Judicial Review of Administrative Actions | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Introduction

• Administrative action refers to actions taken by government authorities that are neither legislative nor judicial in nature. These actions are specific to particular situations and lack general applicability. They do not involve the formal procedures of gathering evidence and considering arguments. Instead, they are based on the subjective judgment of the authority, taking into account policy and expediency. While administrative actions do not determine legal rights, they can impact them. However, this does not mean that the principles of natural justice can be entirely disregarded when administrative powers are exercised. Unless a statute specifies otherwise, some minimum principles of natural justice must always be observed, depending on the specific circumstances of each case.
• In the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150), the Court emphasized the importance of examining the nature of the power granted, the recipient of the power, the framework within which the power is delegated, and the consequences to determine whether the action of the administrative authority is quasi-judicial or purely administrative.
• Judicial Review of Administrative action is a vital mechanism for ensuring that administrative agencies adhere to constitutional principles while exercising their powers. This concept originated in England and was adopted by common law countries, including India. India incorporated the idea of judicial review into its legal system, drawing inspiration from the English prerogative writs issued by the King's Bench to oversee the proper application of the law by officials performing both judicial and non-judicial functions. Judicial review serves as a powerful tool to check arbitrary, unjust, burdensome, and unconstitutional actions. It is the foundation of constitutionalism, which emphasizes limiting the powers of the government.
• Administrative actions can be either statutory, backed by the force of law, or non-statutory, lacking legal force. The majority of administrative actions are statutory, as they derive their authority from statutes or the Constitution. However, in some cases, administrative actions may be non-statutory, such as issuing non-binding directives to subordinates, although their violation can lead to disciplinary action.
• While administrative actions are generally discretionary and based on subjective judgment, administrative authorities must still act fairly, impartially, and reasonably. During the judicial review of legislative and executive actions, courts analyze the rationale and purpose of a law, shape and refine it, reveal its appropriateness and subtleties, rectify flaws or illegal actions, and, most importantly, exercise strong moral restraint in times when expediency is the primary concern.

Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Actions

• Illegality
• Irrationality
• Procedural impropriety
• Proportionality

Judicial review refers to the process by which courts examine administrative actions to ensure their compliance with the law. Administrative authorities are granted powers by statutes, and these powers must be exercised within the limits defined by such statutes.
The courts have the authority to declare acts of the legislature and executive void if administrative bodies are found to be in violation of the provisions of the Constitution. This concept of judicial review was originally developed by the American Supreme Court, even though the American Constitution does not explicitly provide for it. In the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review.
Chief Justice Marshall articulated that the written constitution should be considered the fundamental and supreme law of the land, and any legislative act conflicting with the Constitution should be deemed void.
When a conflict arises between the Constitution and acts passed by the legislature, the courts prioritize the Constitution and declare such acts unconstitutional.
In judicial review, the reviewing authority does not delve into the merits of the decision, as opposed to an appeal, where the appellate authority can assess the decision's merits. Therefore, judicial review, according to de Smith, is inherently sporadic and peripheral. In judicial review, the courts scrutinize administrative action based on the doctrine of ultra vires.
Both the Supreme Court at the national level and the High Courts at the state level in India possess the power to review administrative actions through various writs, such as habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto under Article 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, respectively. These writs have been adopted from England, where they have a long history and are accompanied by technicalities.
Although the Indian Constitution's language is broad, suggesting that Indian judicial bodies are not bound by the technicalities of English law regarding writs, in practice, Indian courts tend to follow the English approach. The doctrine of ultra vires or excess of jurisdiction, which originated in England, serves as the foundation for judicial review.
Efforts by tribunals to expand this narrow concept to address modern administrative challenges have introduced certain technicalities and artificialities in the law of judicial review. Courts consider written authority to be supervisory in nature and not equivalent to an appeal from the administrative body to the court.
Therefore, the doctrine of ultra vires provides an intermediate basis for judicial review between an appeal review, where the reviewing authority can not only annul the administrative decision but also assess the validity of the appealing authority's decision and replace it with its own judgment, and no review at all.
This intermediate approach can create uncertainty in cases involving judicial interference with administrative action. Sometimes courts may be inclined to intervene when they strongly perceive an injustice, while at other times, they may be uncertain about the injustice and may defer to administrative decisions.
Courts often avoid clearly admitting this, leading to the expression of their conclusions in terms of artificial concepts and vague formulations. This can result in inconsistent judgments and confusion within the judiciary.
In general, the judicial review of administrative action aims to ensure that administrative agencies operate within the scope of their delegated authority and adhere to standards of natural justice. Ultra vires is the primary ground for invalidating an administrative decision. Unlike the American Constitution, the Indian Constitution explicitly allows for judicial review, and Article 13(1) specifies that any laws inconsistent with the fundamental rights provisions of Part III of the Constitution are void to the extent of such inconsistency.
Over time, however, the courts have developed various grounds for intervention, making the law related to judicial review of administrative action through writs complex, intricate, and sometimes deficient. These grounds will be discussed further to clarify this point.

Jurisdictional Principle 

Ultra Vires Doctrine

• An examination of judicial authority revolves around the extent to which courts can review decisions or actions of administrative authorities, as distinct from appeals in review proceedings. To address this question, it is essential to consider the topic within the context of historical events and influences, the prevailing values and opinions that shaped it, the range of circumstances it must encompass, and the progress it has made.
• Traditionally, the legal framework governing the judicial review of administrative action in India was rooted in common law, which primarily focused on regulating the powers of public authorities through the ordinary courts of law.
• As a result, cases brought before local tribunals were historically transferred to the king's court in Westminster. The superior courts exercised close oversight over justices of the peace, who had a wide range of responsibilities, including managing highway repairs, bridges, and other administrative matters. Even when, in 1888, most of the administrative powers of justices of the peace were transferred to local authorities, the courts maintained a similar level of control over these new bodies. While they retained authority over lower courts and tribunals, the courts had the right to determine the proper jurisdiction of these bodies and ensure that they stayed within their designated authority.
• In the process of judicial review, the concept of jurisdiction emerged, known as 'ultra vires,' which delineated an area where lower tribunals had absolute authority but were not permitted to exceed certain limits. The jurisdiction theory embodies a distinction between cases in which a tribunal operates within its jurisdiction and those in which it exceeds its jurisdiction. Judicial power is only applicable in the latter type of cases. The principle of jurisdiction that determines the reviewability of an administrative action is often expressed as the presence or excess of jurisdiction, with the underlying doctrine referred to as ultra vires.
• According to Lord Selborne L.C., as explained in one case, the ultra vires doctrine should be interpreted and enforced in a rational and reasonable manner. Anything that can reasonably be considered incidental to or consequential to the items approved by the Legislature should not be deemed ultra vires unless expressly prohibited. For instance, the London County Council, which had statutory authority to purchase and operate trams, was held by the House of Lords to lack the jurisdiction to operate omnibuses, as it was not incidental to tramway operations.
• Similarly, a local authority with the power to acquire land, excluding 'park, garden, or pleasure ground,' acts beyond its jurisdiction if it acquires land that is part of a park. Therefore, the possibility of judicial review depends on whether an excess of authority can be established. The decision in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, which stated that any mistake of law (intra vires or ultra vires) may impact jurisdiction, has somewhat altered this situation. Thus, the distinction between jurisdictional errors and non-jurisdictional errors in matters of law (as opposed to matters of fact) has been abandoned.
• However, this distinction was not firmly established. In Pari man v. Harrow School's Keepers and Governors, Lord Denning M.R. asserted that, following Anisminic, there was no longer a distinction between intra vires errors and ultra vires errors. Ultimately, the Privy Council, in S E Asia Fire Bricks v. Non-Metallic Union, rejected the view that the distinction between intra vires errors and ultra vires errors had been eliminated.

Scope of The Doctrine 

• In theory, the jurisdictional principle allows courts to prevent actions that exceed the powers granted to administrative bodies. However, in practice, courts have increasingly delved into the core of the subject matter by intervening on grounds of unreasonableness, bad faith, extraneous considerations, unfairness, manifest injustice, and fairness, among others. All these grounds for challenge were consolidated under the single principle of ultra vires. Thus, in administrative law, the doctrine of ultra vires serves as a fundamental doctrine, and control of administrative actions is considered the basis of judicial authority.
• Ultra vires applies to actions that fall outside the control of decision-making bodies. For example, in R. V. Hill University Visitors ex parte, Lord Brown Wilkinson endorsed the traditional ultra vires approach.
• When a decision maker exercises their powers in a manner that is procedurally unconstitutional or unfair to the Wednesbury standard, outside the authority granted, they act ultra vires their powers and, therefore, unlawfully. The theory of ultra vires aligns to some extent with the rule of law principle, and many now consider the definition of ultra vires as an insufficient justification for judicial review.
• An alternative view suggests that courts do not need to resort to speculating about Parliament's intent or the technicalities of jurisdictional evidence and errors of law. Instead, courts should intervene whenever an unconstitutional exercise of power has occurred. As Dawn Oliver points out, the question of judicial review has shifted from the doctrine of ultra vires to a concern for safeguarding rights and regulating powers.

Basis of The Doctrine of Ultra-Vires 

• Administrative action is subject to judicial review through the concepts of intra-ultra vires and the principles of natural justice, which ensure that the executive branch acts within the boundaries of the law. Once a request for judicial review is granted, it becomes the court's responsibility to determine whether the concerned body has acted within its powers (intra-vires) or outside its powers (ultra-vires). Two main categories of actions can be challenged: those alleging violations of statutory requirements and those alleging that a decision was made unreasonably or in disregard of the principles of natural justice.
• Traditionally, these broad categories have been further subdivided into various subcategories. For example, a body can act ultra-vires if it uses its powers for an improper purpose, abuses its powers, or adopts such a rigid policy that it fails to exercise the discretion vested in it. Administrative bodies are also required by law to act reasonably, and failure to do so can render their actions ultra-vires. If a statute mandates specific procedures for the exercise of powers and these procedures are considered mandatory rather than advisory, failure to follow them can lead to ultra-vires actions. If a public body that is obligated to take action fails to do so, the court can order it to act. In the decision-making process, the principles of natural justice must also be observed, ensuring fair treatment when an individual's rights or interests are affected by an administrative decision.
• The House of Lords consolidated these grounds for review into three main categories: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. Lord Diplock explained these concepts as follows:
• Illegality refers to the requirement that decision-makers must correctly understand and apply the governing law that grants them decision-making authority. Disagreements about the correctness of their interpretation of the law should be resolved by the courts, as they are the ultimate interpreters of the law.
• Irrationality is akin to the concept of unreasonableness, specifically as defined in the Wednesbury case. It pertains to decisions that are so absurd in their departure from logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person, applying their mind to the matter, could have made such a decision.
• Procedural impropriety relates to the failure of an administrative tribunal to adhere to the procedural rules laid down in the governing statutory instrument. Such a failure can lead to judicial review, even if it does not involve a breach of natural justice.

Scope of The Doctrine of Ultra-Vires 

• In India Historically, the doctrine of ultra-vires, based on England's jurisprudence, serves as the foundation of judicial review. This doctrine is a fundamental tool for the judicial oversight of administrative authorities and has broad implications in the field of administrative law. It is often referred to as the core principle of administrative law, applicable to a wide range of administrative actions that go beyond the scope of authority. In both England and India, the doctrine of ultra-vires has evolved into a complex framework that allows courts to examine not only actions clearly beyond a body's jurisdiction but also the reasonableness, intentions, and validity of considerations.
• Courts have imposed limitations on various aspects of discretionary powers. Procedural errors are also considered jurisdictional if the procedural provision is seen as mandatory rather than advisory. In India, administrative actions are subject to judicial review on the grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
  In the A.P. v. Me Dowell & Co. case, the scope of judicial review for administrative actions was limited to three reasons:
  • Unreasonableness, which is also known as irrationality.
  • Unlawfulness.
  • Unfairness in action.
• Therefore, judicial review of administrative actions is only necessary when conduct displays arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or injustice. Judicial review may be appropriate in cases involving malafides, prejudice, arbitrariness, bordering on perversity, or such unreasonableness that no reasonable person could conceive of. Thus, the doctrine of ultra-vires not only applies to cases of clear misuse of authority but also regulates abuse of power, including situations where actions are taken unjustifiably, for improper reasons, or through incorrect procedures.
• The ultra-vires doctrine serves as the primary instrument for regulating the authority of administrative bodies. It encompasses a wide range of regulatory acts that exceed the scope of authority, also known as the principle of jurisdiction. However, when courts engage in judicial review, they do not act as an appellate body but merely review the decision-making process itself.
• In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasized that judicial review focuses on assessing the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision. If an administrative decision is subjected to review, it would effectively replace the decision itself, which may be fallible. The court's role is to ascertain whether the decision-making authority has exceeded its powers, committed a legal error, breached the rules of natural justice, reached a decision that no reasonable tribunal would make, or abused its power. Unbridled judicial review is undesirable, and there is no basis for arbitrary decision-making based on the proportionality theory. It is essential for the administrative action to be justified on its merits. The court's role is to assess the manner in which the decision or order was made, rather than the merits of the decision itself.

Present Scenario in India over Administrative Actions

Judicial review is central in dealing with the 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 violative of law or the Constitution or is arbitrary or mala fide, Courts should not interfere in administrative decisions.

Remedies of Judicial Review/ Public Interest Litigation

In India, there are five types of writs available for judicial review of administrative actions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India:

• Habeas Corpus: This writ is used to secure the release of a person from illegal detention or detention without legal justification. It ensures an individual's right to freedom. In essence, the court orders the person and the authority responsible for the detention to bring the detainee before the court so that the court can assess the validity, justification, and jurisdiction of the detention. This writ can be filed by any person.
• Grounds for issuing this writ: It is typically issued by the court when a detained person is not brought before a magistrate within 24 hours of their detention. Failure to do so entitles the arrested person to be released.
• Mandamus Writ: This writ instructs public authorities to perform their public duties. It is a discretionary remedy, as are all five writs. The court has the power to refuse to entertain a writ petition. This writ cannot be directed against the President, Governor, state legislatures, private individuals, or any registered body.
  Grounds for issuing this writ: Mandamus can be issued when the government refuses to exercise a jurisdiction it undoubtedly possesses under the law or when an authority vested with a power improperly refuses to exercise it. The purpose of mandamus is to keep public authorities within the limits of their jurisdiction when performing public functions.
• Quo Warranto: This ancient common law remedy is used against an intruder or usurper of a public office. It essentially asks the individual to prove their authority to hold the office. The court may remove a person from the office if it finds that they are not legally qualified to hold it.
  Writ issued against: The person who is required to demonstrate by what authority they hold the office.
• Prohibition: Prohibition is an extraordinary writ that seeks to prevent courts, tribunals, quasi-judicial authorities, and officers from exceeding their jurisdiction. Its primary purpose is to prevent the encroachment of jurisdiction.
  Grounds for issuing this writ: Prohibition is typically issued when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction, exceeds its jurisdiction, violates the rules of natural justice, acts under a law that is ultra vires or unconstitutional, or acts in contravention of fundamental rights.
• Certiorari: Certiorari is used to bring the record of a subordinate court before a superior court for correction of jurisdictional errors or errors of law. It is employed when an inferior court makes decisions beyond its jurisdiction.
  Grounds for this writ: Certiorari can be issued for reasons such as the excess or failure to exercise jurisdiction, violations of natural justice rules, violations of fundamental rights, or findings of facts that no reasonable person would have reached.

Conclusion

Judicial review of administrative actions is a fundamental aspect of India's constitutional framework, based on the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers. It is considered one of the core features of the Indian Constitution that cannot be abolished, even through parliamentary legislative power. Judicial review serves as the most effective remedy against administrative abuses.
In the current scenario, the public's recourse, when dissatisfied with administrative actions exercised at the discretion of government authorities under legislative norms or the Indian Constitution, is to approach the courts under Article 32, Article 136, or Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
The primary purpose of judicial review is to ensure compliance with the laws enacted by the government within the framework of the rule of law. While judicial review has certain inherent limitations, it is better suited for dispute resolution than administrative functions. Administrative functions are primarily the responsibility of the executive branch, and the judicial system's role is to ensure that the government fulfills its duties in accordance with the provisions of India's constitution.