Administrative Law Project Work

Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University,

Session:2022-2023

VIth Semester

Project Work
Topic: Judicial Review of Administrative Action

Submitted by:
Name: Prerana Singh

Roll no: 20BALLB084

Enrollment no: GK9050

Submitted to:
Dr Sem Farooqi (Assistant Professor)

Administrative Law

Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 1

 Administrative Law Project Work

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In preparation for my assignment, I had to take the help and guidance of some respected persons,
who deserve my deepest gratitude. As the completion of this assignment gave me much pleasure,
I would like to show my gratitude to Dr. Sem Farooqi for giving me a good guideline for the
assignment throughout numerous consultations. I would also like to extend my gratitude to all
those who have directly and indirectly guided me in writing this assignment.

Many people, especially my classmates, have made valuable comment suggestions on my paper
which inspired me to improve the quality of the assignment.

Prerana Singh

20BALLB084 (Sec-B)

GK9050

Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 2

 Administrative Law Project Work

Synopsis
 Introduction
 What is Judicial review of administrative action?
 Principles of Judicial Review of Administrative Action
 Legitimate Expectation Doctrine
 Doctrine of Public Accountability
 Doctrine of Proportionality
 Grounds for Judicial Review in India
 Modes of Judicial Review of Administrative Action
 Power of Supreme Court under Article 32
 Power of High Court under Article 226
▫ Habeas Corpus
▫ Mandamus writ
▫ Quo Warranto
▫ Prohibition
▫ Certiorari

Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 3

 Administrative Law Project Work

Introduction
Before we understand what judicial review in administrative action is, it is important to know what
administrative action is. “Administrative actions are those that are carried out in accordance with
administrative law, which regulates the authority's powers and responsibilities.” Legal proceedings
involving a public administrative body are referred to as administrative actions.

These acts defend the general populace and uphold social order. It is an activity that is neither
judicial nor legislative in nature. Natural justice rules must always be followed while exercising
administrative authority, albeit they may vary based on the circumstances of each instance. These
actions compel authorities to act or not act 1.

Judicial review

Judicial review is known as a fundamental need for the development of modern societies to protect
individual liberties and rights. The High Courts and Supreme Courts of India hold much of India's
judicial review powers. Judicial review basically refers to the power of a court to review the
workings of government agencies, mainly the ability to announce legislative and executive action
to be "unconstitutional."

“Judicial review in India basically deals with 3 kinds of reviews:

 Judicial Review of Legislative Actions;

 Judicial Review of Administrative Actions;
 Judicial review of Judicial Actions.”

1
Law Bhoomi, https://lawbhoomi.com/administrative-actions-meaning-nature-scope-and-
significance/#:~:text=Meaning%20of%20Administrative%20Actions,-
Administrative%20actions%20are&text=An%20administrative%20actions%20are%20those,and%20not%20a%20ju
dicial%20action. (last visited April 10, 2023).

Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 4

 Administrative Law Project Work

What is Judicial review of administrative action?

“Judicial review of administrative action is an aspect of maintaining the administrative agencies'
constitutional restraints while they exercise their authority. It originated in England and spread to
nations under common law. The concept of judicial review was introduced to India by England as
well. To exert universal supervision over the proper compliance of the law by officials/authorities
while executing judicial or non-judicial tasks, India has based its structure on the English
prerogative with the pattern that was provided by the court of King's Bench. A powerful tool for
checking arbitrary, unfair, harassing, and unconstitutional legislation is judicial review.
Constitutionalism, which indicates limited government, is based on judicial scrutiny 2.”

The first case involving judicial review was “Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala and Anr.”3
on April 24, 1973. The Supreme Court's momentous decision first described the Constitution's
fundamental structure theory. According to the basic structural philosophy, the Parliament cannot
amend or change the constitution.

The Supreme Court of India declared in a historic decision on January 11, 2007, that all legislation
(even those under the 9th Schedule) would be subject to scrutiny if they breached fundamental
principles of the Indian Constitution, 1950.

“‘BASIC STRUCTURE’ included the Supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law,
Independence of the Judiciary, Doctrine of Separation of Powers, Federalism, Secularism,
Sovereign, Democratic, the parliamentary system of Government, the principle of free and fair
elections and Welfare State.4” Despite not being explicitly stated in the Constitution, the notion of
basic structure suggests that parliament has the authority to modify the Constitution.

In the judgment case A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India5, “the court held that to determine whether
an administrative authority's action is administrative or quasi-judicial, one must look at the nature

2
Legal Service India, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1979-judicial-review-of-administrative-
actions-an-overview.html (last visited April 10, 2023).

3
4
Law Bhoomi, https://lawbhoomi.com/judicial-review-of-administrative-action/ (last visited April 10, 2023).
5
AIR 1970 SC 150.
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 5
 Administrative Law Project Work

of the power granted, the recipients of the power, the context in which the power is granted, and
the consequences.”

Principles of Judicial Review of Administrative Action

Legitimate Expectation Doctrine

The concept of a legitimate expectation falls under public law. When people are unable to support
their claims legally, it is advocated to provide them with relief. Due to the breach of their legitimate
expectation, they had to incur a civil consequence. Since Lord Denning first coined the phrase
"legitimate expectation" in 1969, it has come to be regarded in almost every jurisdiction as a key
principle of public law.

The argument was also used in the case of SC and WS Welfare Association v. State of Karnataka6
in which the government had published a notice indicating the locations of the introduction of the
slum clearing program. A later amendment to the notification left out some of the places that had
originally been notified. According to the court, realistic expectations cannot be dismissed without
a fair hearing since previous notification had raised them in residents but had been ignored in a
later notification. Therefore, the administrative body cannot dismiss a person's legitimate
expectations without providing a fair hearing if such expectations do not amount to an enforceable
right.

Doctrine of Public Accountability

The Public Accountability principle is now the most significant new area of administrative law.
The primary goal of the doctrine's creation is for the curtailment of rising abuse of power
administration and to swiftly assist people who may have been caused harm. Because of this, the
trustee who earns himself by dishonest methods keeps the assets he has obtained as a constructive
trustee.

6
(1988) 4 SCC 669: AIR 1989 SC 49.
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 6
 Administrative Law Project Work

The court concluded in State of Bihar v. Subash Singh7 that the Head’s Department is ultimately
liable and answerable unless there are extraordinary circumstances exonerating him from the
liability.

The Supreme Court went on to say that regardless of whether there is a hierarchy making of
decision, the Department’s head or other appointed person is liable for outcome of action taken.

Doctrine of Proportionality

Administrative law's principle of proportionality is a contentious topic that hasn't been fully and
definitively resolved. According to the principle of proportionality, no action should be taken that
is more extreme than is necessary to achieve the intended outcome. According to the principle of
proportionality, a course of action should not be too harsh or otherwise unreasonable.

The court is “concerned with the manner in which the Administrator has arranged his priorities,
the very basis of decision-making rests, obviously, in the assigning of relative weight to the
variables in the case”, according to the definition of this principle.

Since fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, courts have traditionally
assessed whether a restriction on their exercise is justifiable using the proportionality standard.
The court left this issue unresolved in Union of India v. G. Ganayutham8 in 1997 because it was
unnecessary for the case's outcome because neither side had alleged a breach of basic rights.

Administrative law's heart is, in a way, the judiciary's review of administration. It is doubtless an
approach to decide the legitimacy of the public administration. The ability of public authority is
the feature of an administrative act that the judicial process might examine.

Grounds for Judicial Review in India

The idea of administrative law is the “doctrine-ultra-vires.” Controlling administrative activity is
considered the cornerstone of judicial control. Acts that are excessive or beyond the control of a
surrogate are called ‘ultra-vires'.

7
(1987) 1 SCC 746.
8
0 (1997) 7 SCC 463.
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 7
 Administrative Law Project Work

“These are the grounds for judicial review in India:

 Jurisdictional Error;
 Irrationality;
 Procedural Impropriety;
 Proportionality;
 Legitimate Expectation.”

In the judgement of the case “Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister of Civil Service” 9, Lord
Diplock of England provided the judicial review grounds. (1984). Even though they are not all-
inclusive, these judicial review grounds give the courts a solid foundation on which to execute
their authority.’

Modes of Judicial Review of Administrative Action

The India’s Supreme Court and the High Courts have power to issue writs. In India, is the most
common way for objection to an administrative action and seek remedy from the Administration
is through writ petitions in the High Court, under Article 226.

There are 5 types of remedies available for the judicial review of administrative actions under
Article 32, and Article 226 of the Constitution of India and these are:

 Habeas Corpus
 Mandamus writ
 Quo Warranto
 Prohibition
 Certiorari

9
Desi Kanoon- Your Daily Dose of Law, https://www.desikanoon.co.in/ (last visited April 10, 2023).

Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 8

 Administrative Law Project Work

Power of Supreme Court under Article 32

Without a remedy, a right has no real value. If the Constitution had not established a reliable system
for upholding them, the Fundamental Rights protected by articles 12 to 35 would have been
worthless.

It is a well-established legal principle that a person wronged by a judicial decision must seek
redress from a superior tribunal, if one exists. This ruling cannot be overturned by filing an
application for a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. Only when an infringement of right
granted by Part 3rd of the Constitution can be shown may relief under Article 32 be granted. A
petition u/Ar. 32 of Constitution cannot be maintained, if the right asserted has been negated by a
court with competent jurisdiction. It is not typically thought that a court's judgement would
necessarily violate a party's basic rights.

Article 13 says that Fundamental Rights are obligatory and those law’s those conflicts with any
Fundamental Right is unconstitutional. The crucial clause is Article 13, which establishes the
legality of fundamental rights. Courts are given the authority, responsibility, and obligation to
declare a statute invalid if it conflicts with a Fundamental Right under Article 13. The courts have
enormous power over this. The judiciary's function as a "sentinel on the qui vive10," in the words
of the Supreme Court, has been described in this way.

Power of High Court Under Article 226

Article 226 of the Indian Constitution plays a very crucial role in India's overall system of judicial
review of administrative action. An essential avenue for judicial review of administrative action is
provided under Article 226. Most judicial reviews of administrative action are conducted in
accordance with this constitutional clause. The most common way to contest an administrative
decision and achieve remedy against the Administration is through any writ petition in any High
Court under article 226. The writ system stated in Article 226 of the Constitution is the best way
for requesting judicial review of administrative action.

10
State of Madras v V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 9
 Administrative Law Project Work

The High Courts' competence under Article 226 is remedial in character, not appellate, as the
Supreme Court has often emphasized. The main goal of the authority is to allow the High Courts
to maintain the country's numerous authorities within the parameters of their authority, not to act
as a body of appeal for them.

Article 226 procedures do not take the place of an appeal. The High Court during exercising writ
jurisdiction doesn’t preside the State Government's decisions like an appellate body, as the
Supreme Court has emphasized once more. Therefore, the High Court is unable to discuss the
validity of the judgement made by the relevant authorities11.

 Habeas Corpus

A "guarantee of civil liberties" or a "great constitutional privilege" have been used to characterize
the illustrious writ of habeas corpus. Unlawful confinement can be quickly and effectively
addressed by injunctions. By issuing this directive, a court orders the person or entity who made
the arrest to bring the victim's body into the courtroom so that the judge can assess the legality,
jurisdiction, and reason of the arrest. This letter's main goal is to secure a prompt court examination
of any suspected cases of liberal or free detention of inmates 12.

In India, if detention be illegal, among other things, it isn’t authorized by the process of law for
detaining someone has not been strictly followed, there is no legal basis for detaining someone,
the law is null because it violates the fundamental right, and legislature went beyond its authority
when enacting the law.

No one may be deprived of their "life and personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law," as stated in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has recently
ruled that "fair and reasonable procedure" is what is meant by "procedure established by law" in
article 21.

11
State of Maharashtra v Raghunath Gajanan Waingankar, AIR 2004 SC 4264: (2004) 6 SCC 584.
12
State of Maharashtra v Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, (2008) 3 SCC 613, 624 (para 25).

Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 10

 Administrative Law Project Work

The Supreme Court noted these three points of view in Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate13 and
said that the second point of view is more in line with British law and practice and is generally
recognized in India. The third perspective is also somewhat pertinent since if the individual is
being held legally throughout the hearing, the court cannot order their release by issuing a habeas
corpus.

 Quo warranto
Quo warranto is Latin for "what is your authority?" According to the applicable statutory
requirements, executive action on the appointment of individuals to public posts is subject to
judicial control using the quo warranto writ. Through this writ, appointment of any person to any
public office can be contested if that person is ineligible for the position in issue or if there is a
legal problem with their appointment. Quo Warranto gives anyone the ability to be removed from
any office in which they are not authorized to serve.

‘The following conditions must be met before a quo warranto can be issued:

 The position in question must be a public one,

 It must have been established by law, and
 The applicant does not have the required legal qualifications.’

A quo warranto writ can be issued at the court's discretion. A person's legitimacy to occupy a high
office may be questioned, among other things, if their appointment violates any laws. A writ of
quo warranto is appropriate when the appointment to the concerned public office is unlawful, and
if that factual position is present in a case, the court must exercise its jurisdiction, unless, of course,
the court is otherwise permitted to use its discretion to deny interference based on the well-
established principles of not suiting an otherwise vexatious litigant, when the exercise would be
futile, when the same is brought only out of malice, or when there is an equally effective
alternative.

13
AIR 1974 SC 510.

Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 11

 Administrative Law Project Work

 Mandamus

Mandamus refers to a command. Mandamus is a legal tool used to make public officials execute
their duty. Mandamus is fundamentally a judicial order directing the fulfilment of a statutory
obligation14. A court may issue a mandate, ordering an authority to carry out a task related to its
official duties. A mandate is an order given to any individual, company, lower court, or
government compelling them to carry out a specific action that relates to their position and is a
public obligation. Authorities of all stripes are granted mandamus to compel the discharge of
public obligations. A writ of mandamus may be issued against any governmental authority,
including

In relation to any form of functions, whether administrative, or legislative, quasi-judicial, or

judicial, a mandamus may be granted any type of authority. A mandamus may only be issued
when:

a) a legal duty is imposed on the authority in question, and it does not perform the same; and
b) The petitioner has a legal right to compel the performance of this duty.

The Supreme Court established the conditions under which an accused person detained in
consonance with the provisions contained iinCr. P.C. might be shackled in Prem Shankar Shukla
v. Delhi Administration15. The government did not take any steps to carry out this choice. The
Supreme Court ordered the Central Government to establish regulations or recommendations for
the situations in which handcuffing of the accused should be utilized in accordance with the Court's
decision in Prem Shankar in Aeltemesh Rein v. UOI16. In this instance, mandamus was utilized to
enforce a Supreme Court ruling that the government was required to follow by virtue of article 141
of the Constitution.

 Prohibition and Certiorari

Because of their many similarities, the writs of certiorari and prohibition can be considered
together. These writs are intended to stop public officials from abusing their authority. Currently,

14
KVR Setty v State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 993.

15
AIR 1980 SC 153.
16
AIR 1988 SC 1768.
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 12
 Administrative Law Project Work

certiorari and prohibition are recognized as common remedies for the court control of
administrative and quasi-judicial authorities that impact individual rights.

Certiorari is the considerably more frequently used remedy in Administrative Law than prohibition
of these two writs.

This is because certiorari is frequently requested to overturn tribunal and adjudicatory body rulings
since its purpose is to exercise supervisory authority over lesser bodies. It is the main method for
requesting judicial review of adjudicatory bodies that are increasingly widely used outside of the
traditional court system. There are currently countless similar organizations operating in India.
These organizations make decisions about important human rights. The topic of judicial oversight
of these entities' operations comes up. Without such oversight, there is a risk that an adjudicatory
body would act in a meddlesome despotic manner.

Lord Denning observed in R. v Greater London Council17:

“Just as the scope of certiorari has been extended to administrative authorities, so also with
prohibition. It is available to prohibit administrative authorities from exceeding their powers or
misusing them. It can prohibit a licensing authority from making rules or granting licenses which
permit conduct that is contrary to law”.

In “Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh” 18, the Supreme Court emphasized that a writ of
certiorari could never be given to invalidate an Act or an Ordinance. When a legislative measure's
constitutionality is in question, requesting a writ of certiorari is an entirely wrong course of action.
In this case, declaring the relevant statute to be invalid and unconstitutional is the appropriate
course of action. A writ of mandamus or an injunction might be requested to prevent the state from
enforcing or giving effect to the relevant legal provision if it is determined that consequence relief
is required.

Only the stage at which each writ is issued changes; the grounds on basis of which both certiorari
and prohibition are issued are same. Certiorari is used to overturn a judgement that has already
been made, therefore it is only granted after the relevant authority has addressed the problem and

17
(1976) 1 WLR 550.
18
AIR 1985 SC 167, 180.
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 13
 Administrative Law Project Work

reached a determination. When a problem hasn't been resolved but is still being thought about by
the relevant authority, a prohibition is issued. The purpose of a ban is to prevent the entity involved
from pursuing the subject any further. "A writ of prohibition is an order directed to an inferior
Tribunal prohibiting it from continuing with a proceeding therein," the Supreme Court stated in
the case referenced above.

Conclusion
The constitutional system of India, which is founded on the “Rule of Law and Separation of
Powers”, provides for judicial control over administrative actions. It is recognized as one of the
basic elements of the Constitution that cannot be changed even by constituent authorities of the
legislature. This is the most accessible remedy for administrative fraud. People have a positive
view of administration when the government performs its duties or exercises its delegated powers
in accordance with legal requirements or the India’s Constitution.

The primary objective of judicial control is to ensure the rule of law is respected; laws enacted by
governments are upheld. Certain issues of judicial regulation are related to this. This is more of an
administrative task instead of conflict resolution. The executive branch is accountable for
enforcing the laws and the judicial branch ensures the acting government is working in accordance
with the implications of the Indian Constitution.

Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 14

 Administrative Law Project Work

References
Books:

 Prof. I. P. Massey, Administrative Law pp.62, 8th edition.

 Kailash Rai, Administrative Law, pp.395, 5th edition 2006 U.S. 137, 1803
 M P Jain & S N Jain: Principles of Administrative Law, 9th Edn (2 Vols)

Articles and Papers:

 Judicial Review of Administrative Actions and Principles

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1104955
 Judicial Review of Administrative Actions: An Overview
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361458176_Subject_Judicial_Review_of_Admi
nistrative_Actions_An_Overview
 Judicial Review of Administrative Actions http://www.penacclaims.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/Deepali-Anand.pdf
 Judicial review of administration https://www.britannica.com/topic/administrative-
law/Judicial-review-of-administration
 Judicial Review of Administrative Actions an Overview
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1979-judicial-review-of-administrative-
actions-an-overview.html
 Judicial Review of Administrative Actions https://lawbhoomi.com/judicial-review-of-
administrative-action/
 Judicial Review of Administrative Action https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-review-
administrative-action-2/

Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 15

 Administrative Law Project Work

Judicial Review of Administrative Actions 16