala,1973 4 SCC 225.
24 S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India, 1994 SCC (3) 1.
emphasises on impartiality and fairness in judicial as well as quasi-judicial proceedings, ensuring hat the decisions made during such proceedings are free from any bias or personal interest 2. 3. Reasoned Decisions This principle of natural justice requisites authorities to provide proper justification for their actions it is also termed as “speaking order” principle which mandates the authorities to provide valid reasoning for their decisions and rulings. Suspicions of injustice are raised when a judgment is taken without sufficient justification. Reasoned decisions are essential to good governance and to maintain the rule of law, as the courts have emphasized from time to time. The court in AK Kraipak v. union of India25 Blurred the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial actions, ensuring natural justice applies to all administrative functions.
Also in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India26 , The Supreme Court affirmed that adherence to the principles of natural justice is essential in administrative proceedings. It further reiterated that any legislation infringing upon personal liberty must satisfy the requirements of fairness, justice, and reasonableness.
3. Safeguarding Citizens from Arbitrary Detention and Abuse of Power
Judicial review has been instrumental in preventing illegal detentions, unwarranted restrictions on free speech, and misuse of police powers. Courts ensure that laws and administrative orders comply with constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, and 21. The apex court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India27 recognized Right to Privacy as fundamental right under Article 21 and ruled that any administrative surveillance or data collection must pass the test of proportionality. JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES Judicial review plays a crucial role in ensuring that administrative authorities remain accountable for their actions and decisions. It serves as a check on executive discretion,
25 AK Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150.
26 Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597.
27 Justice K.S. puttaswamy (retd) v. Union of India, 2019 (1) SCC 1.
bureaucratic arbitrariness, and procedural unfairness. Without judicial oversight, administrative bodies may act beyond their legal authority (ultra vires), infringe upon citizens’ rights, or make decisions based on personal or political biases rather than objective legal principles. It also includes the power of court to review the decisions of tribunals under article 226/227. In L. Chandra Kumar vs. UOI28, The exclusion clauses in Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d), and the relevant provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, were struck down to the extent that they excluded High Court jurisdiction under arts. 226,227. Tribunals can supplement but not substitute the high courts. Therefore, Section. 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which excluded high courts jurisdiction was declared unconstitutional.
29 It was also decided that the decisions by these tribunals are subjected to scrutiny before the high courts. It also includes judicial review of policy decisions with a very Limited scope of judicial intervention in policy matters unless there is gross illegality or arbitrariness. In BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India30 court observed that the Courts should not interfere in economic policies unless arbitrary.
CONCLUSION
Considering the importance of judicial review in preserving the integrity of the Indian Constitution, any move to eliminate the power of judicial scrutiny over administrative actions would be a grave blow to the constitutional framework. Judicial review serves as a vital check against the misuse of power by the legislature or executive, ensuring that their actions remain within the boundaries set by the Constitution, particularly in safeguarding fundamental rights. Without this power, the Constitution's fundamental rights could become hollow, merely theoretical principles with no real-world enforcement. Judicial control of administrative actions is an integral component of the doctrine of rule of law and the separation of powers.
It acts as a safeguard against arbitrary, capricious, or unconstitutional actions by administrative authorities, providing an effective remedy for citizens whose rights may be infringed upon. This is crucial in a system of governance where administrative powers are
28 supra note 16.
29 G.M. Wagh, Administrative Law, (2003).
30 BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India, 2002 (2) SCC 333.
often exercised at the discretion of the state, and judicial oversight ensures these powers are used within legal boundaries. The concept of judicial review is not merely a procedural safeguard; it serves a bedrock of India's constitutional democracy. It prevents the executive or legislature from acting beyond their powers and ensures that the administration operates within the mandates of the Constitution. The doctrine of judicial review, grounded in the principles of the rule of law and constitutionalism, remains indispensable to the protection of individual rights and the maintenance of a balanced and accountable government. Ultimately, judicial review is an integral aspect of ensuring that public administration remains accountable and transparent.
As long as the judiciary remains vigilant and committed to ensuring that administrative actions align with the law, it will continue to play its vital role in protecting the fundamental rights of citizens and preserving the sanctity of the Constitution.