SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN MINIMISING ADMINISTRATIVE

FALL

Administrative Law
Submitted by
Saranga Koushik Phukon
UID-SM0121054

Submitted to
Ms. Kangkana Goswami
Teaching Assistant

National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam

Table of Content

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 3
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENSURES CONSTITUTIONAL
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ..................................................................... 7
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ................................... 8
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINSTRATIVE ACTION .......................................................... 9
LEGAL BASIS FOR CHALLENGING VIA WRITS......................................................... 12
The doctrine of ultra-vires ................................................................................................... 12
REMEDIES AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ................................................... 14
Judicial review and extent .................................................................................................... 15
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 17
INTRODUCTION

The role of law is significant in contemporary society. Individuals have relinquished their
entitlements and entered into a formal agreement with the government, whereby the
government provides them a safeguard against injustice. This is referred to as the Social
Contract Theory, as proposed by Hobbes. During this stage of the Rule of Law, the absence of
justice within the legal system can lead to arbitrariness and potential abuse. In order to maintain
checks and balances on the authority of each branch of government, we have also implemented
Judicial Review. Judicial review is the legal procedure through which a court invalidates any
legislation that is in conflict with the constitution. We have incorporated this characteristic from
the United States Constitution. However, it required a significant number of years to rectify
this aspect inside our constitution. The judiciary has been instrumental in this matter. Judicial
review encompasses the examination and evaluation of constitutional amendments, legislative
activities, and laws enacted by the legislature. This research paper will provide a
comprehensive analysis of the historical development, expansion, distinctive characteristics,
and various categories of Judicial Review, with a specific focus on Indian case laws. In India,
the government consists of three branches, namely the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.
The Legislature is responsible for legislating, the Executive is responsible for implementing
laws, and the Judiciary oversees both branches to ensure that the laws being enacted and
implemented are in accordance with the Constitution of India. In order to ensure that these
organs function within their designated boundaries, our constitution incorporates the principle
of Separation of Power. Article 50 of the Indian Constitution addresses the concept of the
division of powers. This notion is not strictly adhered to, in contrast to the USA where it was
originally introduced. The concept of Judicial Review has been derived from the American
Constitution. The Judiciary possesses the authority to invalidate any legislation enacted by the
parliament if it contravenes the Constitution of India. The Judiciary has the authority to declare
any legislation passed by the legislature that violates the Constitution as null and void.
According to Article 13(2) of the Constitution of India, any law passed by the parliament that
limits the rights given to the people under Part 3 of the constitution is considered null and void
from the beginning. The Judiciary possesses the authority to fully interpret the Constitution of
India. It serves as the guardian of the Constitution of India. The power of Judicial Review is
conferred upon various articles, including 13, 32, 131-136, 143, 226, 145, 246, 251, 254, and
372. Article 372(1) pertains to the judicial review of the pre-constitutional laws that were in
effect prior to the enactment of the Constitution of India. According to Article 13(2), any
legislation enacted by the parliament after the constitution comes into effect will be deemed
invalid and without legal effect by the Court. The Supreme Court and High Court are regarded
as the guardians of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the constitution. If an individual's
Fundamental right is infringed upon, they have the option to seek redress in court under either
Article 32 or Article 226 of the constitution. According to Article 251 and 254, in case of any
conflict between the laws of the union and the state, the union law will take precedence and the
state legislation will be considered invalid.

Judicial review stands as a cornerstone of modern democracies for various compelling reasons.
Firstly, it serves as a bulwark against the encroachment of executive authority, preventing the
emergence of despotic regimes by holding them accountable to the principles of law and
justice. Secondly, it acts as a guardian of citizens' fundamental rights, ensuring that their
liberties are not trampled upon by those in power. Moreover, judicial review plays a pivotal
role in upholding the independence of the judiciary itself, shielding it from undue influence
and ensuring its ability to act as a check on the other branches of government. Furthermore, it
is indispensable for maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution, ensuring that no law or
action contravenes its provisions. Additionally, judicial review serves as a vital mechanism for
curbing the potential abuse of power by the legislative and executive branches, thus
safeguarding against authoritarian tendencies. Lastly, it contributes to maintaining a delicate
balance between the central and state governments, thereby preserving the federal structure of
the nation and fostering harmony among its various political entities. In essence, judicial review
stands as a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring accountability, protecting rights,
and preserving the constitutional order. Judicial review, while a potent tool in upholding the
rule of law, operates within defined parameters. Laws can only be challenged before the
Supreme Court or high courts if they run afoul of certain criteria. First and foremost, any
legislation can be questioned if it violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution, ensuring the protection of individual liberties. Additionally, laws can be subjected
to scrutiny if they infringe upon the explicit provisions outlined in the Constitution, thereby
ensuring adherence to the foundational principles of governance. Moreover, judicial review
permits challenges to laws that exceed the authority or jurisdiction of the officials responsible
for their enactment, thus maintaining the balance of power within the legal framework. These
criteria collectively shape the boundaries within which the judiciary can intervene to uphold
the integrity of the legal system.
AIMS

The aim of the project is to analyze and delineate the scope of judicial review in mitigating
administrative failures, with a focus on identifying mechanisms by which judicial oversight
can effectively minimize instances of administrative error, abuse, or overreach. Through
comprehensive examination of legal frameworks, precedents, and case studies, the project
seeks to provide insights into how judicial intervention can optimize administrative processes,
uphold the rule of law, safeguard individual rights, and promote accountability within
governmental institutions.

OBJECTIVE:

1. To analysis of existing legal frameworks and precedents to delineate the boundaries and
parameters of judicial review concerning administrative actions, aiming to understand
its effectiveness in addressing administrative fallibility.
2. To identify and categorize various instances of administrative fallibility, such as
procedural errors, legal misinterpretations, and arbitrary decision-making, to pinpoint
areas where judicial intervention can be most impactful in minimizing such
occurrences.
3. To find, propose practical mechanisms and recommendations for enhancing the efficacy
of judicial review in mitigating administrative fallibility, including potential legislative
reforms, procedural enhancements, and strategies for judicial engagement with
administrative agencies.

SCOPE AND LIMITATION:

The scope of this project has been narrowed down to the mere understanding of the objectives
enumerated above. The researcher aims at highlighting the essential elements in this topic. The
researcher also attempts to bring out judicial review in the context of administrative laws. The
researcher has relied more on the procedural aspect of the topic rather than diving earnestly
onto a plethora of inconsequential jargon that might complicate the understanding of this
project.

LITERATURE REVIEW:
IP MASSEY, Administrative Law in this book it provide a clear difference between different
organs of the government. It give a clear idea about the judicial review in the context of India
,along with the limitation of the organs.

DIKSHA SOBTI & SHUBHAM SAINI, The Scope and Extent of Judicial Review in
Administrative Action, in this study clearly define about the scope of Judicial review specially
context on the administrative actions. Further it also define the various limitation of the judicial
reviews precedent over administrative falls.

RESEARCH QUESTION

1. What are the key parameters and limitations defining the scope of judicial review in the
context of administrative actions, and how do these parameters influence the effectiveness of
judicial oversight in minimizing administrative fallibility?

2. What are the prevalent scenarios of administrative fallibility, such as procedural errors, legal
misinterpretations, and arbitrary decision-making, and how does judicial review intervene to
address and rectify these instances within the legal framework?

3. To what extent has judicial review historically impacted administrative practices, as

evidenced by case law and precedents, and what patterns emerge regarding the success or
failure of judicial intervention in mitigating administrative errors and ensuring adherence to
legal norms?

4. What practical mechanisms and strategies can be proposed to enhance the efficacy of judicial
review in minimizing administrative fallibility, including potential legislative reforms,
procedural enhancements, and strategies for fostering constructive engagement between the
judiciary and administrative agencies?
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENSURES
CONSTITUTIONAL OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES

Administrative action refers to actions that are not legislative or judicial in nature. It deals with
specific situations and lacks generality. It does not involve the collection of evidence or the
weighing of arguments. Instead, it is based on subjective satisfaction and decisions are made
based on policy and expediency. While administrative action does not determine rights, it can
still have an impact on them. However, this does not mean that the principles of natural justice
can be completely disregarded when administrative authorities exercise their powers. Unless
the law states otherwise, the minimum principles of natural justice must always be followed,
taking into account the specific circumstances of each case. In the case of A.K. Kraipak v.
Union of India, the Court held that in order to ascertain whether the action of the administrative
authority is quasi-judicial or administrative, one must consider the nature of the power
bestowed, the recipient of the power, the framework in which the power is granted, and the
resulting outcomes.

Judicial review of administrative action is a mechanism for ensuring that administrative

authorities adhere to constitutional principles when exercising their responsibilities. It
originated in England and was subsequently adopted in common law countries. India also
adopted the concept of judicial review from England. India established its legal framework
based on English prerogative, following a pattern set by the court of King's Bench. This was
done to ensure that officials and authorities adhere to the law when carrying out judicial or non-
judicial duties. Judicial Review is a powerful tool used to scrutinise and prevent the
implementation of arbitrary, unfair, oppressive, and unconstitutional laws. Judicial review is
the fundamental principle of constitutionalism, which signifies the concept of a government
with restricted powers. While administrative action is discretionary and relies on subjective
judgement, the administrative authority is nevertheless required to act honestly, impartially,
and reasonably. During the process of judicial review, the courts analyse legislative and
executive actions to identify the underlying rationale and purpose of a law. They modify and
refine the law, highlighting its appropriateness and subtleties, eliminating flaws, and
invalidating unlawful actions. Most importantly, they exercise significant moral influence to
restrain expedient actions. The development of administrative law resulted in a significant
augmentation of the authority wielded by administrative bodies. There is a well-known saying
that states "absolute power corrupts absolutely." With great power also comes great
responsibility. Therefore, it is necessary to monitor the actions of administrative agencies, and
the most effective method is through judicial control, which surpasses the effectiveness of
executive and administrative control.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Judicial review administrative action is a necessary component of ensuring that administrative

agencies adhere to constitutional discipline while performing their duties. It originated in
England and was subsequently adopted in common law countries. India also adopted the
concept of judicial review from England. India established its framework based on English
prerogative, following the pattern set by the court of King's Bench. This pattern ensured that
officials and authorities, whether executing judicial or non-judicial functions, adhered to the
law under the court's supervision. Judicial review is a powerful tool used to scrutinise and
evaluate laws that are arbitrary, unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional. Judicial review is the
fundamental principle of constitutionalism, which signifies the concept of a Government with
restricted powers. Administrative action can be categorised as either statutory, meaning it has
the authority of law, or non-statutory, meaning it lacks legal authority. The majority of
administrative action is based on statutory authority, meaning that it is legally mandated by a
legislation or the Constitution. However, there are instances where administrative action may
be non-statutory, such as when issuing non-binding instructions to subordinates. Despite not
having the force of law, violating these instructions may nonetheless result in disciplinary
consequences. While administrative action is generally discretionary and subjective, it is
essential for the administrative power to operate honestly, impartially, and reasonably. During
the process of judicial review, the courts analyse legislative and executive actions to identify
the underlying rationale and interpretation of the law. They modify and adapt the law,
highlighting its appropriateness and subtleties, resolving any inconsistencies, invalidating
unjust laws or illegal actions, and most importantly, exercising significant moral influence to
restrain expedient behaviour.

The recognition of administrative law as an independent field of legal study occurred in India
around the mid-20th century. Up to the 19th century, the state had very few and restricted
responsibilities. These were maintaining public order, handling foreign affairs, and managing
the armed forces. Currently, the situation has undergone significant changes. The state
significantly intervenes in the lives of its citizens in order to safeguard the public and uphold
law and order. Administrative activities refer to the actions that are conducted in accordance
with administrative law. An administrative action refers to a legal action that pertains to the
behaviour or actions of a public administrative entity. This type of behaviour has the potential
to prompt an authority figure to engage in a specific course of action. While it may have an
impact on a right, it does not determine what is right. The standards of natural justice must be
upheld when executing administrative [Link] administrative action means power of
taking an action being administratively discreet1. It denotes the power or right to perform an
action or make a discretionary decision. The administrative authority that possesses
discretionary power has the freedom to use its judgement and make decisions. He is not
obligated to issue an order if there is no legal requirement for him to do so. If he considers it
necessary or if he is confident in the promptness of the official action, he has the freedom to
act. He is under no obligation to provide justification for his actions, nor can he be compelled
to defend them in a court of law. His responsibility lies only to his superiors and the
Government2.

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINSTRATIVE ACTION

The process of judicial review of administration is essentially the core of administrative law. It
is undoubtedly the most suitable approach for investigating the legal capability of a public
entity. The judicial process can examine various aspects of an official decision or administrative
act. These include the public authority's competence, the legal powers of the authority, the
fairness and adequacy of the procedure followed, the evidence considered in making the
decision, the underlying motives, and the extent of discretionary power. Judicial oversight of
administrative activity offers essential protections against the misuse of authority. Given that
our Constitution was established on the fundamental principles of the rule of law, the authors
of the Constitution made genuine attempts to include specific provisions that would empower
the courts to exert effective oversight over administrative actions. Administrative action
include both statutory and non-statutory activities that are subject to judicial scrutiny through
various means. In such cases, the appropriate remedy may be to issue a suitable writ. Judicial

1
Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh, (2004) 2 SCC 590
2
M.C. Jain Kagzi, The Indian Administrative Law, (2002) 98.
review refers to the examination conducted by the courts to verify the legality of administrative
measures. legislation grant administrative authority powers, which must be exercised within
the prescribed limits set by those legislation. Two The courts have the power to invalidate the
actions of the legislative and executive if the administrative body is determined to have violated
the provisions of the Constitution. The American Supreme Court is responsible for originating
and developing the concept of judicial review, even though the American Constitution does not
explicitly provide for it. Marbury v. Madison established the unequivocal authority of the
Supreme Court to exercise judicial review. Chief Justice Marshall asserted that the framers of
the written constitution viewed it as the fundamental and supreme law of the nation. According
to this approach, any legislative action that contradicts the Constitution is considered invalid.
When there is a contradiction between the Constitution and the Acts passed by the legislature,
the Courts adhere to the Constitution and pronounce the acts as Unconstitutional.5 During the
process of review, the reviewing authority does not assess the quality or validity of the
judgement. However, in the case of an appeal, the appellate authority has the power to examine
the merits of the decision. De Smith argues that judicial review is inherently intermittent and
peripheral. In judicial review, the courts examine administrative action based on the principle
of supra vires.

The Supreme Court, which is the highest court at the central level, and the High Courts, which
are at the state level, have the authority to examine administrative activities using several writs
such as habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto. These powers are
granted to them by Article 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, respectively. The writs which
we follow in India have been borrowed from England where they have a long history of
development; consequently, they have gathered several technicalities.3 Indian courts typically
adhere to the procedural aspects of English law.

Nevertheless, the Indian Constitution's fundamental provisions are expressed in such a

comprehensive manner that they imply Indian judicial bodies are not obligated to adhere to the
intricacies of English Law regarding different types of writs. However, in reality, the Indian
courts are mostly influenced by the English method. The idea of ultra-vires or excess of
jurisdiction has its historical roots in England. It serves as the basis for the practice of judicial
review. The tribunal's efforts to apply this limited idea to contemporary challenges in the
administrative process have incorporated certain complexities and contrivances into the statute

3
A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 440: (1995) 1 S.C.R. 250.
governing judicial review. Courts consider written authority as a supervisory measure and do
not consider it equivalent to an appeal from the relevant entity to the court. The ultra vires
doctrine serves as an intermediate approach to judicial review, falling between appellate review
and complete absence of review. During an appeal, the authority hearing the appeal has the
power to not only overturn the administrative decision, but also to consider the validity of the
decision made by the appealing authority and replace it with its own judgement. However, in
the case of ultra vires, the courts are only able to invalidate the administrative decision if it
goes beyond the authority's power. In order to avoid discussing the merits of the case or
influencing its behaviour in accordance with the law and the courts. Consequently, an appeal
on a point of law or fact has a wider scope and the court's authority is expanded. Hence, the
intermediate evaluation, whose extent is not always clear, generates ambiguity in
administrative measures that involve judicial intervention.

In State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh4,the Court held that, judicial review of administrative
action under Arts. 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution is valid, judicial review of
administrative actions is an essential part of the rule of law.

In Federation of Railway officers Association & others v. Union of India, 5the Supreme Court
observed that, where a policy evolved is inconsistent with the Indian Constitution and the law
is arbitrary or irrational or its leads to abuse of power, the court will interfere with such matters
because judicial review of administrative actions is an essential part of rule of law.

In the case of Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa,6 the court stated that it can interfere in
the contract given by government to avoid any malafide intention and to avoid the favoritism
of government towards some influential people.

In the case of Union of India v. S.S. Ahluwalia,7 the court stated that in the case of penalty
that are imposed on the basis of disciplinary action are limited, the court could only interfere
when the punishment given for the charges alleged may be not suitable.

4
,AIR 2001 SC 2337.
5
AIR 2003 SC 1344.
6
AIR 2007 SC 119.
7
AIR 2007 SC 2952.
LEGAL BASIS FOR CHALLENGING VIA WRITS

The doctrine of ultra-vires

An examination of judicial power revolves around the issue of the extent to which courts can
scrutinise the decisions or actions of administrative authorities, as opposed to those of appeal
in review processes. In order to find a solution to this inquiry, it is crucial to analyse the subject
in terms of its historical context and the forces that have influenced and moulded it.
Additionally, it is important to consider the prevailing values and opinions that have fostered
it, the range of circumstances in which it must function, and the level of progress it has attained.
In India, the law concerning the judicial review of administrative action has historically been
based on common law. This means that the ordinary courts have the authority to regulate and
limit the powers of public bodies. As a result, the matters that were brought before borough
tribunals were transferred to the king's court in Westminster from the very beginning. The
superior courts once exerted stringent oversight over the peace judges, who were responsible
for a broad array of tasks such as highway maintenance, bridge construction, and other
administrative affairs. In 1888, the majority of the administrative functions held by peace
justices were given to local authorities. However, the courts still maintained a similar level of
supervision over these authorities. While the courts had the authority to control the lesser courts
and tribunals, they also had the right to determine and enforce the appropriate jurisdiction of
these lower courts within their own jurisdiction.

The concept of jurisdiction, also referred to as "ultra-vires," was initially established to define
a certain area where subordinate tribunals have complete authority but are prohibited from
exceeding its boundaries. The idea of jurisdiction encompasses a division between cases in
which a tribunal exercises its authority within its jurisdiction and cases in which it exercises
authority beyond its jurisdiction. Judicial power is only relevant in the latter type of cases. The
theory of jurisdiction that determines the reviewability of administrative action is commonly
referred to as "ultra vires" and is based on the concept of want or excess jurisdiction.

The supra vires theory, as elucidated by Lord Selbourne L.C. It is important for the
interpretation and enforcement of laws to be sensible and not unreasonable. Additionally,
everything that can be legitimately considered as related to or resulting from the items passed
by the Legislature should not be considered beyond the scope of their authority. An evident
illustration of the supra vires concept occurred when the London Country Council, which has
legal jurisdiction to purchase and operate trams, ranked omnibuses. The House of Lords
determined that the London County Council did not have the authority to operate omnibuses
that were not directly related to tramway operations. In a similar manner, a local government
that has the power to obtain land that is not classified as a "park, garden, or pleasure ground"
exceeds its authority by acquiring land that is actually part of a park. Thus, the probability of
judicial review hinges on whether there is a discernible occurrence of an excessive exercise of
authority. The ruling in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission,8 which
established that any error in the application of the law might affect the authority of a court or
commission, has significantly changed the circumstances. As far as mistakes of law are
concerned, the distinction between jurisdictional errors and non-jurisdictional errors has been
abandoned. However, that was not confirmed or proven. In the case of Pari man v. Harrow
School's Keepers and Governors,9 Lord Denning M.R. argued that, after the Anisminic case,
there was no longer a difference between errors within the legal authority and errors beyond
the legal authority. In the case of S.E Asia Fire Bricks v. Non-Metallic Union,10 the Privy
Council decisively dismissed the notion that the differentiation between intra-vires mistakes
and ultra-vires errors had been discarded.

The principle of jurisdiction theoretically limits the courts to exercising only their authorised
powers. However, in practice, they have increasingly become involved in the central aspects
of the subject matter by intervening based on reasons such as unreasonableness, bad faith,
extraneous considerations, unfairness, manifest injustice, and fair play. All of those heads of
challenge were categorised under the single principle of supra vires. In administrative law, the
doctrine of ultra-vires is the fundamental principle. The control of administrative actions is
seen as the cornerstone of judicial authority. Ultra-vires pertains to actions that lie outside the
purview or jurisdiction of decision-making entities. In administrative law, the fundamental
doctrine is the doctrine of ultra-vires. Judicial power is fundamentally based on the control of
administrative actions. Ultra vires refers to actions that are outside the jurisdiction or authority
of decision-making organisations. For instance, in the case of R. v. Hill University11 Visitors
exparte, Lord Brown Wilkinson has adopted the traditional ultra-vires doctrine. When a
decision-maker acts in a manner that is procedurally illegal or unfair according to the
Wednesbury principle, while exceeding the authority entrusted to them, they are acting supra

8
(1969) A.C. 147.
9
(1979) Q.B. 56.
10
(1981) A.C. 363.
11
(1993) 2 A.C. 237.
vires and hence unlawfully. The doctrine of ultra vires aligns to some extent with the principle
of the rule of law. Consequently, many today consider the definition of ultra vires as an
inadequate justification for judicial review. Hence, the opposing perspective suggests that
instead of relying on conjecture regarding the intent of Parliament or the intricacies of
jurisdictional evidence and legal errors, the courts should intervene whenever there is an
unconstitutional exercise of power. According to Dawn Oliver, the focus of judicial review has
shifted from examining whether a statute is outside the legal authority to now being concerned
with protecting rights and regulating the exercise of authorities.

REMEDIES AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

In modern democratic countries such as India, the delegation of broad discretionary powers to
administrative bodies frequently leads to decision-making procedures that lack explicit norms,
resulting in subjectivity and possible discrepancies. Therefore, it is crucial to establish
regulations on discretionary powers in order to guarantee the uniform implementation of the
'rule of law' in all government operations. Lord Dyson has highlighted that the maintenance of
the rule of law is a key concept in our legal system. Judicial review, as a constitutional
safeguard, plays a crucial role in safeguarding this ideal. Judicial review of administrative
activities, conducted through the mechanism of writ jurisdiction, is an essential method to
examine the legality, logic, appropriateness, justice, and reasonableness of decisions taken by
authorities. The Indian Constitution explicitly includes provisions for judicial review through
writs in Articles 32 and 226. This fundamental aspect of the legal system allows individuals to
use the constitution as a basis to dispute administrative actions that are seen as unfair or illegal.

Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution provide mechanisms for the implementation of
basic rights and the examination of administrative activities by the judiciary, respectively, by
means of writs. The Supreme Court and High Courts are authorised by the constitution to
exercise prerogative writs, such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo
warranto. These writs are intended to protect the fundamental rights outlined in Part III of the
Constitution. Habeas corpus is a legal tool used to remedy illegal detention by requiring the
detainee to be brought before a court. On the other hand, mandamus grants higher courts the
power to force public bodies to complete their duties. Quo warranto is used to question the
validity of individuals in public positions who lack proper authority, while prohibition serves
as a precautionary tool to control the abuses of inferior judicial bodies. In addition, certiorari
functions as a corrective process that allows higher courts to address jurisdictional errors or
legal fallacies made by subordinate courts or tribunals. The importance of these writs resides
in their ability to guarantee responsibility, openness, and compliance with legal standards inside
the administrative system. The writ jurisdiction acts as a safeguard against arbitrary exercises
of authority by bringing administrative actions to judicial scrutiny. This helps to uphold the
fundamental ideals of democracy and the rule of law. Furthermore, the presence of these
constitutional remedies emphasises the principle of "ubi jus ibi remedium" - meaning that
where there is a right, there is a remedy - confirming the inseparability of rights and remedies
in the legal domain. Essentially, the extensive structure of judicial review via writs highlights
the crucial function of the judiciary in maintaining constitutional principles, promoting
effective governance, and safeguarding personal freedoms in a democratic society.

Judicial review of administrative action is a crucial element of Administrative Law. The

concept is inherent in our constitutional framework, which is founded on the principles of the
rule of law and the separation of powers. The core element of our Constitution is deemed to be
inviolable, and cannot be abolished even through the exercise of parliamentary constituent
authority.12 Administrative law is the primary means of addressing and preventing abuses of
power by administrative bodies. It is essential for upholding legal limits and protecting the
rights and interests of citizens. There is a recommendation to produce a single, precise
definition of administrative law that accurately represents current trends and can effectively
guide future applications. The active participation of the public is crucial in developing
administrative laws and processes for the benefit of society. Legislative measures should be
implemented to guarantee the effective functioning of tribunals, enabling the provision of
accessible and expeditious justice. The codification of administrative law is crucial for ensuring
transparency and effectiveness in administrative operations. Authorities must exercise their
discretionary powers in a manner that is both sincere and authorised, demonstrating rationality
and impartiality. In addition, the judiciary must consistently develop new rules and criteria to
avoid the improper use of administrative discretion.
Judicial review and extent

The constitutional manner of judicial review is provided for under articles 32, 136, 226, and
227. The finality clause contained in the statute and articulated in any language cannot exclude

12
AIR 1973 SC 1461
the availability of judicial review under these articles. The jurisdiction of the Court under article
32, 136, 226, and 227 cannot be superseded by any statute or ordinary laws, as the Constitution
of India grants them this authority. Therefore, no regular legislation has the power to restrict
the authority of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and 136, or the authority of the High Court
under Articles 226 and 227. The Supreme Court, in the case of Keshava Nanda Bharti v. State
of Kerala13, established that while the Parliament has the authority to modify the Constitution,
it is not permitted to dismantle or annul its fundamental structure or framework. Article 368
does not grant Parliament the power to abolish or remove a Fundamental right, or to completely
modify the fundamental characteristics of the Constitution in a way that would eliminate its
essence. Judicial review is an inherent right that cannot be revoked. The case of Indra Nehru
Gandhi v. Raj Narain 14
involved a challenge to the constitutionality of Clause (4) of Article
329-A, which was added to the Constitution by the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act of
1975. The argument was that this clause undermined the fundamental framework of the
Constitution. Clause (4) states that even if a court declares the election of the Prime Minister
or the Speaker of Parliament to be invalid, it will remain invalid in all aspects. Any court order
and any findings that led to that order will be considered null and void. This provision granted
Parliament the right to enact legislation establishing a specific institution or organisation
responsible for resolving any disputes pertaining to the election of the Prime Minister or
Speaker. It stipulates that the judgement of such authority or entity cannot be contested in court.
This clause was deemed unconstitutional and nullified due to its infringement upon the
principles of free and fair elections, democracy, and the rule of law, which are integral
components of the fundamental framework of the Constitution. If judicial review, democracy,
free and fair election, and rule of law were explicitly listed as fundamental elements of the
Constitution. Consequently, any Constitutional amendment that removes any of these rights
will be deemed unconstitutional and consequently invalid. Civil courts are granted the power
of non-constitutional judicial review through legislation, which means that this power can be
restricted or eliminated by the same legislation. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
grants Civil Courts the authority to hear and decide cases, unless their jurisdiction is explicitly
or implicitly prohibited. When a statute includes a language that excludes the jurisdiction of
Civil Courts, it is typically enforced if the statute itself is a comprehensive set of rules and
provides a remedy for the person who has been wronged or a way to resolve disputes. As a

13
A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461
14
1975 AIR 1590 1975 SCC (2) 159
result, any Constitutional amendment that removes any of these rights will be considered
unconstitutional and consequently invalid. Civil courts are granted the power of non-
constitutional judicial review through legislation, which means that this power can be restricted
or eliminated by the same legislation. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 grants Civil
Courts the authority to hear and decide lawsuits, unless their jurisdiction is specifically or
indirectly barred. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is typically implied when a
statute carrying an exclusion clause includes a comprehensive collection of rules that offers a
remedy for the aggrieved person or a means of settling disputes. The exclusion clause, ouster
clause, or finality clause does not preclude the jurisdiction of the Court in specific
circumstances. Firstly, regarding the constitutionality of the statute, if the statute containing the
exclusion clause is deemed unconstitutional, the Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate suits
challenging actions taken under it. Secondly, in cases of ultra vires administrative action, where
the authority exceeds its powers, the Court's jurisdiction remains intact. This applies not only
to substantive ultra vires but also procedural ultra vires actions. Similarly, in instances of
jurisdictional error or lack thereof, the exclusion clause does not limit the Court's jurisdiction.
Such errors include the assumption or misuse of jurisdiction by the authority. Non-compliance
with statutory provisions also fails to bar the Court's jurisdiction. Moreover, if an order is
challenged for violating the principles of natural justice, the ouster or exclusion clause cannot
prevent the Court from reviewing it. Finally, when a finality clause pertains to factual rather
than legal matters, the Court may still review the decision on questions of law.

CONCLUSION

Judicial review is the process by which the courts examine the administrative actions within
our constitutional system, ensuring they adhere to the principles of the rule of law and
separation of powers. The core feature of our Constitution is considered to be an essential
element that cannot be eliminated, even through the exercise of legislative constitutive
authority. It is the most efficient solution to address and prevent excessive administrative
actions. There is a prevailing sense of optimism among the public that when the administration
performs its duties or exercises its power, it does so in accordance with legislative norms and
the requirements of the Indian constitution. Unless there is a failure to exercise discretion or a
misuse of discretionary power for personal advantage, the only recourse available to the public
is to seek legal action through Article 32, Article 136, or Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
The primary objective of judicial regulation is to guarantee adherence to the laws established
by the government in accordance with the principles of the rule of law. There are inherent
problems in judicial regulation. It is more appropriate for resolving disputes rather than
carrying out administrative tasks. The executive is responsible for enforcing the law and
ensuring that the government fulfils its obligations according to the provisions of India's
constitution. In India, the scope of judicial review is extensive. However, the administration is
granted specific safeguards to exercise their discretion. However, the substantial authority
vested in administrative bodies and the concept of delegated law underscore the significance
and validity of judicial review. The concept of judicial review holds similar significance in the
context of America. Judicial review is of great importance to the American constitution. In our
country, judicial review has been enhanced via the development of case law. However, one
principle remains evident: the Finality Clause in our constitution grants the President the
authority to make final decisions in cases of controversy. Therefore, judicial review plays a
crucial role in ensuring the protection of both the general public and administrative officials.

Judicial scrutiny of administrative action is the central aspect of administrative law. It is a

highly effective method for investigating the legal capability of a public entity. Judicial review
is seen as a fundamental characteristic of our Constitution. Due to the significant expansion of
administrative authorities, judicial review has emerged as a crucial aspect of administrative
law. Judicial review primarily aims to safeguard the interests of its citizens by preventing the
abuse of authority or unlawful actions by administrative bodies. Given that our Constitution
was established on the fundamental principles of the rule of law, the architects of the
Constitution made genuine attempts to include specific provisions that would empower the
courts to effectively oversee administrative actions. Administrative action include both
statutory and non-statutory activities, which are susceptible to judicial scrutiny through various
means. The appropriate remedy in such cases may involve issuing a writ under Articles 32 and
226 of the Indian Constitution.
BIBLOGRAPHY:

[Link] SOBTI & SHUBHAM SAINI, The scope and extent of Judicial Review in
administrative action.

2.JUDICIAL_REVIEW_OF_ADMINISTRATIVE_ACTION_AN_ADMINIST
RATIVE_DECISION-MAKER'S_PERSPECTIVE

[Link]

3.[Link]
[Link]

[Link], D. R. (2022, July 24). Judicial review - iPleaders. iPleaders.

[Link]
[Link], M. (2020, August 21). The Judicial Review Review I: The Reform Agenda and its
Potential Scope. Public Law for Everyone.
[Link]
reform-agenda-and-its-potential-scope/