ABSTRACT:
A key component of administrative law is Judicial review. It is a vital tool for maintaining the balance of power guaranteeing governmental accountability and preserving the equilibrium of the power. This paper delves into the concept of judicial review within administrative law, focusing on its role as a mechanism for maintaining checks and balances in governmental power. It examines the ground of review that courts apply in determining whether administrative actions are lawful and constitutional, highlighting the importance of these standards in preserving democratic values and safeguarding individual rights. Looking at both historical and contemporary instances, this paper examines how judicial review has changed over time, how it has expanded to include non-constitutional issues, and how important it is to maintain justice, accountability, and fairness in government so that they do not act ultra vires. It investigates diverse methods of judicial review in various legal systems via a comparative lens, emphasizing the general applicability and range of uses of this essential legal concept. The study also examines the relationship between judicial review and the idea of separation of powers, explaining how the former protects the delicate balance of power between the several departments of government while the latter acts as a check against governmental excess. This article provides insights into the complex dynamics of judicial checks and balances in modern administrative law by critically analysing the grounds and criteria of review used by courts in diverse countries.
KEYWORDS:
Judicial review, administrative law, Check and balance, Ground for review, Ultra-vires, accountability, and fairness, non-constitutional, separation of power.
INTRODUCTION
Between the domains of legislative and judicial responsibilities, administrative law is a crucial subset of legal jurisprudence that regulates the operations of administrative bodies. Unlike legislative actions, which establish general laws, or judicial actions, which adjudicate specific disputes, administrative actions are tailored responses to individual situations. These actions, often involving discretionary decision-making, are characterized by subjective assessments based on policy considerations and expediency rather than strict legal requirements.
Administrative activities are subject to the natural justice standards even when they are discretionary. While they may not involve the rigorous procedural obligations typical of judicial proceedings, administrative authorities are expected to act fairly, impartially, and reasonably. This expectation guarantees people an appropriate level of procedural justice even when administrative power is exercised.
A significant aspect of administrative law lies in the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial actions. This distinction, elucidated in cases such as A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150), hinges on factors such as the nature of the power conferred, the authority to whom it is delegated, and the framework within which it is exercised. Such determinations are crucial in delineating the appropriate standards of review and procedural safeguards applicable to each type of action.
One essential tool for maintaining constitutional discipline and guaranteeing accountability within governmental bodies is judicial review of administrative actions. Rooted in English legal tradition, the concept of judicial review was inherited by India as a means to check arbitrary or unconstitutional exercises of power. It serves as a cornerstone of constitutionalism, asserting the supremacy of constitutional principles over governmental actions and safeguarding individual rights against governmental overreach.
In India, judicial review of administrative actions is empowered by the Constitution, notably through Articles 226 and 32, which grant the High Courts and the Supreme Court the authority to review administrative decisions. Through mechanisms such as writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition, courts are empowered to scrutinize administrative actions for illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and proportionality. This ensures that administrative agencies operate within the bounds of statutory provisions and constitutional principles.
The research and study of administrative law play a crucial role in reconciling the exercise of governmental power with individual liberties. By exploring the mechanisms through which administrative actions are governed and scrutinized, administrative law specialists contribute to the promotion of transparency, efficiency, and accountability in governance. Their focus on judicial control underscores the importance of administrative law in ensuring the legitimacy and fairness of administrative actions within a democratic framework.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The following literature reviews collectively offer a comprehensive understanding of the role of judicial review in administrative law. They provide a comparative analysis of the grounds of review and the checks and balances that ensure the legality and fairness of administrative actions across different jurisdictions. Below are some literature reviews on the same:
In the article titled “Examining Judicial Review” by Dr. Samuel Kline (2015), the author delves deeply into the complex concept of judicial review in the context of administrative law, emphasizing its critical role in maintaining the system of checks and balances in government operations. Dr. Samuel Kline explores how courts might examine administrative judgments and possibly overturn those that don’t follow established legal and constitutional guidelines. This procedure functions as a check and balance, guaranteeing that governmental activities are consistent with the values embodied in the law and the constitution by exposing administrative actions to judicial scrutiny.
“The Scope and Extent of Judicial Review in Administrative Action” by Prof. Laurea Mitchell (2016) explores the vast scope and extent of judicial review of administrative acts. Prof. Laurea contends that judicial review constitutes a cornerstone of the checks and balances mechanism vital for the efficacy of any democratic system. This study examines the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws and upholding the supremacy of constitutional values.
In “Enforcement Lawmaking and Judicial Review” an article by Dr. Benjamin Carter (2017) from the Harvard Law Review, where the author looks at how administrative jurisdiction and judicially created doctrinal safeguards can be combined to strengthen judicial review. Dr. Carter emphasizes the importance of the judiciary in weighing challenges to enforcement as well as the significant developments in the standing doctrine.
The study “Judicial Review in Comparative Perspective” by Prof. Henry Jacobs (2019) is a scholarly study that compares judicial review procedures across the globe, examining how different legal systems address the investigation of administrative action. Prof. Henry Jacobs clarifies the various judicial engagement levels and their impact on the delegation of power within governments.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This paper is of a descriptive nature and the research is based on secondary sources for deep analysis on the grounds of judicial review in administrative action. Secondary sources of information like journals, websites, etc. are used for the research.
THE BACKDROP
Administrative actions refer to the decisions and other legal steps taken by administrative bodies or government agencies in the course of their duties in short, these are the legal actions concerned with the conduct of public administrative bodies. Here the administrative bodies can be local or state or any other board appointed or elected to perform certain administrative functions/ roles within their statutory limits. Administrative actions directly affect the rights and obligations of individuals and businesses and are devoid of generality. Therefore administrative law provides a framework for ensuring fairness and legality in these interactions. Administrative action is further classified into 3 parts:
- Quasi-legislative: These actions involve creating rules or regulations with general applicability, similar to how the legislative makes laws.
- Quasi-judicial: These actions involve making decisions that affect specific rights and interests, often involving a hearing process.
- Purely Administrative: These actions involve day-to-day operations or management decisions within an agency’s discretion.
Although administrative action is determined by practicality and policy. Still, it does not mean that it can ignore the principle of natural justice while exercising its power unless the statute provides otherwise. To ensure that the principle of natural justice is followed and the authorities do not act ultra vires, judicial review is required. In the case of A.K Kripa v. Union of India, the court in order to determine whether the action of administrative authority is quasi-judicial or administrative it is necessary to consider the type of authority granted, the recipients of the authority, the context in which the authority is granted, and the outcomes.
Judicial review is therefore seen as a means of maintaining constitutional discipline over administrative entities as they carry out their functions.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial review of administrative action is a fundamental aspect of administrative law, serving as a vital mechanism to assess the legal competence of public authorities. The judicial process examines many aspects of official decisions or administrative actions, such as the public authority’s competence, the scope of its legal authority, the impartiality of the procedures it followed, the evidence it took into consideration, the underlying reasons, and the use of discretionary powers. Legislative, administrative, and judicial activities are all covered by judicial review in India. Several seminal cases have emphasized the need for judicial review in maintaining the rule of law. In the case of State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh, the court affirmed the validity of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing its essential role in maintaining the rule of law. Similarly, in Federation of Railway Officers Association & others v. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasized that judicial review becomes necessary when administrative policies are inconsistent with the Constitution, arbitrary, or lead to abuses of power.
Furthermore, in Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa, The court affirmed that it has the right to become involved in government contracts in order to stop corruption and favouritism. Similarly, in Union of India v. S.S. Ahluwalia, the court highlighted that judicial intervention in cases of disciplinary penalties is warranted when the punishment imposed is deemed unsuitable for the alleged charges.
The judicial oversight of administrative actions acts as a crucial safeguard against potential abuses of power. The Indian Constitution’s drafters recognized the value of judicial review in upholding the rule of law and included clauses that give courts the authority to properly oversee government acts. This control covers both statutory and non-statutory operations, which may be the subject of various judicial review processes that could result in the issuing of the necessary writs. The concept of judicial review of administrative action involves the courts reviewing the decisions and actions of administrative agencies to ensure they comply with the law, including constitutional principles. This process serves as a mechanism to maintain constitutional discipline over administrative agencies, which wield significant power in implementing and enforcing laws.
When administrative agencies exercise their powers, they must do so within the boundaries set by the Constitution and relevant statutes. Judicial review acts as a safeguard to prevent agencies from overstepping their authority or violating constitutional rights. By subjecting administrative actions to scrutiny, the courts can ensure that agencies act within the limits of their delegated authority and do not infringe on individual rights or exceed their statutory mandates.
Through judicial review, courts can assess the legality, procedural fairness, and rationality of administrative decisions. This oversight helps uphold the rule of law, promote accountability, and protect individuals from arbitrary or unlawful actions by government agencies. Judicial review also plays a vital role in maintaining the separation of powers by checking the exercise of executive authority and ensuring that administrative agencies act in accordance with legal norms and constitutional principles.
Overall, judicial review of administrative action is a fundamental aspect of the legal system in ensuring the legality, fairness, and accountability of administrative actions, that helps enforce constitutional discipline over administrative bodies, ensuring that they operate upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights and interests of citizens within the framework of the law and respect the rights and interests of individuals.
GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
The legal precepts known as the grounds of review in administrative law enable judges to supervise the decisions and acts of administrative authorities to verify that they are lawful, just, fair, and reasonable.:
Legality: This makes sure that decisions are made within the parameters of legal authority is the main goal of this review process. It confirms that those with the power to make decisions stay within the boundaries of their legal authority and do not abuse or overuse it. When a decision’s legality is questioned, the court looks at two things: whether the decision was made legally and whether the person making it had the proper authority. A jurisdictional error is when the authority acts outside of their legal authority. This can happen when an administrative body makes a decision based on a legislation that doesn’t apply to them or doesn’t follow the proper processes.
Procedural Fairness: Procedural fairness, also referred to as the natural justice principles, is concerned more with the fairness of the decision-making process than the outcome itself. It embodies two fundamental ideas.
- The principle known as the Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem) states that every person who may be impacted by a decision must have the opportunity to be heard before the decision is made. This entails being made aware of the allegations made against them and being given a reasonable chance to defend themselves.
- The Nemo Judex in Causa Sua, or the Bias Rule: This idea forbids decision-makers from having an interest in the result, ensuring fairness in the process. If there is a reasonable belief of prejudice, either real or imagined, decisions can be questioned.
Reasonableness: Reasonability: The result of the decision-making process is evaluated according to this condition. It determines if, under the given situation, a reasonable person might have reached the same conclusion. A well-known criterion is the Wednesbury unreasonableness test, which asks if a decision is so irrational that no reasonable person could have made it. This could happen if the choice is based mostly on unimportant considerations, ignores important ones, or is wildly out of proportion to the goals being sought..
In the 1984 case of Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister of Civil Service, Lord Diplock of England provided the aforementioned grounds for judicial review.
- Jurisdictional Error: Errors related to jurisdiction can result from overuse, misuse, or deficiency of the power to make decisions. An authority is said to be in lack of jurisdiction when it lacks the authority to decide, to be in excess when it goes beyond its authority, and to be abused when its authority is abused.
- Irrationality (Wednesbury Test): Decisions must be reasonable, and under the “Wednesbury test,” courts step in when decisions are so morally repugnant or illogical that no reasonable person could have made them. This is known as irrationality.
- Procedural impropriety: It refers to the disregard for established protocols, which may include statutory guidelines and principles of justice. Individuals are guaranteed to be heard and informed of any accusations made against them under procedural fairness.
- Proportionality: Administrative activities shouldn’t be overly aggressive; rather, they should be in line with their goals. Courts evaluate whether the activity and its goal have a reasonable relationship.
- Legitimate Expectations: This theory shields people from being taken advantage of by public authorities who break agreements or policies. When people rely on the representations given by authority, legitimate expectations are created. Conduct could call for court involvement.
JUDICIAL CHECK AND BALANCE
In democratic governance, the division of state authority into three separate branches—legislative, executive, and judicial is known as the separation of powers principle. This division is maintained via checks and balances, which guarantee that each branch functions within its assigned area of influence.
Because it acts as a check on whether the legislative and executive branches of government are acting in conformity with the Constitution, judicial review is an essential component of a democracy’s system of checks and balances. This oversight function helps prevent any branch of government from overstepping its constitutional authority and encroaching on the powers of other branches.
Any statutes or orders from the legislative or executive branches that conflict with Part III of the Constitution may be declared unlawful by the judiciary under Article 13. This authority guarantees that the government’s activities respect the fundamental rights that all citizens are entitled to. The judicial branch is empowered by Articles 32 and 226 to issue writs, orders, or directions against executive activities to ensure legal standards are followed and accountability is maintained. Article 124 outlines the process for dismissing judges from the higher judiciary and highlights the importance of parliamentary scrutiny in upholding judicial integrity. These articles help to preserve checks and balances because they guarantee the independence of the court, offer judicial review procedures, and define the boundaries of governmental authority.
In order to protect individual rights and liberties, the concept of checks and balances is crucial in preventing the consolidation of power in any one branch of the government. Because it gives the judiciary the power to examine and possibly invalidate laws or actions that are judged unconstitutional, judicial review serves as a check on the legislative and executive departments. The deliberate fusion of separation of powers and check and balance contributes to the preservation of the balance of power between the three arms of government by giving the court the ability to interpret and apply the Constitution. It protects the rule of law by making sure that decisions made by the legislative and executive branches are in line with the ideals and ideas stated in the Constitution.
Through judicial review, the judiciary acts as a neutral arbiter that can hold the other branches of government accountable for their actions. This oversight function helps prevent abuses of power, protects individual rights, and promotes the overall stability and integrity of the democratic system.
In essence, by giving the judiciary the ability to examine and possibly overturn laws or actions that are inconsistent with the Constitution, judicial review essentially strengthens the system of checks and balances in a democracy by guaranteeing that no branch of government is allowed to act beyond its constitutional limits.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the research on judicial checks and balances in administrative law emphasizes how important judicial review is to ensure the legitimacy, accountability, and fairness of governmental activities. Through an analytical examination of various grounds of review and comparative analysis of the judicial system, this research underscores the importance of maintaining a delicate balance of power among different branches of government. Judicial review emerges as a fundamental pillar of constitutionalism, upholding the supremacy of constitutional principles and safeguarding individual rights against potential government overreach. Furthermore, this study highlights the symbiotic relationship between judicial review and the separation of power, emphasizing how judicial review protects the independence and integrity of each branch of government while acting as a check on government abuses. Overall, by highlighting the complex relationship between judicial review and governmental responsibility, this research makes a substantial contribution to the field of administrative law.
NAME: ASTHA GUPTA
PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF LAW
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA