(Unit-IV: Administrative Law) Long Questions

Unit-IV: Administrative law

1. What are the grounds of judicial control over administrative action? Discuss in detail with reference to constitutional provisions and case laws.

Introduction

Administrative law governs the relationship between public authorities and individuals by regulating the exercise of administrative power. With the growth of the welfare state, administrative agencies have been entrusted with wide powers affecting the lives, liberties, and properties of citizens. However, uncontrolled discretion may lead to arbitrariness, abuse of power, and violation of constitutional rights. To ensure legality, fairness, and accountability, judicial control over administrative action becomes indispensable.

Judicial review of administrative action in India flows from the Constitution of India, especially Articles 32, 136, 226, and 227, and from the principles of rule of law and separation of powers. The judiciary acts as a guardian of fundamental rights and ensures that administrative authorities act within the limits of their power.

The grounds on which courts exercise judicial control can be broadly classified into three heads: (1) Illegality, (2) Irrationality, and (3) Procedural Impropriety, along with the expanded ground of proportionality. These grounds have evolved through constitutional provisions and judicial pronouncements both in India and comparative jurisdictions.

Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review

Article 32: Empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Article 226: Empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as for “any other purpose.” This widens judicial review beyond just fundamental rights violations.
Article 136: Provides special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against judgments, decrees, or orders of tribunals or administrative authorities.
Article 227: Vests High Courts with supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals within their territory.

Thus, the Constitution itself enshrines judicial review as part of the basic structure doctrine (as held in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)).

Grounds of Judicial Control

1. Illegality (Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction)

Illegality refers to situations where administrative authorities act without legal authority or beyond the powers granted to them by law.

Lack of Jurisdiction: An authority exercising powers not vested in it by law.
- Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (UK, 1969): Any error of law made by a tribunal was treated as a jurisdictional error, making its decision subject to judicial review.
- In India, A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) held that even administrative actions must be tested against the rule of law and fairness.
Excess of Jurisdiction: An authority acts beyond its prescribed limits.
- R. v. Electricity Commissioners (1924): A landmark UK case recognizing judicial review where authorities exceeded jurisdiction.
- In India, Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. (1996) held that actions taken beyond statutory limits are ultra vires and void.
Abuse of Jurisdiction: Using power for a collateral or improper purpose.
- State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980): Land acquisition for private purposes under the guise of public interest was struck down.
- Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1986): Government action against the press was invalidated for mala fide intent.

Thus, whenever administrative actions lack legal authority, courts intervene to restore legality.

2. Irrationality (Wednesbury Principle)

Irrationality means that administrative decisions are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have made them. This principle originated in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948), giving rise to the Wednesbury unreasonableness test.

In India, irrationality has been widely applied:
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Passport impoundment was held unreasonable and violative of Article 21.
- Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991): Arbitrary termination of government counsels was struck down as unreasonable.
Courts have emphasized that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality under Article 14 (E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)).

Thus, irrationality is tested by the doctrine of arbitrariness, closely tied to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

3. Procedural Impropriety (Violation of Natural Justice)

Administrative authorities are bound by the principles of natural justice, ensuring fairness in decision-making. Procedural impropriety arises when these principles are violated.

Key Principles of Natural Justice:
- Nemo judex in causa sua (No one should be a judge in his own cause): Rule against bias.
- Audi alteram partem (Hear the other side): Right to fair hearing.
- Reasoned decisions: Duty to record reasons for administrative orders.
Landmark Cases:
- A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969): The line between administrative and quasi-judicial functions blurred; principles of natural justice applied to both.
- Ridge v. Baldwin (UK, 1964): Dismissal of a police officer without hearing was invalid.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Right to be heard is part of “procedure established by law” under Article 21.
- Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978): Orders must be justified by reasons that are part of the record.

Thus, violation of natural justice renders administrative actions void.

4. Proportionality

Proportionality tests whether administrative action is excessive or disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved. It is widely recognized in European and international jurisprudence.

In India, proportionality has been accepted as a ground of review, especially in cases involving fundamental rights.
- Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001): Supreme Court held that proportionality is applicable to test administrative action affecting fundamental rights.
- Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016): Applied proportionality to uphold regulatory measures in education.

Thus, proportionality ensures a balance between administrative necessity and individual rights.

5. Mala Fides (Bad Faith)

An administrative action motivated by bad faith, personal bias, or improper motives is invalid.

S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab (1964): Mala fide exercise of power by the Governor to dismiss an officer was struck down.
Indian Railway Construction Co. v. Ajay Kumar (2003): Malicious administrative action is ultra vires.

Mala fides is hard to prove but, when established, nullifies administrative action.

6. Error of Law and Error of Fact

Error of Law: When an authority misinterprets or misapplies the law.
- Anisminic case (UK) treated all errors of law as jurisdictional.
- In India, State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh (1989): Misconstruction of statutory provisions invalidates administrative action.
Error of Fact: When a decision is based on irrelevant facts or ignores relevant ones.
- Barium Chemicals v. Company Law Board (1967): Administrative discretion must be exercised based on relevant material, not irrelevant considerations.

7. Legitimate Expectation

The doctrine of legitimate expectation ensures that administrative authorities honor representations, practices, or promises made to individuals.

Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993): Recognized legitimate expectation as a ground of review.
Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India (1992): Government’s change of policy without fairness violated legitimate expectation.

It is not a legal right but a procedural safeguard against arbitrary administrative action.

Judicial Remedies

The courts enforce judicial control through constitutional writs under Articles 32 and 226:

Habeas Corpus – protection of personal liberty.
Mandamus – command to perform public duty.
Certiorari – quashing illegal administrative/quasi-judicial orders.
Prohibition – preventing an authority from acting beyond jurisdiction.
Quo Warranto – questioning legality of public office occupation.

Limitations on Judicial Control

Separation of Powers – Courts avoid encroaching on executive policy matters.
Doctrine of Political Questions – Certain matters (e.g., foreign policy, national security) are considered non-justiciable.
Alternative Remedies – Judicial review is not available if adequate alternative remedies exist.
Judicial Restraint – Courts do not substitute their own judgment for that of administrative authorities.

Conclusion

Judicial control over administrative action in India is essential to prevent arbitrariness, ensure legality, and protect individual rights. The grounds of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, mala fides, proportionality, error of law/fact, and legitimate expectation collectively form the backbone of judicial review.

Through landmark cases such as Maneka Gandhi, E.P. Royappa, A.K. Kraipak, and Om Kumar, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of judicial review, making it a cornerstone of constitutional governance. Judicial control is thus not only a mechanism of accountability but also an embodiment of the rule of law and basic structure doctrine of the Constitution.

While courts exercise restraint in policy matters, their role in checking abuse of administrative power remains vital. Judicial review ensures that administrative discretion does not degenerate into administrative despotism, thereby maintaining a balance between executive efficiency and individual liberty.

2. Examine the principles of natural justice as a ground for judicial review. How have Indian courts expanded and applied these principles in administrative law?

Introduction

The concept of natural justice is one of the most important grounds of judicial control over administrative action. It represents fundamental rules of fair procedure and is deeply rooted in notions of justice, equity, and good conscience. Natural justice is not codified in any statute but is universally recognized by courts to prevent arbitrariness and ensure fairness in decision-making.

In administrative law, natural justice acts as a procedural safeguard against the misuse of administrative discretion. Since administrative authorities often exercise wide powers affecting the rights and liberties of individuals, the judiciary ensures that such powers are exercised fairly, reasonably, and without bias.

The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in developing and expanding the scope of natural justice, making it an essential ground for judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India.

Meaning and Basis of Natural Justice

The expression “natural justice” lacks a precise definition but has been explained through judicial pronouncements.

In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the Supreme Court observed that natural justice aims to prevent miscarriage of justice and is applicable to both quasi-judicial and administrative actions.
In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), the Court emphasized that natural justice is not a rigid doctrine but is flexible and adaptable to circumstances.

Philosophical Basis: Natural justice embodies universal values of fairness and justice, echoing the maxim “justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”

Constitutional Basis:

Article 14 (Right to Equality) – Arbitrariness violates natural justice.
Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) – Fair procedure is an essential part of “procedure established by law.”
Articles 32 & 226 – Provide remedies through writ jurisdiction when principles of natural justice are violated.

Core Principles of Natural Justice

Traditionally, natural justice has two well-established rules, later expanded to include the duty to provide reasoned decisions.

1. Nemo judex in causa sua (Rule against Bias)

No one should be a judge in his own cause. Bias (personal, pecuniary, or official) disqualifies a decision-maker. Even a reasonable likelihood of bias is sufficient to vitiate administrative action.

Types of Bias:

Pecuniary Bias – Direct or indirect financial interest.
- Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852, UK): A judge’s decision was set aside due to his financial interest in the company.
- J. Mohapatra v. State of Orissa (1984, India): Appointment of textbook selection committee members with pecuniary interests was struck down.
Personal Bias – Relationship or hostility influencing decision-making.
- Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1960): Cancellation of mining lease by the State Minister was quashed due to personal bias.
Official/Departmental Bias – Where a departmental authority acts as judge in its own cause.
- A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969): Selection board member who was also a candidate influenced the decision; held void due to bias.

Thus, judicial review ensures that administrative decisions are free from partiality and prejudice.

2. Audi Alteram Partem (Right to Fair Hearing)

This principle requires that no one should be condemned unheard. Administrative authorities must provide a fair opportunity to present one’s case before taking adverse action.

Components of Fair Hearing:

Notice – Adequate notice must be given about the proceedings.
- Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1973): Notice must be clear and adequate to allow effective defense.
Opportunity to Present Case – Right to make oral/written submissions, produce evidence, and rebut charges.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Passport impoundment without giving a chance to be heard was struck down; right to be heard is part of Article 21.
Cross-examination – Where necessary, affected persons must have the right to test evidence.
- Town Area Committee v. Jagdish Prasad (1978): Refusal to allow cross-examination violated natural justice.
Legal Representation – Not an absolute right but may be allowed in complex cases.
- H.C. Sarin v. Union of India (1976): Denial of legal representation in departmental inquiry upheld as not essential in all cases.
Decision on Relevant Grounds Only – Authorities must base decisions only on material relevant to the case.
- State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei (1967): Decision fixing the date of birth of a government employee without hearing her was quashed.

This rule ensures that affected parties participate effectively in the decision-making process.

3. Speaking Orders (Duty to Record Reasons)

Natural justice requires administrative authorities to give reasoned decisions so that fairness is transparent.

Siemens Engineering v. Union of India (1976): The Supreme Court held that administrative orders must be supported by reasons to ensure accountability.
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978): Orders must be justified by reasons disclosed in the record, not later in court.
Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010): The duty to give reasons is part of natural justice.

Reasoned decisions act as a check against arbitrariness and enable effective judicial review.

Exceptions to Natural Justice

Though fundamental, natural justice is not absolute. Courts have recognized certain exceptions:

Statutory Exclusion – If a statute expressly excludes hearing. (Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, 1985).
Emergency Situations – Immediate action justified without prior hearing (e.g., preventive detention).
Confidential Matters – Where disclosure affects national security or public interest.
Legislative Actions – Rules/regulations made in legislative capacity are not subject to natural justice.
Impracticability – If the number of affected persons is very large (e.g., policy decisions).

Even in exceptions, courts insist on post-decisional hearing wherever possible (Maneka Gandhi case).

Expansion of Natural Justice by Indian Courts

The Indian judiciary has broadened natural justice beyond its traditional form, linking it to Articles 14 and 21.

From Quasi-judicial to Administrative Actions
- Earlier, natural justice applied only to judicial/quasi-judicial bodies.
- A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969): Extended natural justice to administrative actions having civil consequences.
Integration with Fundamental Rights
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Established that any procedure affecting life or liberty must be “fair, just and reasonable.” Thus, natural justice became part of Article 21.
Fairness in Policy Decisions
- Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India (1992): Change in government policy without fairness was struck down.
Legitimate Expectation
- Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993): Introduced doctrine of legitimate expectation as part of natural justice.
Duty to Give Reasons
- Siemens Engineering and Kranti Associates: Recognized duty to record reasons as a natural justice requirement.

Thus, Indian courts have given natural justice a constitutional status.

Judicial Remedies for Violation of Natural Justice

Courts provide remedies through writs under Articles 32 and 226:

Certiorari – Quashing orders violating natural justice.
Mandamus – Compelling authority to follow fair procedure.
Prohibition – Preventing biased or unfair proceedings.
Habeas Corpus – Protecting liberty where detention is without fair procedure.

Criticism and Limitations

Flexibility vs. Uncertainty – Lack of codification leads to unpredictability.
Delay in Administration – Strict application may cause delays in urgent decisions.
Judicial Overreach – Sometimes courts expand natural justice to areas intended for executive discretion.

However, these criticisms are outweighed by its role in ensuring fairness and preventing arbitrariness.

Conclusion

Natural justice has evolved from a mere procedural safeguard to a constitutional guarantee of fairness in India. As a ground of judicial review, it ensures that administrative discretion is exercised within the bounds of reason, impartiality, and transparency.

Through landmark judgments like A.K. Kraipak, Binapani Dei, Maneka Gandhi, and Siemens Engineering, the Indian judiciary has not only expanded the scope of natural justice but has also made it a part of the basic structure of constitutional governance.

Today, natural justice is no longer confined to courts or tribunals—it pervades all areas of administrative action. By treating fairness as inseparable from justice, Indian courts have transformed natural justice into a vital check against arbitrary state action, thereby safeguarding rule of law, human rights, and democratic accountability.

3. Define administrative discretion. Critically analyze the judicial control over the misuse of administrative discretion with the help of leading judicial decisions.

Introduction

One of the most debated issues in administrative law is the exercise of administrative discretion. In modern welfare states, administrative authorities are conferred with wide discretionary powers to deal with complex socio-economic issues. Discretion allows authorities to choose from among multiple options in decision-making, depending on circumstances.

However, uncontrolled discretion often degenerates into arbitrariness, undermining the rule of law and fundamental rights. Therefore, judicial control over administrative discretion is necessary to ensure legality, fairness, and accountability.

Indian courts, through the power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226, have developed doctrines and principles to check misuse of discretion. This balance ensures that discretion serves public interest without becoming a tool of oppression.

Meaning of Administrative Discretion

Administrative discretion refers to the liberty or freedom conferred upon administrative authorities by law to choose among several possible courses of action in performing their functions.

Dicey’s view: He was skeptical about discretion, considering it a threat to the Rule of Law. To him, discretionary power often led to arbitrariness.
Modern view: In a welfare state, discretion is inevitable and essential for effective governance, but it must be exercised reasonably and in good faith.

Example: A licensing authority empowered to issue or refuse licenses exercises administrative discretion. Similarly, preventive detention laws confer discretion to detain individuals for security reasons.

Need for Administrative Discretion

Complexity of Modern Administration – Legislatures cannot foresee every situation.
Flexibility in Decision-making – Discretion helps in adapting law to changing circumstances.
Public Interest – Necessary for urgent decisions in areas like national security, public health, and economic regulation.

While necessary, discretion carries risks of misuse, which calls for judicial oversight.

Judicial Control over Administrative Discretion

Judicial control is exercised to prevent arbitrariness, mala fides, and abuse of power. The courts do not substitute their decision for that of the authority but ensure that discretion is exercised within legal limits.

The grounds of judicial review against misuse of discretion are as follows:

1. Abuse of Discretion

Administrative discretion must be exercised for proper purposes. If exercised for an improper or collateral purpose, courts intervene.

Case Law: State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980)
- Land acquisition power exercised for private purposes rather than public interest was struck down.
Case Law: Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1986)
- Government action against a newspaper, taken with mala fide intent to suppress press freedom, was quashed.

Thus, abuse of discretion invalidates administrative action.

2. Arbitrariness and Unreasonableness

Discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily. Article 14 prohibits arbitrariness in state action.

Case Law: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
- The Supreme Court equated arbitrariness with violation of Article 14.
Case Law: Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991)
- Arbitrary mass termination of government counsels was held unconstitutional.
Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Discretionary power to impound a passport without a fair hearing was struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable under Articles 14 and 21.

Thus, arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality and cannot survive judicial scrutiny.

3. Mala Fides (Bad Faith)

Discretion exercised with bad faith, ulterior motives, or personal bias is invalid.

Case Law: S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab (1964)
- Governor’s order dismissing a government officer was quashed for mala fide intent.
Case Law: Indian Railway Construction Co. v. Ajay Kumar (2003)
- Administrative decisions influenced by extraneous considerations were held mala fide.

Courts strike down any administrative action motivated by hostility or personal vendetta.

4. Colourable Exercise of Power

When power is exercised under the guise of legality but actually for unauthorized purposes, it is called colourable exercise.

Case Law: K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953)
- Colourable legislation doctrine extended to administrative law.
Case Law: State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1952)
- Exercise of land acquisition power for improper purposes was invalidated.

Thus, courts look behind the facade to examine the true intent of discretion.

5. Irrelevant Considerations / Ignoring Relevant Factors

Discretion must be exercised based on relevant factors only. Taking into account irrelevant matters or ignoring mandatory considerations renders the decision invalid.

Case Law: Barium Chemicals v. Company Law Board (1967)
- Discretion to investigate company affairs must be based on material facts, not mere suspicion.
Case Law: State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co. (1988)
- Licence cancellation based on irrelevant considerations was struck down.

This ensures rational and fact-based decision-making.

6. Failure to Exercise Discretion

Sometimes authorities act under dictation or rigid policy without applying their independent judgment. Courts treat this as abdication of discretion.

Case Law: Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji (1952)
- Licensing authority cancelled a license under government dictation. Held invalid as discretion must be exercised independently.
Case Law: Anirudhsinhji v. State of Gujarat (1995)
- Exercise of discretion under dictation from higher authority was struck down.

Thus, discretion cannot be surrendered or abdicated.

7. Proportionality

Discretion must be exercised in proportion to the objective sought to be achieved. Excessive or disproportionate action is invalid.

Case Law: Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001)
- Introduced proportionality as a ground of review in India, especially in cases involving fundamental rights.
Case Law: Modern Dental College v. State of M.P. (2016)
- Regulation of education upheld as proportionate to public interest.

This ensures a balance between administrative necessity and individual rights.

8. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Exercise of discretion must follow fair procedure. Violation of natural justice (bias, denial of hearing, or lack of reasoned orders) invalidates discretion.

Case Law: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
- Even administrative actions involving discretion must comply with natural justice.
Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Right to be heard is part of Article 21.
Case Law: Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)
- Administrative orders must be supported by reasons that are part of the record.

Thus, fair procedure is integral to discretionary action.

Judicial Techniques of Control

Writ Jurisdiction (Articles 32 & 226) – Habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto.
Judicial Review under Article 136 – Appeals against orders of tribunals and administrative authorities.
Doctrines Developed by Courts – Proportionality, legitimate expectation, arbitrariness doctrine.

Landmark Indian Cases Summarized

Case	Principle Laid Down
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)	Arbitrary discretion violates Articles 14 & 21.
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)	Arbitrariness = Inequality; struck down arbitrary transfers.
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)	Natural justice applies to discretionary administrative action.
S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab (1964)	Mala fide exercise of discretion invalid.
Barium Chemicals v. Company Law Board (1967)	Discretion must be based on relevant considerations.
Gordhandas Bhanji (1952)	Discretion cannot be abdicated or exercised under dictation.
Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001)	Proportionality recognized as a ground of judicial review.

Critical Analysis

Strengths of Judicial Control:
- Prevents arbitrariness and abuse of power.
- Protects fundamental rights of citizens.
- Reinforces the Rule of Law and accountability.
Limitations:
- Courts adopt judicial restraint in policy matters (e.g., economic policy, foreign affairs).
- Excessive judicial intervention may cause delays and administrative inefficiency.
- Proving mala fides or bad faith is often difficult.

Thus, while judicial review prevents misuse of discretion, it cannot eliminate discretion altogether. The goal is to strike a balance between administrative flexibility and citizen protection.

Conclusion

Administrative discretion is inevitable in modern governance, but it carries inherent dangers of arbitrariness and misuse. Judicial control acts as a safeguard to ensure that discretionary power is exercised within legal limits, in good faith, and in accordance with constitutional principles.

Through landmark rulings like Maneka Gandhi, Kraipak, Royappa, and Om Kumar, the Indian judiciary has elevated fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality as central to the exercise of discretion.

Ultimately, judicial control does not eliminate discretion but ensures that it serves public interest rather than personal or political motives. This delicate balance preserves both administrative efficiency and constitutional justice, reinforcing India’s commitment to the Rule of Law.

4. “Judicial review is the heart of administrative law.” Discuss this statement in the context of judicial control over administrative action in India.

Introduction

Administrative law is the branch of public law that regulates the exercise of governmental powers and ensures that administrative authorities act within the limits of law. In modern welfare states, the expansion of governmental functions has led to a tremendous increase in administrative discretion, quasi-judicial powers, and delegated legislation. This has raised the question of accountability of administrative authorities. The judiciary, as the guardian of the Constitution, plays a crucial role in ensuring that administrative power is exercised legally, fairly, and reasonably.

The doctrine of judicial review is the primary instrument through which courts supervise administrative action. Judicial review allows courts to examine the legality of decisions taken by administrative authorities and to strike down or modify actions that are unconstitutional, arbitrary, or ultra vires. Hence, it is often stated that judicial review is the heart of administrative law. This statement reflects the central role played by the judiciary in controlling administrative power and protecting citizens’ rights.

Meaning of Judicial Review

Judicial review refers to the power of courts to examine the legality, validity, and constitutionality of administrative, legislative, and executive actions. In administrative law, judicial review primarily concerns itself with ensuring that:

The authority has acted within the limits of its legal powers (ultra vires doctrine).
The procedure followed is just, fair, and in accordance with natural justice.
The decision is reasonable and not arbitrary or discriminatory.
Fundamental rights and constitutional principles are upheld.

Unlike appeal, judicial review does not focus on the merits of the decision but only on the legality of the process and the authority’s power.

Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review in India

Judicial review in India has its roots in the Constitution, particularly in the following provisions:

Article 13 – Declares that laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights are void. This empowers courts to review both legislative and administrative actions that violate fundamental rights.
Articles 32 and 226 – Confer powers on the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights (Art. 32) and for any other purpose (Art. 226).
Article 136 – Provides for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against judgments, decrees, or orders, thereby giving the Court wide appellate jurisdiction.
Articles 141 and 142 – Ensure that decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all authorities and allow the Court to pass necessary orders for complete justice.

Through these provisions, the Constitution ensures that administrative actions are subject to the control of the judiciary.

Scope of Judicial Review over Administrative Action

Judicial review of administrative action in India operates on three broad grounds, famously categorized in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (the GCHQ case):

Illegality – When an authority acts beyond the scope of its powers.
Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness) – When a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have taken it.
Procedural impropriety – When principles of natural justice or statutory procedures are not followed.

Indian courts have widely adopted and expanded these grounds, tailoring them to the Indian constitutional context.

Judicial Control Mechanisms

Writ Jurisdiction
- The primary tool of judicial review is the writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226.
- Writs include:
  - Habeas Corpus – Against unlawful detention.
  - Mandamus – To compel performance of a public duty.
  - Prohibition – To restrain authorities from acting beyond their jurisdiction.
  - Certiorari – To quash illegal orders or decisions.
  - Quo Warranto – To question the legality of a public office held by a person.
Example: In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the plenary power of High Courts under Article 226.

Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion
- Courts examine whether discretion is exercised arbitrarily or mala fide.
- In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that administrative discretion must meet the test of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness.

Judicial Review of Delegated Legislation
- The judiciary ensures that delegated legislation does not exceed the parent Act or violate constitutional provisions.
- In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985), the Court ruled that delegated legislation is subject to judicial review if it is unreasonable or violative of fundamental rights.

Application of Natural Justice
- Courts insist on compliance with the principles of natural justice: audi alteram partem (right to be heard) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in his own cause).
- In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the Supreme Court blurred the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions, extending natural justice to administrative decisions.

Judicial Review under Doctrine of Proportionality
- Indian courts have increasingly used the doctrine of proportionality to test administrative decisions affecting fundamental rights.
- In Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001), the Supreme Court clarified that proportionality is the appropriate standard for reviewing administrative action impacting fundamental rights.

Judicial Activism and Expansion of Judicial Review

Indian courts have expanded judicial review far beyond traditional limits. Judicial activism has played a crucial role in enlarging the scope of review:

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – In cases like S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Court liberalized locus standi to allow any public-spirited citizen to challenge administrative excesses.
Basic Structure Doctrine – In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Court held that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by Parliament.
Due Process of Law (Substantive and Procedural) – Though the Constitution originally provided for “procedure established by law,” in Maneka Gandhi (1978) the Court effectively imported due process, holding that laws and administrative actions must be “just, fair and reasonable.”

Landmark Case Laws Illustrating Judicial Review in Administrative Law

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Judicial review was held to be part of the basic structure.
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – Judicial review could not be excluded even by constitutional amendment.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) – Early restrictive approach, later overruled by Maneka Gandhi.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Expanded judicial review by introducing reasonableness and fairness.
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) – Natural justice applies to administrative actions.
State of UP v. Johri Mal (2004) – Courts cannot substitute their decision for that of the administration but can review legality.
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) – Judicial review used to enforce transparency in electoral processes.

Criticism of Judicial Review

While judicial review is the heart of administrative law, it has also faced criticism:

Judicial Overreach – Courts are sometimes accused of encroaching upon the executive’s domain.
Delay in Administrative Functioning – Excessive judicial interference may slow down governance.
Lack of Expertise – Judges may not possess technical expertise to review complex administrative decisions.
Subjectivity – Expansive judicial discretion may lead to inconsistent outcomes.

Despite these criticisms, judicial review remains indispensable for maintaining constitutional supremacy.

Comparative Perspective

United States: Judicial review was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), and American courts actively review administrative actions under the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946.
United Kingdom: Judicial review is rooted in common law, with grounds like illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety (GCHQ case).
India: Combines constitutional and common law principles, providing broader scope for judicial review due to written Constitution and fundamental rights.

Conclusion

Judicial review is indeed the heart of administrative law because it is the mechanism through which courts control administrative power, prevent abuse of discretion, and protect citizens’ rights. Without judicial review, administrative authorities could act arbitrarily, undermining the rule of law and constitutionalism.

The Indian judiciary, through Articles 13, 32, and 226, has developed a vibrant system of judicial review that ensures accountability, transparency, and fairness in governance. Landmark judgments like Kesavananda Bharati, Maneka Gandhi, and A.K. Kraipak demonstrate the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the Constitution.

While concerns about judicial overreach remain, the balance between administrative efficiency and constitutional safeguards can only be achieved through a robust judicial review system. Therefore, the statement that “Judicial review is the heart of administrative law” holds true, particularly in India, where judicial review has been recognized as part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

5. Discuss the doctrine of proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness as tools of judicial control over administrative discretion. How have Indian courts applied these doctrines?

Introduction

Administrative discretion is necessary for effective governance, allowing authorities to make decisions based on varying circumstances. However, unbridled discretion can result in arbitrariness, unfairness, and abuse of power. To curb misuse, courts have developed doctrines that provide standards for reviewing administrative action: the Wednesbury unreasonableness doctrine and the doctrine of proportionality.

Both doctrines are tools of judicial control, but they operate differently. Wednesbury unreasonableness emerged from English administrative law and primarily examines irrationality, while proportionality, influenced by European jurisprudence, emphasizes fairness and balance between the action and the objective. Indian courts have gradually integrated these doctrines to ensure that administrative decisions comply with constitutional principles, particularly Articles 14 and 21.

1. Doctrine of Wednesbury Unreasonableness

Meaning and Origin

The doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness originates from the English case:

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
- Facts: A cinema license was granted with a condition that no children under 15 could attend Sunday shows. The company challenged this restriction as unreasonable.
- Principle: Lord Greene MR held that a decision is unreasonable if it is “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.”

Key Features:

It applies when administrative action is within statutory powers but is allegedly irrational.
It is a narrow and deferential standard—courts do not substitute their judgment for the authority’s discretion unless the action is exceptionally unreasonable.
Focuses on gross irrationality, not minor errors of judgment.

Criteria for Wednesbury Unreasonableness

Decision must be ultra vires if it is irrational.
Courts examine whether the authority considered relevant factors and ignored irrelevant factors.
The threshold is high: only extreme cases qualify.

Application in India

Indian courts initially followed the Wednesbury standard for reviewing administrative action but later adapted it in the constitutional context:

Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) influenced Indian jurisprudence on procedural fairness.
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969): Even quasi-judicial decisions by administrative authorities must adhere to reasonableness and natural justice.
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974): The Supreme Court broadened the concept of arbitrariness, going beyond Wednesbury’s narrow irrationality standard. The Court held that arbitrariness is antithetical to Article 14.

Examples of Wednesbury Review in India:

Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. (1991): Mass termination of teachers was challenged. Court examined if decision was arbitrary or capricious.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Passport impoundment challenged; although Wednesbury-like standard was initially considered, the Court emphasized fairness and reasonableness under Articles 14 and 21.

Criticism: Wednesbury unreasonableness is too restrictive for Indian constitutional law. It limits judicial scrutiny and does not consider proportionality or the impact on fundamental rights.

2. Doctrine of Proportionality

Meaning and Origin

The doctrine of proportionality is a European concept, widely applied in Germany, the EU, and other constitutional democracies. It requires that administrative action must be balanced and not excessive relative to the objective pursued.

Four-fold Test for Proportionality:

Legality – Action must be authorized by law.
Suitability/Legitimacy – Action must be suitable to achieve the objective.
Necessity – No less restrictive alternative exists.
Proportionality Stricto Sensu (Balancing Test) – The benefits of the action must outweigh the harm to individual rights.

Unlike Wednesbury, proportionality emphasizes substantive fairness, not just extreme irrationality.

Application in India

Indian courts have gradually adopted proportionality, especially in cases involving fundamental rights:

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Introduced a fairness and reasonableness standard for administrative action affecting life, liberty, and personal freedoms under Article 21. Although the term “proportionality” was not used explicitly, the decision laid the groundwork.
Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) – The Supreme Court explicitly recognized proportionality as a standard to examine administrative action affecting fundamental rights.
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) – Proportionality applied to regulate medical admissions, balancing public interest and individual rights.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Right to privacy and government surveillance measures were assessed under proportionality. The Court examined whether intrusion was necessary and proportionate to the aim.

Key Features in Indian Context:

Proportionality is now closely linked with Articles 14 and 21.
It requires courts to examine both procedure and substance of administrative action.
Emphasizes balance between public interest and private rights.
Especially relevant in cases involving fundamental rights, preventive detention, and resource allocation.

3. Comparison between Wednesbury Unreasonableness and Proportionality

Feature	Wednesbury Unreasonableness	Doctrine of Proportionality
Origin	English Common Law	European/German Constitutional Law
Standard	Narrow; courts intervene only in extreme irrationality	Broader; courts examine fairness, necessity, and balancing of rights
Focus	Procedural or grossly irrational decisions	Both substantive and procedural fairness
Application in India	Initially followed; now partially supplemented	Increasingly applied in fundamental rights cases
Judicial Approach	Highly deferential to administration	Active review; emphasis on balancing rights
Examples	Maneka Gandhi (initially), Shrilekha Vidyarthi	Om Kumar, K.S. Puttaswamy, Modern Dental College

Observation: In India, Wednesbury serves as a minimum threshold for unreasonableness, while proportionality allows a fuller review of substantive fairness, especially where fundamental rights are at stake.

4. Indian Courts’ Integration of Both Doctrines

Indian courts use a hybrid approach:

Administrative Decisions Affecting Policy – Wednesbury standard is often applied, giving deference to expertise and policy-making.
Administrative Decisions Affecting Fundamental Rights – Proportionality is applied to ensure balance between government objectives and individual freedoms.

Illustrative Cases:

Maneka Gandhi (1978) – Laid the foundation for proportionality by requiring reasonableness in passport impoundment.
E.P. Royappa (1974) – Expanded arbitrariness to include Wednesbury-type unreasonableness in transfers and dismissals.
Om Kumar (2001) – Explicit proportionality test applied in administrative action affecting fundamental rights.
Modern Dental College (2016) – Proportionality applied to strike a balance between social interest and individual rights in medical admissions.
K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) – Government action challenged for violating privacy; proportionality used to examine necessity and least intrusive measures.

Observation: Proportionality is now the preferred standard for fundamental rights cases, while Wednesbury remains relevant in policy-heavy administrative decisions.

5. Significance of Both Doctrines

Wednesbury Unreasonableness:
- Ensures administrative action is not grossly irrational.
- Provides judicial restraint, preserving separation of powers.
- Suitable for policy decisions and administrative efficiency.
Proportionality:
- Ensures balance between public interest and individual rights.
- Enables substantive review of administrative action.
- Vital in cases involving fundamental rights, privacy, and liberty.

Combined Role: Together, these doctrines allow courts to review discretion effectively, ensuring accountability without unnecessarily substituting administrative judgment.

6. Criticism and Challenges

Proportionality:
- May lead to judicial overreach; courts may interfere excessively in policy matters.
- Requires careful balancing, which is subjective.
Wednesbury:
- Too restrictive; courts may fail to prevent subtle forms of arbitrariness.
- Focuses only on extreme irrationality, ignoring fairness and impact on rights.

Indian courts have addressed these limitations by adopting a contextual and hybrid approach, applying proportionality where rights are affected, and Wednesbury where administrative expertise is critical.

7. Conclusion

The doctrines of Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality are vital instruments for judicial control over administrative discretion in India. While Wednesbury ensures that administrative decisions are not grossly irrational, proportionality allows a deeper substantive review, balancing government objectives against individual rights.

Indian courts have creatively integrated both doctrines:

Wednesbury: Applied in policy decisions, regulatory frameworks, and matters requiring administrative expertise.
Proportionality: Applied in cases affecting fundamental rights, civil liberties, and rights to life and liberty under Articles 14 and 21.

Through landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi, E.P. Royappa, Om Kumar, and K.S. Puttaswamy, the judiciary has strengthened administrative accountability, protected fundamental rights, and ensured that discretion is exercised fairly, reasonably, and proportionately.

These doctrines collectively illustrate the dynamic nature of judicial review in India, balancing administrative efficiency with constitutional morality. As India progresses, proportionality will likely play an increasingly important role, particularly in an era of human rights consciousness and complex governance.

6. Explain the relationship between administrative discretion and the rule of law. To what extent can the judiciary intervene to strike a balance between administrative efficiency and protection of citizens’ rights?

Introduction

Modern governance necessitates that administrative authorities be endowed with discretionary powers to make decisions in complex socio-economic and political contexts. Administrative discretion enables authorities to interpret broad legislative mandates, adapt policies to circumstances, and take timely action.

However, discretionary power carries the inherent risk of arbitrariness, abuse, and violation of citizens’ rights. This is where the rule of law plays a critical role. Coined by A.V. Dicey, the rule of law ensures that no individual, including administrative authorities, is above the law and that power is exercised within the confines of legality, fairness, and justice.

The relationship between administrative discretion and the rule of law is thus dynamic and delicate. While discretion ensures efficiency, the rule of law safeguards fairness, accountability, and protection of rights. The judiciary is the key instrument for maintaining this balance through judicial review.

1. Administrative Discretion: Meaning and Scope

Definition: Administrative discretion is the power conferred upon executive authorities by law to choose among alternative courses of action in the exercise of statutory functions. It is not absolute; it must be exercised within legal, procedural, and constitutional limits.

Features of Administrative Discretion:

Legal Authority: Must arise from a statutory or constitutional provision.
Choice and Judgment: Involves evaluating options based on facts, policy, and public interest.
Flexibility: Provides room for contextual decision-making.
Accountability: Subject to judicial and legislative oversight to prevent misuse.

Examples: Granting licenses, regulating industries, imposing taxes, preventive detention, and regulating environmental standards.

2. Rule of Law and Its Significance in Administrative Governance

Dicey’s Perspective:

Supremacy of Law: All administrative action must conform to law.
Equality Before Law: No one is above the law, including public officials.
Judicial Protection: Individuals have the right to seek legal remedy against unlawful administrative action.

Modern Interpretation:
In addition to Dicey’s classical view, modern constitutional democracies, including India, emphasize substantive fairness, reasonableness, and protection of fundamental rights as integral to the rule of law.

Rule of Law in India:

Enshrined in Articles 14, 19, and 21, which ensure equality, freedom, and protection of life and liberty.
Judicial review acts as the mechanism to enforce the rule of law against arbitrary administrative discretion.

3. Tension Between Administrative Discretion and the Rule of Law

Discretion allows for efficiency, flexibility, and responsiveness, but it can also lead to arbitrariness, mala fide action, or violation of rights. This creates an inherent tension:

Excessive Judicial Intervention – May paralyze decision-making and undermine administrative efficiency.
Unchecked Discretion – Risks abuse of power, corruption, and infringement of fundamental rights.

The judiciary must therefore strike a balance between:

Administrative efficiency: enabling timely and expert decision-making.
Protection of citizens’ rights: ensuring legality, fairness, and accountability.

4. Judicial Control Over Administrative Discretion

Judicial intervention is guided by several principles:

a) Illegality or Ultra Vires Doctrine

Doctrine: Discretion must be exercised within statutory limits.
Case Law: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) – Early restrictive view on preventive detention; ultra vires acts were struck down.
Case Law: State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) – Land acquisition powers exercised for private purposes were invalidated.

b) Arbitrariness and Reasonableness

Concept: Discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily; it must be reasonable and proportionate.
Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Passport impoundment deemed arbitrary; emphasized that administrative discretion must comply with Articles 14 and 21.
Case Law: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) – Expanded arbitrariness as a violation of equality under Article 14.

c) Mala Fide Exercise of Power

Discretion exercised with ulterior motives or personal bias is struck down.
Case Law: S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab (1964) – Dismissal of an officer for extraneous reasons was invalidated.

d) Colourable Exercise of Power

Administrative action taken under the guise of legality but for an unauthorized purpose is invalid.
Case Law: K.C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa (1953) – Doctrine of colourable exercise applied to administrative discretion.

e) Ignoring Relevant Considerations / Considering Irrelevant Factors

Authorities must take into account mandatory factors and ignore irrelevant ones.
Case Law: Barium Chemicals v. Company Law Board (1967) – Administrative discretion must be based on material facts.

f) Principles of Natural Justice

Audi Alteram Partem: Right to be heard before adverse action.
Nemo Judex in Causa Sua: No one should be a judge in their own case.
Case Law: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) – Even quasi-judicial actions by administrative authorities must comply with natural justice.

g) Doctrine of Proportionality

Discretion must be proportionate to the objective sought.
Case Law: Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) – Proportionality applied in decisions affecting fundamental rights.
Case Law: Modern Dental College v. State of M.P. (2016) – Balancing public interest and individual rights in medical admissions.

5. Striking a Balance Between Administrative Efficiency and Citizens’ Rights

Judiciary recognizes the need for administrative flexibility while ensuring constitutional safeguards:

Writ Jurisdiction under Articles 32 & 226
- Courts can issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto) to correct administrative excess.
Judicial Deference in Policy Matters
- Courts avoid interfering in matters requiring expertise, technical judgment, or policy evaluation.
- Example: State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal – Court refrained from interfering in technical administrative decisions.
Enhanced Scrutiny in Rights Cases
- Where administrative action affects fundamental rights, courts apply strict standards (proportionality, reasonableness, fairness).
- Example: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) – Government surveillance measures were reviewed for necessity and proportionality.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
- Expands access to judicial review, enabling courts to intervene when administrative action affects larger public interest.
- Example: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) – Liberalized locus standi to enforce administrative accountability.

6. Landmark Indian Cases Illustrating Judicial Intervention

Case	Principle
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)	Administrative discretion must meet test of reasonableness and fairness; Articles 14 & 21.
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)	Arbitrary action violates equality under Article 14.
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)	Quasi-judicial administrative decisions must follow natural justice.
Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001)	Proportionality test applied to administrative decisions affecting fundamental rights.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)	Balancing state action with individual rights; proportionality test applied.
State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980)	Land acquisition for private purposes struck down; ultra vires.

7. Critical Analysis

Strengths of Judicial Intervention:

Protects fundamental rights from administrative arbitrariness.
Ensures accountability, transparency, and legality in administrative functioning.
Reinforces the rule of law by subordinating discretionary power to legal limits.

Challenges and Limitations:

Judicial Overreach – Excessive interference may hamper administrative efficiency.
Technical Expertise – Courts may lack domain expertise in specialized administrative matters.
Delay in Governance – Litigation may delay critical administrative decisions.

Balanced Approach Adopted by Indian Courts:

Policy decisions and technical matters – Courts defer to administration.
Fundamental rights and fairness – Courts apply strict scrutiny.
Hybrid approach – Wednesbury unreasonableness for policy-heavy decisions; proportionality for rights-intensive decisions.

8. Modern Trends

Integration of Proportionality Doctrine – Courts increasingly adopt proportionality to review executive actions affecting citizens’ rights.
Expansion of Natural Justice – Applied to quasi-legislative and administrative functions.
Judicial Activism – Courts proactively ensure administrative accountability, especially in environmental, human rights, and electoral matters.
Technology and Surveillance – Modern administrative powers raise new challenges; proportionality and rule of law serve as guiding principles.

Conclusion

Administrative discretion is indispensable for modern governance, providing flexibility and efficiency in executing laws and policies. However, unchecked discretion can threaten citizens’ rights, equality, and fairness. The rule of law, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution, requires that all administrative action be lawful, reasonable, and just.

The judiciary, through judicial review, writ jurisdiction, and doctrines such as Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality, ensures that administrative discretion does not transgress constitutional boundaries. Indian courts have developed a nuanced, context-sensitive approach:

Deferring to administration in technical or policy matters.
Applying strict scrutiny and proportionality in rights-sensitive cases.
Upholding natural justice and fairness in quasi-judicial and discretionary decisions.

Thus, the relationship between administrative discretion and the rule of law is complementary yet regulated. Judicial intervention maintains the delicate balance between administrative efficiency and protection of citizens’ rights, preserving both the effectiveness of governance and the supremacy of law.