TOPIC – Judicial Review And Its Ground

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
FACULTY OF LAW
LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY
SESSION 2020 -2021

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Rama Gupta Ved Prakash Rao

(FACULTY OF LAW), VST (SEM), LLB(HONS)

UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW ROLL NO. 180013015095

 Acknowledgement

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to RAMA GUPTA who gave me the
golden opportunity to do this wonderful assignment of “JUDICAL REVIEW AND ITS
GROUND ” who also helped me in completing my assignment .I am really thankful to him .
Many people especially my classmates, have made valuable comment suggestions on this
proposal which gave us an inspiration to improve my assignment .I am thank all the people for
their help directly and indirectly to complete my assignment .
INTRODUCTION

Judicial review has been recognized as a necessary and basic requirement for the construction of
an advanced civilization to safeguard the liberty and rights of the citizens. The power of judicial
review in India is significantly vested upon the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India.
Judicial review is the court’s power to review the actions of other branches of government,
especially the court’s power to deem invalid actions exercised by the legislative and executive as
‘unconstitutional’.

Broadly speaking, judicial review in India deals with:

1. Judicial Review of Legislative Actions;

2. Judicial Review of Administrative Actions;
3. Judicial review of Judicial Actions.
Administrative action under administrative law

Administrative law was recognized as a separate branch of legal discipline in the mid 20th
century in India. Until well into the nineteenth century, the responsibilities of the state were few
and limited, consisting of the maintenance of public order, the conduct of foreign affairs and the
disposition of the armed forces. Nowadays, it’s far different. In the interests of protecting the
public and maintaining law and order, the state intervenes into the lives of its citizens to a very
considerable degree. The actions which are carried out under the administrative law are called
administrative actions. An administrative action is a legal action which is concerned with the
conduct of a public administrative body. This kind of action can compel an authority to take a
certain action. It does not decide a right though it might affect a right. The principles of natural
justice cannot be ignored while exercising “administrative powers

Grounds of judicial review

The doctrine-ultra-vires is the basic structure of administrative law. It is considered as the

foundation of judicial review to control actions of the administration. Ultra-vires refers to the
action which is made in an excessive manner or outside the ambit of the acting party.

Generally, the grounds for judicial review in India are as follows-

1. Jurisdictional Error;
2. Irrationality;
3. Procedural Impropriety;
4. Proportionality;
5. Legitimate Expectation.

The above grounds of judicial review were given by Lord Diplock of England in the case
of Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister of Civil Service(1984). Though these grounds of
judicial review are not exhaustive, yet these provide an apt base for the courts to exercise their
jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional Error

The term ‘jurisdiction’ means the power to decide. There might be a ‘lack of jurisdiction’,
‘excess of jurisdiction’ or ‘abuse of jurisdiction’. The court may reject an administrative action
on the ground of ultra vires in all these three situations.

A case of ‘lack of jurisdiction’ is where the tribunal or authority holds no power or jurisdiction at
all to pass an order. The court may review this administrative action on the ground that the
authority exercised jurisdiction which it was not supposed to. The power of review may be
exercised on the following three grounds-

1. That the law under which the administrative authority is constituted and exercising
jurisdiction is itself unconstitutional,
2. That the authority is not properly constituted as the law requires, and
3. That the authority has mistakenly decided a jurisdictional fact and henceforth assumed
jurisdiction which did not belong to it first.

A case of ‘excess of jurisdiction’ covers a situation wherein though the authority initially had the
jurisdiction over a matter but then it exceeded and afterwards its actions become illegal. This can
happen in the following situations when –

1. An administrative body continues to exercise jurisdiction despite the occurrence of an

event ousting the jurisdiction, and
2. When it is entertaining matters outside its jurisdiction.

All administrative powers must be exercised bona fide and fairly. If the powers are abused, it
will give rise to a ground of judicial review. An ‘abuse of power’ may arise under the following
conditions-

1. Improper purpose- When an authority uses its power for a different purpose
2. Error apparent on the face of record- When it can be ascertained by examining the
record without having to recourse to other evidence.
3. In bad faith- Where an administrative authority has acted dishonestly by stating to
have acted for a particular motive when in reality the decision was taken with some
other motive in mind.
4. Fettering discretion- When an authority adopts a policy in the exercise of its powers,
which means that it is not actually exercising its discretion at all.
 5. Non-consideration of relevant material- When a decision-maker does not look at the
relevant matter.

Irrationality (Wednesbury Test)

A general established principle is that the discretionary power conferred on an administrative

authority should be exercised reasonably. A decision of an administrative authority can be held
to be unreasonable if it is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or prevalent moral standards that
no reasonable person who had applied his mind to the subject could have arrived at it.

‘Irrationality’ was developed as a ground of judicial review in the Associated Provincial Picture
House v. Wednesbury(1947) case which later came to be known as the ‘Wednesbury test’. The
court laid out three conditions in order to conclude the right to intervene-

1. In arriving at the decision, the defendant took into consideration the factors that ought
not to have been taken into, or
2. The defendant failed to take into consideration the factors that ought to have been
taken into, or
3. The decision was so unreasonable that any reasonable authority would never consider
imposing it.

The court held that it could not intervene to change the decision of the defendant simply because
it disagreed with it.

Procedural Impropriety

It is a failure to comply with the laid down procedures. Procedural Impropriety is to cover two
areas which are failure to observe rules given in statute and to observe the basic common-law
rule of justice.

Ridge v Baldwin(1963) is an exclusive case where procedural fairness shows its insistence on the
judicial review irrespective of the type of body determining the matter. Ridge, the Chief
Constable of Brighton was suspended on the charges of conspiracy to obstruct the course of
justice. Despite the clearance of allegations against Ridge, the Judge made comments which
criticized Ridge’s conduct. Following that, Ridge was dismissed from the force but he was not
invited to attend the meeting which had decided his dismissal. Later, he was given an
opportunity to be heard before the committee which had dismissed his appeal. Ridge then
appealed to the House of Lords that the committee had totally violated the rules of natural
justice. This case has been important because of the emphasis on the link existing between the
right of a person to be heard and the right to know the case brought against him.

Proportionality

Proportionality means that the concerned administrative action should not be more forceful than
it requires to be. The principle of proportionality implies that the court has to necessarily go into
the advantages and disadvantages of the action called into question. Unless the so-called
administrative action is advantageous and in the public interest, such an action cannot be upheld.
This doctrine tries to balance means with ends.

Courts in India have been adhering to this doctrine for a long time but Courts in England started
using it after the passing of the Human Rights Act, 1998. In the test of proportionality, the court
quashes the exercise of discretionary powers in which there is no reasonable relation between the
objective to be achieved and the means of achieving it. If the administrative action is
disproportionate to the mischief, it will be quashed.

Legitimate Expectations

This doctrine serves as a ground of judicial review to protect the interest when a public authority
rescinds from a representation made to a person. A legitimate expectation arises in the mind of
the complainant who has been led to understand expressly or impliedly that certain procedures
will be followed in reaching a decision. The expectation has a reasonable basis. This doctrine has
evolved to give relief to the persons who have been wronged because of the violation of their
legitimate expectation and have not been able to justify their claims on the basis of law. Two
considerations determine legislative expectations-

1. Where an individual or group has been led to believe impliedly or expressly that a
certain procedure will apply.
2. Where an individual or group relies upon a particular policy or guideline which has
previously governed an area of executive action.

.
 Conclusion

Judicial review is a powerful weapon to restrain unconstitutional exercise of power by the

legislature and executive. The expanding horizon of judicial review has taken in its fold the
concept of social and economic justice. While exercise of powers by the legislature and
executive is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on our own exercise of power is the self-
imposed discipline of judicial restraint. Mere possibility of another view cannot be a ground for
interference. Therefore, courts will not interfere unless the decision suffers from illegality,
irrationality, procedural impropriety and proportionality deficiency. Mere assertion of these
ground is not sufficient, each ground must be proved by evidence on record. Asserting the power
of judicial review, the court emphasized that the doctrine of immunity from judicial review is
restricted to cases or class of cases which relate to deployment of troops and entering into
international treaties etc. in policy matters and where subjective satisfaction of the authority is
involved, court will not interfere unless the decision is totally perverse and violates any
provisions of the Constitution. If proper care is taken at the level of making administrative
decisions, there will be little scope for grievance and invoking courts’ jurisdiction. This will not
only reduce the burden on courts but will also create a sense of security and satisfaction in
people which is the essence of good governance and foundation of a welfare State.
 Bibliography

Dr.J.J.Upadhyaya, administrative law

C.K.Takwani, lecture of administrative law

Lawyog.com