Judicial Review of Administrative Action

Introduction:

Trends of Judicial powers show that the courts do not interfere in Administrative Decisions unless these contravene the constitution or law or are arbitrary or mala-fide. Judicial review may be defined as a “court’s power to review the actions of other branches of government, especially the court’s power to disprove legislative and executive actions as being unconstitutional”. Judicial Review of Administrative action is part of enforcing the constitutional discipline over the administrative agencies while exercising their powers. It has origin in England which was adopted in common law countries. India too inherited the idea of judicial review from England. India had laid its structure on English prerogative with a pattern that was issued by the court of King’s Bench with a view to exercising general superintendence over the due observance of law by officials/ authorities while performing judicial or non-judicial functions.

In India Judicial review deals with three aspects:

• Judicial Review of Legislative Actions
• Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
• Judicial Review of Judicial Actions

In this article, we will mainly be dealing with the Administrative aspect.

Administrative Action

An Administrative action is a residuary action which is neither legislative nor non-judicial. It has no procedural obligations of collecting evidence and considers argument; it is based on subjective satisfaction where the decision is based on policy and expediency. It does not conclude the right though it may affect a right. However, principles of natural justice cannot be ignored completely when the jurisdiction is exercising Administrative Powers. Unless the statute provides otherwise, a minimum of principles of natural justice must be observed depending on the fact situation of each case.

In case A.K. Kraipak V. Union of India, the Court was of the view that in order to determine whether the action of the administrative authority is quasi-judicial or administrative, one has to see the nature of the power conferred, to whom the power is given, the framework within power is conferred and the consequences.

Judicial review is central in dealing with malignancy in the exercise of power. However, in the changed circumstances of socio-economic development in the country, the Court is emphasizing ‘self-restraint’. Unless the Administrative action is adverse of law or the constitution, arbitrary or mala-fide, the Court should not interfere in Administrative decisions. In the same, the Apex Court in the case of Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. V. Union of India stated that normally the court should not interfere in the policy matters which is within the purview of the government unless it is shown to be contrary to law or inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution.

The mechanism of Judicial Review of Administrative Action can be divided into two categories-

• Public Law review under Article 32, 226, 136 and 227 of Indian Constitution and
• Private Law review exercised by the ordinary courts

Public Law Review

Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, Supreme Court and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, High Courts; have the power to issue writs like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Waranto.

Article 136 of the Indian Constitution states that Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, or order in any matter passed by any court or tribunal except the court or tribunal constituted under any law relating to Armed Forces.

Article 227 of the Indian Constitution confers the power of superintendence upon a High court over the courts and Tribunals throughout the Territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

Under article 227, the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its Authority.

The main grounds of interference are-

• Excess of Jurisdiction
• Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction
• Violation of procedure or disregard of principles of Natural Justice.

CASE LAWS

1. ICICI Ltd. V. GRAPCO INDUSTRIES Ltd., 1999

The Apex Court held that the High Court can interfere with interim orders of Courts and Tribunals if they are made without Jurisdiction.

2. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI V. SANJEEV, 2005

The Apex Court stated that the scope of judicial review of Administrative Actions is limited. The Court while reviewing the Administrative orders can consider the legality of the decision-making process and not the legality of the order per se.

Private Law Review

Private law is that part of a civil law legal system which is part of the juscommune that involves relationships between individuals, such as the law of contracts or torts (as it is called in the common law), and the law of obligations (as it is called in civil legal systems). It is to be distinguished from public law, which deals with relationships between both natural and artificial persons (i.e., organizations) and the state, including regulatory statutes, penal law, and other law that affects the public order. In general terms, private law involves interactions between private individuals, whereas public law involves interrelations between the state and the general population. Private Law Review over administrative actions exercised through-Injunction, declaratory Relief, and Action for Damage.

Relief: Five types of writs are available for judicial review of administrative actions under Article 32, and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

Writ of Habeas Corpus literally means “You may have the body” this writ is issued to secure the release of a person from illegal detention or without legal justification. In simple words, Court directs the person and even authority who has detained an individual to bring such person before Court so that the Court may decide the validity, justification, jurisdiction of such detention. It is to be filed by any person.

Writ of Mandamus means “To command the public authority” to perform its public duty in India. It is a discretionary remedy even as all five writs are a discretionary remedy in nature. Court has full power to refuse to entertain a writ petition. This writ cannot be issued on President or Governor.

Writ of Quo Warranto is an ancient common law remedy. It is used against an intruder or usurper of public office. Literally means “What is your authority”. Court directs the concerned person that by what authority he holds the office. The Court may expel a person from the office if he finds that he is not entitled to obtain such an office.

Writ of Prohibition is an extraordinary prerogative writ of prevention; it seeks to prevent Courts, Tribunals, Quasi-judicial authorities, and officers from exceeding their jurisdiction. The main objective of this writ is to prevent the encroachment of jurisdiction. It is based upon the famous saying “Prevention is better than cure.”

Writ of Certiorari deals with a method to bring the record of subordinate Court before the Superior Court for correction of jurisdiction or error of law committed by them. In a simple word, if any inferior Court decided the case beyond its powers than Apex Court and High Courts correct the error by issuing this writ. Earlier it was used for criminal matters but later on, it was started to use in civil cases too.

Grounds for the issue of this writ are:

1. excess or failure to exercise the jurisdiction
2. violation of natural justice rules such as the right of notice and hearing
3. violation of fundamental rights or statutory provisions of laws
4. Finding of facts which no person would have reached to the conclusion.

Conclusion

Judicial Review is basically a great weapon through which arbitrary, unjust, harassing and unconstitutional laws are checked. Judicial review is the cornerstone of constitutionalism, which implies limited Government. We can conclude it now that the Judicial Review of Administrative Action is inherent in our Constitutional scheme which is based on the rule of law and separation of powers. The main purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the laws enacted by the legislature confined the rule of law. Judicial review has certain inherent limitations. It is more suited for the adjudication of disputes than for performing administrative functions. It is mainly for the executive to administer the law and the function of the judiciary is to ensure that the government carries out its duty in accordance with the provision of the Constitution of India.