Judicial Review of Administrative Action: Grounds

Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine the lawfulness of administrative action. In India, it flows from Articles 32 and 226 (writ jurisdiction) and is a basic feature of the Constitution. It is a constitutional power, not merely a statutory one (L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 1997).

In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service (GCHQ Case, 1985), Lord Diplock classified grounds of judicial review into three authoritative categories:

1. Illegality: The decision-maker must understand the law regulating the decision-making power and give effect to it. Sub-categories:

• No jurisdiction (acting without authority)

• Excess of jurisdiction

• Failure to exercise jurisdiction

• Error of law (post-Anisminic, 1969 — ANY error of law goes to jurisdiction)

• Mala fide/Improper purpose — exercising power for an unauthorised purpose

• Irrelevant considerations — taking into account matters not authorised by statute

• Failure to consider relevant matters

2. Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness): From Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948]. Lord Greene MR: A decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. HIGH threshold — courts do not substitute their own judgment for that of the authority. The court asks: was the decision within the range of reasonable responses?

3. Procedural Impropriety: Failure to observe procedural rules prescribed by statute (procedural ultra vires) OR failure to observe rules of natural justice — breach of audi alteram partem and rule against bias.

Indian courts have developed a comprehensive jurisprudence:

1. Lack of jurisdiction (no jurisdiction): Administrative authority has no power in the matter at all

2. Excess of jurisdiction: Authority has power but has exceeded it

3. Abuse of discretion:

   • Exercise of discretion for improper purpose (colourable exercise)

   • Taking irrelevant considerations into account

   • Ignoring relevant considerations

   • Acting mala fide

   • Arbitrary or unreasonable decision

4. Error of law: Following Anisminic (1969) — any error of law, not just 'jurisdictional' error in the narrow sense

5. Error of fact going to jurisdiction

6. Violation of natural justice: Breach of audi alteram partem or rule against bias

7. Legitimate expectation: Failure to honour a legitimate expectation

8. Proportionality: Means used must be proportionate to ends sought

Stricter standard than Wednesbury unreasonableness. Structured inquiry:

1. Is the objective legitimate?

2. Are the means suitable for achieving the objective?

3. Are the means necessary — could less restrictive means achieve the same goal?

4. Is there a fair balance between individual rights and public interest?

Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001): SC adopted proportionality as a ground of review for punishments imposed on government servants. Modern Dental College v. State of MP (2016) and K.S. Puttaswamy (2017): Proportionality test applied to restrictions on Fundamental Rights.

Habeas Corpus ('you have the body'): Compels production of detained person before court to examine legality of detention. Most important writ for personal liberty. Wide scope — lies against State AND private individuals. Available even during Emergency (subject to Art. 359 orders — but Arts. 20/21 cannot be suspended).

Mandamus ('we command'): Issued to public authority commanding performance of a public duty which has been refused or neglected. Enforces statutory duties, constitutional duties. Does NOT lie against: private contractual obligations; purely discretionary decisions (only compels exercise of discretion, not a particular outcome); judicial authority in purely judicial matters; private individuals.

Certiorari ('to be certified'): Issued to inferior tribunal to bring record before superior court for examination and quash if defective. CURATIVE — issued AFTER decision. Grounds: excess of jurisdiction, lack of jurisdiction, violation of NJ, error apparent on the face of record (Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1964).

Prohibition: Issued to inferior tribunal to STOP it proceeding in excess of jurisdiction. PREVENTIVE — issued BEFORE decision is made. If decision already made, certiorari is the appropriate remedy.

Quo Warranto ('by what authority'): Issued against a person who has usurped or holds a public office without legal authority. Only lies for public offices of a substantive character created by statute or Constitution. A discretionary writ — not a writ of right (University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, 1964).

Article 323-A (42nd Amendment, 1976) provides for Administrative Tribunals for service disputes. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 established the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Article 323-B: Tribunals for other matters (taxation, elections, industrial disputes).

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): Power of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and CANNOT be excluded. CAT decisions are subject to HC Division Bench review. SC can entertain SLPs from HC decisions on CAT matters.