In a modern welfare state, the government’s role extends far beyond maintaining law and order; it actively regulates trade, industry, employment, education, and social welfare. With this expansion of governmental functions, administrative authorities wield wide powers affecting the rights of individuals. To prevent misuse of such powers, the doctrine of judicial review serves as a cornerstone of constitutional governance in India.
Judicial review refers to the power of courts to examine the validity of administrative actions and strike them down if they are found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconstitutional. It acts as a safeguard against executive excesses, ensuring that administrative decisions conform to law and constitutional principles.
Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review
The Constitution of India does not expressly use the term “judicial review,” but several provisions enshrine the concept:
-
Articles 32 and 226: Empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for “any other purpose.”
-
Article 13: Declares laws inconsistent with fundamental rights void.
-
Articles 136, 141, and 142: Vest the Supreme Court with powers of appellate review and binding precedents.
Judicial review has been recognized as part of the Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973), and therefore cannot be taken away even by constitutional amendment.
Scope of Judicial Review of Administrative Action
The scope of judicial review over administrative action in India can be grouped into three broad heads:
1. Grounds of Judicial Review
Indian courts generally review administrative action on three classical grounds laid down in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985), widely known as the GCHQ case:
-
Illegality: When the authority acts without jurisdiction, exceeds its power, or abuses its discretion.
-
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness): When a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.
-
Procedural Impropriety: When mandatory procedural requirements, such as natural justice, are violated.
Indian jurisprudence also recognizes proportionality as a ground, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights (Om Kumar v. Union of India, 2000).
2. Forms of Judicial Review
-
Review of Rule-Making Power (Delegated Legislation): Courts examine whether delegated legislation is within the scope of authority and consistent with parent statutes and constitutional provisions.
-
Review of Quasi-Judicial Decisions: Ensures compliance with principles of natural justice such as audi alteram partem (right to be heard) and nemo judex in causa sua (rule against bias).
-
Review of Administrative Discretion: Courts intervene where discretion is exercised arbitrarily, in bad faith, or for extraneous considerations.
3. Judicial Remedies Available
Under Articles 32 and 226, courts may issue:
-
Writ of Certiorari: Quashing an administrative order.
-
Writ of Mandamus: Directing performance of statutory duty.
-
Writ of Prohibition: Preventing an authority from acting beyond jurisdiction.
-
Writ of Quo Warranto: Challenging the authority of a person holding public office.
-
Habeas Corpus: Protecting personal liberty from unlawful detention.
Limitations of Judicial Review
While judicial review is expansive, it is not unlimited. Courts exercise self-imposed restraints to maintain a balance between administrative efficiency and judicial oversight.
-
Doctrine of Separation of Powers: Courts cannot substitute their own decision for that of the competent authority in policy matters. (State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash, 2005).
-
No Review of Policy Decisions: Courts generally refrain from interfering in economic or political policy unless violative of constitutional mandates (Balco Employees Union v. Union of India, 2002).
-
Exclusion by Statute: In some cases, legislations bar judicial review expressly or impliedly, though this cannot override fundamental rights.
-
Doctrine of Political Questions: Courts avoid adjudicating issues of purely political nature, such as matters of foreign policy or defense.
-
Efficiency Considerations: Judicial review cannot be used to micromanage administrative functioning; courts interfere only when actions are arbitrary, mala fide, or ultra vires.
Judicial Approach in India
-
In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the Supreme Court blurred the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial actions, holding that all administrative actions affecting rights must adhere to natural justice.
-
In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975), the Court emphasized that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
-
In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), it was held that judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be ousted.
Conclusion
Judicial review of administrative action serves as a powerful mechanism to ensure accountability, legality, and fairness in governance. While courts exercise wide powers to prevent arbitrary administrative action, they also observe self-imposed limitations to respect the domain of the executive and legislature.
Thus, judicial review in India operates as a safeguard against abuse of power, not as a means of judicial supremacy. Its scope is expansive but carefully balanced with limitations to preserve the doctrine of separation of powers and ensure effective governance.