Judicial Review of Administrative Action

While understanding how the judiciary can review the administrative action, it is important to
understand that:
1. The three organs – legislature, executive and judiciary are independent, separate and are
vested with vast powers and functions.
2. For the same reason, it is imperative that these three organs keep a check on each other
and balance out the errors or transgression of power.
Thus, it is the judiciary’s authority or power to review the acts of other organs and levels of the
government and keep a check on those legislative and executive decisions which are
unconstitutional. In numerous cases, the judiciary has upheld its power through articles 32 and
226 of the Indian Constitution to review and interpret the legislations made by the respective
bodies. While dealing with administrative action it is pertinent to understand what constitutes an
administration. Administrative bodies fall within the scope of governmental authority and they
are not a court or a legislative body. They can be called as commission, board, authority, bureau,
office, department, corporation, division, agency and people who govern offices and
administration. The role of the administrative authority is closely related to those of the people
and thus very significant in ensuring the social and economic order in a state. When they go
beyond their powers or misuse their powers, it results in direct exploitation of the people and
corruption. Thus, it is not wrong to say that “It is not eccentric to conclude that if there is more
administration, there will be more maladministration.”[4] The scope of the judiciary and judicial
review is very vast, thus what the court looks for is specific issues which can give a certain
structure to the principles by which the functions of administration and its agencies can be
regulated. The courts cannot enforce judicial review when it comes to the question of whether a
policy was wise or could be evolved.[5] They can use the judicial review on a policy or action
only if the same is irrational, arbitrary or contravenes the provisions of any statute in force or
provisions of the constitution.

Grounds for Challenging an Administrative Action

 Discretionary Action
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution ensures equality and equal protection of law to every person
in India. This article’s interpretation has been broadened over the years. The Supreme Court is of
the view that when any action of the administration violates article 14, it falls under the scope of
judicial review and is void.[6] The same view was reiterated in the year 2008 by the Supreme
Court while stating that the power of any administration is not unfettered and it should be
exercised in accordance to the rules laid down. In this case, the railway’s board stated that it has
powers to quash tender without assigning any reasons for the same.[7]
However, while analyzing whether there is an existence of discrimination and if such
discrimination is excessive the test of proportionality has to be applied by the court.[8] In this
test, they dwell on the nexus between the objective that the administration seeks to achieve and
the action it has resulted in. And if such a nexus is reasonable or rational then it cannot be held
void.
 Purpose of Law
It is very much pertinent to ensure that not only does the administrative action violate the
provisions of the law but also to ensure that it is in accordance with the purpose that the
particular legislation seeks to achieve.[9] For instance, a particular authority would have the
power to acquire land and provide accommodation on the same to an officer. But, the intent
behind the act could be to eject a certain person due to their conflict with the landlord. In such a
case, the court can make such an administrative action void since the acquisition of land was not
acquired for the purpose that the legislation purports. As per article 226 of the constitution the
high court will always have jurisdiction when it is with respect to an administrative act that is
being done outside its jurisdiction. This power stands the same, even in cases where the action is
in accordance with the purpose of the statute.

Other Grounds Judicial Review of Administrative Action

1. Jurisdictional Error –

A jurisdictional error arises when an administrative body without having jurisdiction on the
matter concerned passes the judgment. The Courts may reject any administrative actions that are
ultra vires on the following grounds-

(a) Lack of Jurisdiction – When an administrative body for legal reasons does not have the
power to order the parties of the case or over the subject matter of the case, it refers to lack of
jurisdiction. The tribunals which lack jurisdiction cannot hear the case or render any decision
about it. A tribunal has jurisdiction over a matter only to the extent as defined by the Constitution
and the Legislature of the State in which the tribunal is located.

(b) Excess of Jurisdiction – In this case initially the authority has the jurisdiction over a matter
and properly proceeds within its jurisdiction but afterwards steps out of its jurisdiction in passing
some orders or in doing some judicial actions. All the administrative actions must be performed
fairly and bonafidely.

(c) Abuse of Jurisdiction – If the powers are abused, it becomes a ground for judicial review.
Powers are abused when
1. the powers are used for the purpose it was not made or given.
2. the authority acts dishonestly.
3. When the decision maker totally ignores the relevant matter.
4. When a decision has been passed only by considering the record, and without considering
the evidence.

2. Irrationality –

Basically, the general principle is that the discretionary power of any administrative authority
must be exercised reasonably. The administrative decision can be reviewed if it is in defiance of
logic or accepted moral standards.
For the very first time in Associated Provincial Picture House v. Wednesbury, 1947,
“Irrationality” was considered as the ground of Judicial Review, and later it was popularly
named as Wednesbury Test. The Court laid down the following conditions to determine
irrationality of administrative action-
(a) If the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably would have
made it,
(b) If the authority has not considered the factors that are pertinent to be considered.

3. Procedural Impropriety-

When an administrative authority fails to act in accordance to the procedure, it refers to

procedural impropriety. It is one of the vital grounds for challenging the decisions made by an
administrative authority. The decision can be challenged where the authority has made a decision
by overlooking or by failing to follow the procedure established by law (Ultra Vires).

4. Proportionality-

In the cases of administrative actions, Doctrine of Proportionality is one of the grounds of

Judicial Review. The Doctrine states that the means used by the authority to obtain any objective
should not be more restrictive than that required to achieve it. For this ground to be considered
the Courts generally examine the following things-
(a) Whether the relative merits of different objectives have been appropriately weighed and fairly
balanced?
(b) Whether the matter under review was excessively restrictive or inflicted an unnecessary
burden?
In India, the doctrine was adopted by the Supreme Court in the case Om Kumar v. Union of
India, AIR 2000. In this case some officers of the DDA defrauded the depositors in collision
with Skipper Construction Company, the Court felt prima facie that the punishments imposed on
the officers were not proportional to the gravity of the misconduct and thus the punishments
needed to be upgraded.
The Supreme Court always said that it would only employ this doctrine to test the validity of
administrative action when the Fundamental Rights of any individual are disproportionately
violated.

5. Legitimate Expectation-

The doctrine of Legitimate Expectation was first developed in English law as the ground of
Judicial Review of Administrative actions to protect the procedural and substantive interests
when an authority rescinds from a representation made to the person. The doctrine means that a
person may have expectations to be treated in a way by the administration owing to the promises
made or the past practices. The expectation must be reasonable. For the purpose of Judicial
Review, the Court may consider-

1. Where an individual or group are made to believe that certain procedure will apply,
2. Where the individual or group relies on such belief, on particular law or policy.
Quasi-Judicial Actions
Under the Constitution of India, judicial review is available when the administrative action
violates any right enumerated under Part III of the Constitution. This right is guaranteed for an
act against the state. The judiciary does not fall under the definition of a state. Thus a significant
distinction is created between administrative action and quasi-judicial action. Now what we
know is that a quasi-judicial action does not fall within the scope of judicial review, since a
violation of part III of the Constitution cannot be done by the judiciary or quasi-judicial bodies.
However, this distinction has lost its significance since the decision in the Antulay case[10]
where the Supreme Court held that through article 32 of the constitution a writ petition can be
filed against the decision of another court when it violates the fundamental rights. By way of this
decision it became easier to apply for judicial review of the quasi-judicial action of
administrative bodies.

Conclusion
Judicial review is the only effective method or procedure to ensure accountability and legal
competence of the public authorities. There has been a huge increase in the discretionary powers
given to the administrative bodies. Thus, it demands a balance of checks on them by endowing
the judiciary with the power to review their actions and decisions. Although the judicial review
can apply to administrative decisions, the rule being applied to the quasi-judicial decisions is still
disputed. Even the scope of judicial review is restricted to public policy decisions by the
administration. The judicial review is the interposition of the judicial restraint on the legislative,
executive and judicial actions of the government. It is a basic structure of the Constitution and
any attempt to destroy it would be to damage the structure of the constitution itself.