GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION: A

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH

Subject –Administrative Law

Submitted to Submitted by

Dr. Kaumudhi Challa Akansha Khalkho

Associate Professor Semester – 4

(Law) Section - B

Roll No. - 14

SUBMITTED ON – 14/02/24
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the project entitled, “Grounds of Judicial Review of Administrative
Action: A Critical Analysis” submitted to Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur, is not
plagiarized and original written in my own words and it’s my original work on the topic. It is
properly researched and analyzed after going through deep in the topic and followed by all the
instruction of the University given by the faculty.

Name – Akansha Khalkho

Semester – VI (B.A. LL.B. HONS)

Section – B

Roll No. –14

Research Objective
1. To find briefly discuss about the grounds of judicial review in Administrative law.
2. To investigate the practical implications and challenges faced by courts in applying
different grounds of judicial review, including issues related to judicial deference,
standard of review, and remedies.
3. To contribute to the academic discourse on administrative law by providing a
comprehensive understanding of the grounds for judicial review and their implications
for governance, accountability, and the protection of individual rights.

Research Questions
1. How have the grounds for judicial review of administrative action evolved over time, and
how do they differ across different legal systems?
2. To what extent do current grounds of judicial review effectively balance the need for
effective administration with the protection of individual rights and the rule of law?
3. What are the key challenges and opportunities for developing more effective and efficient
systems for judicial review of administrative action?
 INTRODUCTION

Judicial review is an essential part of judicial system Judicial review is of the major and powerful
tool of enhancing law and order in the society. This essential function allows courts to closely
examine the actions and decisions made by administrative bodies, ensuring they remain within
the boundaries of their legal authority while also adhering to procedural fairness. This critical
examination focuses on the various grounds on which judicial review of administrative actions is
pursued, analyzing their significance, limitations, and implications for the relationship between
administrative agencies and the judiciary. By dissecting each ground - including illegality,
irrationality, procedural impropriety, proportionality, legitimate expectations, and error of law -
this analysis seeks to offer a nuanced understanding of how these principles influence
administrative decision-making and the broader concept of the rule of law. Through a thorough
exploration of these grounds, we aim to uncover the intricacies inherent in the judicial review
process and shed light on the challenges and opportunities it presents in promoting transparent,
accountable, and equitable governance.

We have studies about judicial review in Constitutional law that how Supreme court and High
courts have powers to examine the constitutionality of any law made by the organs. The whole
purpose of this research paper is to understand how the judicial review works in Administrative
law or Administrative actions taken by the legislative/executive while making laws and
implementing laws. The administrative body makes laws and that can be challenged or
questioned by people, especially people who are governed under that administrative authority. It
is not essential that whatever laws are made under the administrative power, would be good for
everyone, it may contravenes or becomes arbitrary to Constitution of India. So it is necessary to
keep a check on the challenged provisions of administration, through judicial review power of
the courts.
 GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION: A
CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Administration action under Administrative Law

In the mid-20th century, administrative law was acknowledged as a distinct field of law in India.
Prior to the late 19th century, the state's duties were restricted to maintaining public order,
handling foreign affairs, and allocating military forces. However, in the modern era, this is no
longer the case; the state now heavily intervenes in the lives of its citizens in the name of public
safety and law enforcement. The actions that fall under the purview of administrative law are
known as administrative actions, which are legal actions that deal with the management of a
public administrative body. An authoritative figure may be forced to act in a particular way by
this sort of activity. Although it may have an impact on a right, it does not determine one. It is
impossible to exercise "administrative powers" while ignoring the norms of natural justice.

Judicial Review under Administrative Law

In order to make sure that executive acts and legislation approved by the legislature are in
accordance with the Constitution, the judiciary conducts judicial review. The Supreme Court of
India and the High Courts of India have a substantial amount of judicial review authority in
India. Judicial review is expressly allowed for in the Indian Constitution by Articles 13, 32, 131
through 136, 143, 226 and 246.1 In India, judicial review is regarded as the fundamental element
of the Constitution and a vital facet of the rule of law. Judicial scrutiny guarantees the legitimacy
of administrative activities, and the norms of natural justice cannot be disregarded when
executing administrative authorities.2

In India, the concepts of natural justice, rationality, non-arbitrariness, procedural impropriety,

and genuine expectation serve as the main foundation for judicial review of administrative
actions. If a statute or ordinance is determined to be unconstitutional by the judiciary, it will have

1
Judicial review in India, Wikipedia (Feb. 09, 2024, 10:22AM)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_India
2
Sushmita Choudhary, Judicial review of Administrative action, Ipleaders, (Feb. 09, 2024, 10:30AM)
https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-review-administrative-action-2/
that authority.3 Maintaining the rule of law, defending constitutional rights, and defending
democratic ideals all depend heavily on judicial scrutiny.

Grounds of Judicial Review on Administrative actions

Judicial review in administrative law is a key doctrine that provides a check on legislative action,
allowing it to be scrutinized by the judiciary. This process involves the court reviewing the
legality and reasonableness of a decision, action, or failure to act by a public authority. There are
several specific grounds upon which a decision or action can be subject to judicial review:

1. Illegality: This ground arises when the decision-maker does not understand the law that
governs the decision to be made or when the decision-maker wrongly interprets a law.
This ground is meant to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and that decisions are made
within the legal powers granted to the decision-maker.
2. Irrationality: This ground is invoked when the decision-maker reached a decision that is
so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. This is often
referred to as 'Wednesbury unreasonableness', stemming from a British case that
established this principle. This test is a high threshold, ensuring that the judiciary only
intervenes in cases of extreme unreasonableness.
3. Procedural Impropriety: This ground refers to situations where there is a failure to
observe basic rules of natural justice or a failure to act with procedural fairness. This
could involve, for example, failing to give someone a fair hearing, not having a clear and
unbiased process, or not providing reasons for a decision.
4. Proportionality: This is a ground for judicial review in some jurisdictions, particularly in
European countries. Under this principle, the decision-maker's action must be
proportionate to the aim that the action seeks to achieve. This means that the measures
taken must be necessary, suitable and not excessive in relation to the legitimate aim
pursued.
5. Legitimate Expectations: The preservation of reasonable expectations is another
justification for judicial review. This principle protects people's expectations of a
particular procedure or result based on statements made by public officials. A decision
3
Powers and Functions of High Court- Indian Polity, Byjus (Feb. 09, 2024, 11: 38AM) https://byjus.com/free-ias-
prep/powers-and-functions-of-high-court/
 may be scrutinized by the courts if the decision-maker disregards these reasonable
expectations without a valid cause.
6. Error of Law: The last ground for judicial review can be legal errors, such as
misinterpreting statutes, ignoring pertinent legal concepts, or applying rules of law
incorrectly, may also give rise to judicial review.

These grounds for judicial review ensure that administrative bodies act within the law, observe
basic procedural fairness, and take decisions that are reasonable and proportionate. Whatever is
in the contravention of the Constitution will become void or null. So judicial review is enhancing
the laws of administration and prevent wrong decisions by recalling and challenging the laws
made/imposed.

Remedies

A statute can be declared unconstitutional if it violates any of the articles of Part III
(Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution. The High Courts and the Supreme Court of India are
empowered to do this through five different types of Writs, which are constitutional remedies
(Articles 226 and 32, respectively).4 Article 226 permits the writ to be issued for any purpose
other than the protection of Fundamental Rights, such as a writ against any administrative
authority. In contrast, Article 32 restricts the writ issuing power to just the protection of
Fundamental Rights.

1. Habeas Corpus - To have a body, or to produce a body, is the meaning of the term. The
most effective and widely used cure is this one. If someone unlawfully holds another
person, that person may file a writ of habeas corpus to have the other person released.

The Court grants an order under this writ compelling the person who has been detaining
the other person illegally to appear in court with the detainee. The Court queries the
detaining authority on the reason or reasons for the person's detention. Should the basis
for the imprisonment be deemed unjustified, the court will directly order the detainee's
immediate release.

4
Aysuh Shukla, Judicial Review of Administrative Actions: An Overview, Law Corner (May 6, 2021)
https://lawcorner.in/judicial-review-of-administrative-actions-an-overview/#Remedies
2. Mandamus- The term in question refers to "mandamus," which translates to "we
command" in Latin. It is a legal writ that allows individuals to compel public officials,
including those in statutory bodies, non-statutory bodies, and tribunals, to fulfill their
public duties properly. Essentially, mandamus enables individuals to instruct public
officials to carry out their duties and ensure effective oversight of the administration.
3. Certiorari - The term in question is "certiorari," which denotes "to be certified" in Latin.
This legal remedy empowers the Supreme Court or High Court to request records from
lower authorities for review. During this review process, the courts assess whether the
decisions or judgments made by these authorities are lawful. If the judgments are deemed
unlawful, the courts have the authority to nullify them directly and declare them
unconstitutional.
4. Prohibition - The term in question is "prohibition," which signifies "to forbid" in legal
context. It is a directive issued by higher courts to lower courts or administrative
authorities to restrain them from surpassing their jurisdiction before rendering a judgment
or decision. Prohibition serves as a preventive measure until lower courts or
administrative bodies have issued their rulings. If a judgment has already been rendered,
the aggrieved party can seek recourse through the writ of certiorari.
5. Quo Warranto - The term being referred to is "quo warranto," which translates to "by
what authority" in Latin. This legal writ empowers courts to inquire into the authority by
which a public officer holds their position. If it is determined that the individual's title or
authority is flawed or invalid, they are required to vacate the office in question.
 CONCLUSION

The removal of judicial review of administrative actions and the immunity from constitutional
review of parliamentary decisions would seriously undermine the Constitution of India. Such
measures would invalidate fundamental rights, undermining constitutional mechanisms designed
to protect individual liberties and ensure government accountability Judicial review is a key
mechanism for upholding the Constitution of jurisdiction and ensures that government actions
are consistent with constitutional principles. It acts as a check on the use of power, prevents
abuse and balances the branches of government. Judicial review based on constitutionalism and
the rule of law reinforces the principle that no institution exists beyond the Constitution,
promotes accountability and transparency from tyranny, provides a recourse for individuals has
sought to address human rights violations and gives glory to culture that respects human
development. In conclusion, judicial revied is essential for validity and effectiveness of the
Indian Constitution. Any attempt to undermine that right poses a serious threat to democracy,
parliament and the rule of law in India.