Judicial Review Administrative Action Soul Democracy

Q3. (a) "In any democratic society, judicial review of administrative action is the soul of the system. Without it, democracy, and rule of law cannot be maintained." Explain with example.

How to Approach

This question requires explaining the critical role of judicial review in administrative actions within a democratic framework. Structure the answer by defining judicial review, elaborating on its connection to democracy and the rule of law, citing constitutional provisions (especially Indian), outlining grounds for review, and illustrating its importance with specific examples. Conclude by summarizing its indispensable nature for accountability and constitutionalism.

The Indispensable Role of Judicial Review in Democracy

Judicial review serves as a critical check on the exercise of administrative power, ensuring it aligns with democratic principles and the rule of law. Its significance can be understood through the following points:

Upholding Constitutional Supremacy: It ensures that all administrative actions conform to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Courts can strike down administrative actions that violate constitutional provisions, particularly Fundamental Rights.
Ensuring Rule of Law: It guarantees that administrative bodies operate according to established laws and procedures, preventing arbitrary or capricious decision-making. This upholds the principle that governance should be based on law, not on the whims of individuals.
Accountability and Transparency: Judicial review holds administrative authorities accountable for their actions. The process requires justifications for decisions, thereby promoting transparency and discouraging misuse of power.
Protection of Citizens' Rights: It provides a crucial remedy for citizens whose rights or legitimate expectations have been adversely affected by administrative actions. It acts as a bulwark against executive overreach and potential tyranny.
Maintaining Separation of Powers: While respecting the executive's domain, judicial review ensures a balance by preventing the administration from encroaching upon legislative or judicial functions, and vice-versa.

Constitutional Basis in India

In India, the power of judicial review concerning administrative action is rooted in the Constitution:

Article 13: Declares that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights shall be void, empowering courts to review legislation and administrative actions affecting these rights.
Articles 32 and 226: Grant the Supreme Court and High Courts the power to issue writs (like Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo Warranto) to enforce Fundamental Rights and other legal rights, effectively reviewing administrative actions.
Implicit Power: The Supreme Court, in cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), has affirmed that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, making it amendable.

Grounds for Judicial Review

Courts typically review administrative actions based on established grounds, often summarised as:

Illegality: The decision-maker lacked the power to do what they did (acting ultra vires).
Irrationality: The decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
Procedural Impropriety: Failure to follow fair procedures, including the principles of natural justice (e.g., right to be heard, bias).
Proportionality: (Increasingly applied) The measure taken is excessive and disproportionate to the objective sought to be achieved.

Illustrative Examples

The impact of judicial review is evident in numerous instances:

Environmental Protection: Courts have intervened to halt polluting industries, mandate pollution control measures, and review environmental impact assessments for large projects, citing the right to a healthy environment derived from Article 21. For instance, the Supreme Court's intervention in the MC Mehta cases has led to significant environmental regulations.
Fundamental Rights Enforcement: In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and emphasized the need for procedural fairness in administrative actions like passport impounding.
Policy Review: While courts generally show deference to policy decisions, they intervene when policies are arbitrary, discriminatory, or violate constitutional principles. For example, court interventions have led to modifications in administrative policies related to reservations, welfare schemes, and resource allocation. The Supreme Court's judgment in the 2G spectrum allocation case (2012)* highlighted procedural irregularities and arbitrariness in administrative decision-making regarding natural resource allocation.
Use of Emergency Powers: The Supreme Court's ruling in the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case significantly limited the arbitrary use of Article 356 (President's Rule) by establishing that the President's power is not absolute and subject to judicial review.

Maintaining Democracy and Rule of Law

These examples demonstrate that judicial review acts as a crucial mechanism. It prevents the administration from acting beyond its legal mandate, ensures fairness in procedures, protects fundamental rights, and ultimately reinforces public trust in governance. By providing a legal recourse against arbitrary administrative actions, it sustains the democratic ethos and strengthens the rule of law, making it truly the 'soul' of the system.

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Judicial Review

The power of courts to review the actions and decisions of the legislative and executive branches of government to ensure they are constitutional and legal. In the context of administrative action, it specifically focuses on the legality, reasonableness, and procedural fairness of decisions made by administrative bodies.

Rule of Law

A principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities, public and private, including the state itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. It emphasizes legality, fairness, equality, and accountability in governance.

Key Statistics

In India, the Supreme Court and High Courts handle a significant number of cases involving administrative actions. For instance, writ petitions under Article 32 and 226 constitute a substantial portion of the pending caseload, indicating citizens' reliance on judicial intervention against administrative decisions. While exact consolidated data fluctuates, High Courts typically manage millions of cases, with administrative law matters forming a significant category.

Source: Supreme Court of India & National Judicial Data Grid (Illustrative context)

A study by the Centre for Policy Research indicated that judicial review significantly impacts policy implementation. For instance, environmental litigations, often involving challenges to administrative approvals, have led to delays in projects but also resulted in improved environmental safeguards in several cases across India.

Source: Illustrative context based on common observations in policy analysis reports

Examples

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Administrative Oversight

PILs have been instrumental in enabling judicial review of administrative actions even concerning issues affecting large groups or the environment, where individuals might not have locus standi otherwise. Cases like the Delhi pollution matters, monitored by the Supreme Court, showcase judicial oversight influencing administrative policy and action.

Review of Administrative Discretion

When administrative bodies are granted discretion (e.g., granting licenses, permits), judicial review ensures this discretion is exercised fairly, reasonably, and for the purpose intended by the legislature, not arbitrarily or for extraneous considerations. Courts can quash decisions made based on mala fide intentions or irrelevant factors.

Frequently Asked Questions

▶What is the difference between judicial review and judicial activism?

Judicial review is the established power of courts to examine the legality of administrative or legislative actions. Judicial activism refers to a judge's perceived willingness to depart from strict legal interpretation, potentially shaping policy or social norms through their rulings. While activism often employs judicial review, it implies a more proactive or interventionist judicial stance.