S
Sahaj Vidhi
Law Optional 2017 Paper I

Briefly explain the grounds on which administrative actions can be subjected to judicial review.

Verified Answer

  1. Core Legal Answer & Context: Judicial review of administrative actions is a fundamental aspect of constitutional governance, ensuring that public authorities act within the bounds of their powers and in accordance with the law. It serves as a crucial check on executive discretion, preventing arbitrary, illegal, or unreasonable exercise of power. The grounds for judicial review have evolved through common law principles and judicial pronouncements, primarily categorized into illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, with proportionality emerging as an additional ground.

  2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

  • Article 32 of the Constitution: Empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
  • Article 226 of the Constitution: Empowers High Courts to issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto, Certiorari) for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for 'any other purpose'. This is the primary article for judicial review of administrative actions.
  • Article 136 of the Constitution: Grants the Supreme Court special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal.
  1. Important Landmark Cases:
  • Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948): This English case laid down the 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' test, which became a cornerstone for judicial review on grounds of irrationality. An action is unreasonable if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) (1985): Lord Diplock famously categorized the grounds for judicial review into illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, which have been widely adopted in India.
  • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Supreme Court extensively applied the principles of judicial review to examine the validity of Presidential Proclamations under Article 356, emphasizing that even discretionary powers are subject to judicial scrutiny on grounds of mala fide, extraneous considerations, or irrationality.
  • Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001): This case discussed the principle of 'proportionality' as a ground for judicial review, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights, where the court examines whether the administrative action is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
  1. Clear Conclusion: The grounds for judicial review – illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and proportionality – provide a robust framework for courts to scrutinize administrative actions. These principles ensure that public authorities act within their legal powers, make decisions based on relevant considerations, follow fair procedures, and impose restrictions that are proportionate to the objective. This judicial oversight is vital for upholding the rule of law, preventing abuse of power, and protecting individual rights against arbitrary state action, thereby strengthening democratic governance.