Introduction
Judicial review of administrative action forms the bedrock of the Rule of Law in a constitutional democracy, ensuring that executive authorities operate within established legal and constitutional boundaries. While it acts as a primary bulwark against executive arbitrariness and abuse of discretion, its intervention is fundamentally constrained by institutional limitations and the doctrine of separation of powers.
Tools of Judicial Control Over Administrative Action
- Constitutional Writs: Under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court and High Courts issue prerogative writs, notably Certiorari to quash ultra vires administrative orders and Mandamus to compel public officials to perform non-discretionary duties.
- Established Grounds of Review (CCSU Principles): Courts test administrative acts against the established tripartite standards of Illegality, Procedural Impropriety (violations of natural justice or statutory procedure), and Irrationality (tested via the Wednesbury unreasonableness doctrine).
- Doctrine of Proportionality: Modern judicial review increasingly evaluates whether executive restrictions on rights are suitable, necessary, and proportionate to the legitimate state objective pursued, as applied in cases like Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India regarding internet suspensions.
- Proactive Jurisprudence and Appellate Scrutiny: Through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and suo motu cognizance, courts bypass rigid standing rules to review administrative failure. Additionally, Article 136 allows special leave to appeal against decisions of administrative tribunals.
Inherent Limitations of Judicial Review
- Review of Legality versus Merits: Courts are empowered only to review the decision-making process, not the substantive merits of the decision itself. The judiciary cannot substitute its judgment for administrative discretion or design technical policies.
- Ex-Post Nature of Intervention: Judicial control is largely remedial and retrospective, coming into effect only after administrative actions have been executed and the injury has already occurred.
- Technical and Epistemic Constraints: Generalist judges often lack the specialized domain expertise necessary to evaluate complex economic, scientific, or regulatory policies.
- Judicial Delays and Institutional Backlog: Severe pendency across the judicial hierarchy dilutes the immediacy and efficacy of remedies, allowing executive overreach to persist unresolved for extended durations.
- Executive Non-Compliance and Resistance: Bureaucratic apathy or delayed compliance with judicial directions often weakens outcomes, as evidenced by continued enforcement of invalidated provisions like Section 66A of the IT Act post-Shreya Singhal.
Conclusion
While judicial control is an indispensable check against administrative tyranny, the judiciary cannot act as a surrogate administrator. Upholding administrative accountability requires strengthening internal grievance redressal mechanisms and statutory ombudsmen alongside a prompt, procedurally disciplined judiciary.