Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Judicial review is a cornerstone of the Indian constitutional framework, ensuring administrative accountability and upholding the rule of law. It is the power of the courts to examine the legality of actions taken by administrative bodies, not to substitute their judgment with their own. The scope of judicial review has evolved significantly, particularly concerning administrative action. The principle was firmly established in *ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla* (1976), which was later overruled in *I.C. Golomathia v. State of Kerala* (1997), reaffirming the right to constitutional remedies. This answer will elucidate the grounds for judicial review, referencing key judgments that have shaped its understanding.
Defining Judicial Review
Judicial review isn't about assessing the merits of a policy decision but about ensuring the decision-making process adheres to the law. It's a supervisory jurisdiction to ensure fairness, legality, and reasonableness in administrative actions. The power stems from Article 226 of the Constitution (for High Courts) and Article 32 (for the Supreme Court).
Grounds of Judicial Review – The Wednesbury Principles
The principles derived from the English case of *Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation* (1932) form the bedrock of judicial review. These principles, adapted and applied in India, are:
1. Illegality
This ground arises when the administrative action is ultra vires – beyond the powers conferred by the statute or constitutional provision. It can also involve errors of law or a misinterpretation of statutory provisions.
- Case Example: *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* (1978) - The Supreme Court held that Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) cannot be fettered arbitrarily by executive action. This expanded the scope of judicial review.
2. Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness)
An action is irrational if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. It's a high threshold – mere absurdity isn’t enough.
- Case Example: *Budhraj Raghoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh* (1979) - The Supreme Court found the action irrational because it was manifestly arbitrary and lacked any reasonable basis.
3. Procedural Impropriety (Fairness Doctrine)
This ground arises when the administrative body fails to follow a fair procedure, such as not giving a hearing to the affected party or bias in decision-making.
- Case Example: *Union of India v. Kanwar Singh* (1980) - The court emphasized the principle of “natural justice,” requiring administrative bodies to act fairly and impartially. This includes the right to be heard.
- Case Example: *Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India* (1998) - This case further clarified the principles of natural justice and emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for a hearing.
Limitations of Judicial Review
While powerful, judicial review isn't absolute. Courts generally don't interfere with policy decisions, only with the process by which they are made. The doctrine of ‘deference’ is applied, recognizing the expertise of administrative bodies. Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers limits the court's ability to substitute its judgment for that of the executive.
| Ground of Judicial Review | Description | Key Case |
|---|---|---|
| Illegality | Action beyond legal authority | *Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India* (1978) |
| Irrationality | So unreasonable as to be absurd | *Budhraj Raghoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh* (1979) |
| Procedural Impropriety | Violation of natural justice | *Union of India v. Kanwar Singh* (1980) |
Conclusion
In conclusion, judicial review of administrative action serves as a vital check on executive power, ensuring fairness and legality. The grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, shaped by landmark cases like *Wednesbury*, *Maneka Gandhi*, and *Kanwar Singh*, define the scope of this review. While recognizing the importance of administrative expertise, the judiciary remains committed to safeguarding constitutional principles and upholding the rule of law in the face of administrative action. The evolving jurisprudence underscores the dynamic nature of judicial review in a democratic society.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.