JUDICIAL REVIEW

COVER PAGES 334-340 AND 378-394

Module 5

Summary:
The PDF document discusses the principles of judicial review of administrative actions in India.
It explains that the system of judicial review in India is inherited from Britain and has been
developed by judges on a case-by-case basis. The document highlights that the present trend of
judicial decisions is to expand the scope of judicial review and limit immunity from review to
specific cases. It also explains the four shapes of judicial review: legislative review, judicial
review, constitutional review, and administrative action review. The document primarily focuses
on the fourth type of judicial review.

Important Points:
1. The system of judicial review in India is based on principles inherited from Britain and has
been developed on a case-by-case basis.

2. The current trend is to expand the scope of judicial review and restrict immunity from review
to specific cases.

3. There are four shapes of judicial review: legislative review, judicial review, constitutional
review, and administrative action review.

4. The document primarily focuses on the fourth type, which involves the court reviewing the
constitutionality of administrative actions and examining their fairness, reasonableness, and
justness.

5. The Indian Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution, and
its decisions are final and binding in all civil, criminal, and constitutional matters.

6. The jurisdiction of the court cannot be taken away by legislation or constitutional

amendments.
7. The Supreme Court has the power to review administrative actions and issue directions,
orders, or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

8. The court's review is not limited to the enforcement of fundamental rights but can also include
the enforcement of other legal rights.

9. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is discretionary, and it can decline jurisdiction in cases of
abuse of process or if an alternative remedy is available.

10. The High Courts also have jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to issue directions, orders,
or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes.

11. The power of judicial review of the High Courts is wider than that of the Supreme Court.

12. Judicial review of administrative policy is more exacting than review of legislative policy,
and the courts will scrutinize and balance administrative actions more carefully.

13. The document discusses the power of the High Courts to review administrative actions,
compliance with court orders, and the constituency of public law review.

Brief Overview
The document discusses the principles and jurisdiction of judicial review of administrative
actions in India. It states that the system of judicial review in India is based on the British model
and has been developed by judges on a case-by-case basis. The trend in recent judicial decisions
is to widen the scope of judicial review and limit immunity from review to specific cases, such as
deployment of troops or international treaties.

The document also explains that judicial review may take four forms: legislative review, judicial
review, constitutional review, and administrative action review. The focus is primarily on
administrative action review.

It discusses the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Indian
Constitution. The Supreme Court has the power to enforce fundamental rights and issue
directions or writs for their enforcement. The Court's jurisdiction under these articles cannot be
taken away by legislation or constitutional amendment.

The document also explains the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution. The High Courts have the power to issue directions, orders, or writs for the
enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes. The jurisdiction is mandatory for
fundamental rights and discretionary for ordinary legal rights.

It further discusses the power of the High Courts to review administrative decisions, including
court-martial proceedings and election cases. The High Courts can review decisions for
illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. The power of review is not limited by
technical rules and can be exercised to prevent injustice or violation of rights.

The document concludes by highlighting the need for compliance with court orders and
emphasizes that contempt proceedings may be initiated if orders are not obeyed. It also mentions
the development of mandamus to monitor compliance with court directions.

Important Points
- Judicial review of administrative actions in India has its foundation in the British system.

- The present trend is to widen the scope of judicial review and restrict immunity from review in
certain cases.

- Judicial review may take four shapes: legislative review, judicial review, constitutional review,
and administrative action review.

- The Supreme Court in India has jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution.

- Judicial review is the soul of the democratic system and cannot be abolished or limited.

- The Supreme Court's power of judicial review is not without limits and is subject to self-
restraint.

- The Supreme Court can grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 and its jurisdiction
cannot be taken away by legislation or amendment.

- The High Courts have jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 for enforcement of fundamental
rights and other purposes.

- The power of judicial review of the High Courts is wider than that of the Supreme Court.

- The High Courts can issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights.
- The power of judicial review under Article 226 and 227 is supervisory in nature and can be
exercised to correct errors of law, procedural impropriety, or manifest injustice.

- The High Courts can review their own decisions and recall judgments in certain circumstances.

- Judicial review of administrative policies is more exacting than legislative policy.

- Compliance with court orders is an important aspect, and contempt proceedings can be initiated
for non-compliance.

- The concept of mandamus is used to monitor compliance with court directions.

- Public law review through judicial review plays a crucial role in ensuring justice and
accountability in administrative actions.

Classification Of Judicial Review

–as per CONSTITUTION

1. Judicial review of constitutional amendments.

2. Judicial review of legislation of Parliament, State Legislatures as well as subordinate
legislation.
3. Judicial review of administrative action

Grounds For The Exercise Of The Power Of Judicial Review

1. The administrative action is contrary to law.

2. Non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements.

3. Where the act complained of is violative of Fundamental Rights

4. That the decision is outrageous and has been taken in defiance of logic or of accepted moral
standards that no sensible person could have arrived at such a decision. (Wednesbury Principle)

Grounds For The Exercise Of The Power Of Judicial Review

1. Where the authority imposes a condition patently unrelated to or inconsistent with the
purpose or policy of the statutes.
2. Failure to exercise discretion;
3. Excess or abuse of discretion.

The Wednesbury Principle

• A decision will be said to be unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense if

1. it is based on wholly irrelevant material or wholly irrelevant consideration,
2. it is so absurd that no sensible person could ever have reached to it.

Failure to Exercise Discretion

• The main object of conferring discretionary power on an administrative authority is that

the authority itself must exercise the said power. If there is failure to exercise discretion
on the part of that authority the action will be bad. Such type of flaw may arise in the
following circumstances:
a) Sub-delegation;
b) Imposing fetters on discretion by self-imposed rules of policy;
c) Acting under dictation;
d) Non-application of mind

Excess or Abuse of Discretion

• Excess or abuse of discretion may be inferred from the following circumstances:

a) Absence of power;
b) Exceeding jurisdiction;
c) Irrelevant considerations;
d) Mala fide;
e) Improper purpose: Collateral purpose;
f) Colorable exercise of power;
g) Non-observance of natural justice
The grounds for judicial review of administrative action in India are as
follows-

Irrationality

“A general principle which has remained unchanged is that discretionary power conferred on an
administrative authority is required to be exercised reasonably.”

This is also known as the Wednesbury Test. In the case of Associated Provincial Pictures Houe
vs Wednesbury Irrationality as a ground of judicial review of administrative action was
developed. The court held that the person to whom a discretion is been vested must excersie it
with reasonable case and only on reasonable grounds. Any interference by the court would not be
permissible unless and until that the decision was illegal or had defects with regard to the
procedural improprieties.

Further in the case of Roberts vs Hopwood the court was faced with the question of adopting a
policy of paying higher wages than what the national average. The court found it unreasonable
on the grounds that the council was made was bound was law.

In another landmark case of R vs Broadmoor special hospital authority Ex Parte the court held
that the hospitals and other medical research organisation have the power to conduct random and
routine searches on its patients without there consent.
In the Indian Case of Neha Jain vs University of Delhi the court formulated few check points for
judicial review

Some of them where:

 If the decision made is mala fide or made beyond the jurisdiction or discriminatory
 If it is found unreasonable or is in violation of the constitution
 If it is legally not supported or is beyond one jurisdiction

Procedural Impropriety

The concept of procedural impropriety can be understood as the procedural failure to follow . In
other words, it means failure to follow rules and regulation and other is the failure to observe the
basic law of the natural justice. It is a ground of judicial review of administrative action.

In the case of Bradbury vs Enfield London Borough Council, the council breached the basic need
of public policy. The council request to procedural requirement was not accepted by the courts.

Further in the case of Ridge vs Baldwin the court focus on the procedural fairness had to be
followed. The court also held that following the principle of natural justice has to be followed at
all cost.

In the case of the Aylesbury Mushroom Case the court held that it is the fundamental requirement
that in cases a person interest are effected by any functions of Judicial and administrative
functions then in that case the person has the right to be heard and make representations. the
natural justice principle has to be followed

Proportionality

The Concept of the Proportionality can be understood as the administrative action should match
the desired result. These means that the tries to balance means to end. It has to be reasonableness
and it has to be seen that the courts see that the course of action has to be followed.

In the case of Sardar Singh vs Union of India, the court said the action taken by the army was
arbitrary and the punishment was severe. The doctrine helps the court to the find out the
possible discretionary power which can be done by the executive.

In the Management K Tea Estates vs Mazdoor Singh held that that the SC has in all
circumstances that doctrine will be put to test against the administrative actions.

Illegality

The concept of Illegality can be understood as when a body acts beyond the power to which it is
vests with.

A decision of a public body may be illegal if the decision maker:

acts outside or beyond its powers, also known as ‘ultra vires’ is directs itself in law – for
example the decision maker does not understand and apply the law correctly exercises a power
wrongly or for an improper purpose – a decision must be reached on the basis of the facts of the
matter in question. It is a ground of judicial review of administrative action.

In the Case of R (RWE Npower Renewables Ltd) v Milton Keynes Council the court held that one
formulation of the test is that an irrational or unreasonable decision must be “so outrageous in its
defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind
to the question to be decided could have arrived at it”.