Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Actions | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

The doctrine-ultra-vires forms the cornerstone of administrative law, serving as the basis for judicial review to oversee administrative actions. It pertains to actions taken in an excessive manner or beyond the authority of the acting party.

Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Action in India

• Discretionary powers granted to administrative authorities should be exercised reasonably, as per the Wednesbury Test. For instance, in cases like Associated Provincial Pictures House v. Wednesbury, courts emphasized that discretionary powers must be used with care and based on valid reasons. It's essential for decisions to be lawful and without procedural flaws.
• Similarly, in Roberts v. Hopwood, the court found the decision to pay above-average wages unreasonable due to legal obligations. In R v. Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority, the court allowed random searches on patients without consent for medical research purposes.
• In Neha Jain v. University of Delhi, the court outlined review criteria, including checking for malice, jurisdictional overreach, discrimination, reasonableness, constitutional compliance, and legal support.

Understanding Procedural Impropriety

• Procedural impropriety refers to the failure to adhere to proper procedures and regulations, including the principles of natural justice.
• It serves as a basis for reviewing administrative actions in terms of procedural correctness.

Case Example: Bradbury vs Enfield London Borough Council

• In this case, the council neglected essential public policy requirements, leading to a breach of procedural standards.
• The court ruled against the council for not meeting the necessary procedural demands.

Case Study: Ridge vs Baldwin

• The court emphasized the importance of upholding procedural fairness in all administrative actions.
• It highlighted the mandatory nature of following the principles of natural justice under all circumstances.

Legal Precedent: Aylesbury Mushroom Case

• This case established the fundamental right for individuals affected by judicial or administrative decisions to be given a chance to present their case and be heard.
• The principle of natural justice must be upheld when people's interests are at stake in such proceedings.

Understanding Proportionality

• Definition: Proportionality in administrative actions refers to the idea that the measures taken should align with the intended outcomes. It involves striking a balance between means and ends, ensuring reasonableness and scrutiny by the courts.

Legal Precedents

• Sardar Singh vs Union of India: The judiciary deemed the military's actions as arbitrary and the penalties as excessively harsh, showcasing how this doctrine aids in evaluating discretionary powers of the executive branch.
• Management K Tea Estates vs Mazdoor Singh: The Supreme Court emphasized that the doctrine of proportionality must be applied universally to assess administrative decisions.

Understanding Illegality

• Illegality refers to when an entity exceeds the authority vested in it.
• A decision made by a public entity may be deemed illegal if the decision-maker:
  • Acts beyond its designated powers, known as 'ultra vires'.
  • Incorrectly interprets or applies the law.
  • Wrongly exercises a power or uses it for an improper purpose.
• Illegality serves as a basis for the judicial review of administrative actions.
• In the case of R (RWE Npower Renewables Ltd) v Milton Keynes Council, the court established that an irrational decision must be so unreasonable that no reasonable person, after careful consideration, would have made it.