'Judicial review of administrative actions in India serves as a crucial mechanism to ensure that executive decisions comply with the law and respect the law and the fundamental rights. Judicial review means to review the decisions made by the administrative bodies to ensure that no authority misuses their powers and work within their boundaries.

Judicial review in context to administrative actions refers to the Judiciary's authority to access the legality a constitutionality of decisions made by administrative bodies or officials. The review ensures that such actions comply with the statutory provisions, which do not violate the fundamental rights and the principles of natural justice.

Administrative action comes in picture when a fundamental right gets violated through any judgement. The landmark case of Kesavanada Bharti Vs. state of Kerala (1973) played an important role in shaping the doctrine of judicial review in India, particularly concerning the review of the administrative actions. This case is most famous for establishing the "basic structure" of the doctrine, which holds that certain fundamental features of the constitution cannot be altered by any amendment, thereby preserving the core principles of the constitution.

These included the supremacy of the constitution, rule of law, the principle of separation of powers, judicial review, federalism, secularism, the sovereignty of India, and the protection of fundamental rights. This doctrine ensures that the core values of the constitution remain intact.

Historical Background:

1. Colonial Era: British courts in India began exercising limited judicial oversight over administrative actions, laying the foundation for judicial review.
2. Post-Independence: After independence, the constitution of India institutionalized judicial review as a key mechanism to check executive actions and ensure their legality.
3. Constitutional Provisions: Articles 32 and 226 of the constitution empowered the judiciary to review administrative actions, safeguarding fundamental rights and the rule of law.
4. Influence Of Legal Principles: The framers were influenced by the doctrines of the rule of law and separation of powers, which underpinned the development of judicial review.
5. Landmark Cases: Early cases like A.K. Gopalan and Maneka Gandhi played a significant role in expanding the scope of judicial review, establishing key principles for reviewing administrative actions.

Constitutional Provisions:
In the context of judicial review of administrative actions in India, several constitutional provisions empower the judiciary to scrutinize and control the legality of executive decisions. Key articles include:

Article 13:

• Provision: Article 13 declares that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights is void. It ensures that laws, including administrative actions, do not infringe on fundamental rights.
• Judicial Review: This article provides a broad foundation for judicial review by empowering courts to strike down any administrative action that violates fundamental rights.

Article 32:

• Provision: Article 32 guarantees the right to constitutional remedies, allowing individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Judicial Review: It acts as a powerful tool for judicial review, enabling the Supreme Court to examine administrative actions that allegedly violate fundamental rights. The Court can issue writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto to control administrative authorities.

Article 226:

• Provision: Article 226 grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose, providing a broad scope for judicial review.
• Judicial Review: High Courts can review the legality of administrative actions, not only when they violate fundamental rights but also when they contravene any legal or constitutional provisions. This makes Article 226 a vital mechanism for holding administrative authorities accountable.

Article 227:

• Provision: Article 227 vests High Courts with supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals within their respective territories.
• Judicial Review: Through this article, High Courts exercise control over the functioning of lower courts and tribunals, ensuring that they act within their jurisdiction and follow the principles of natural justice. It provides a form of indirect judicial review over administrative actions that come before these courts and tribunals.

Types Of Administrative Actions Subject To Judicial Reviews:

1. Discretionary Powers: Discretionary powers are those where administrative authorities are granted the freedom to make decisions based on their judgment within the boundaries of the law. Judicial review of these actions focuses on ensuring that discretion is exercised legally, fairly, and without arbitrariness. Courts intervene if discretion is used in a manner that is unreasonable, discriminatory, or in bad faith, ensuring that such powers are not abused.
    
2. Rule-Making or Delegated Legislation: Rule-making or delegated legislation involves administrative authorities creating rules, regulations, or orders under powers delegated by the legislature. Judicial review in this context examines whether these rules are within the scope of authority provided by the parent legislation and conform to constitutional principles. If the rules exceed the delegated powers (ultra vires) or violate fundamental rights, courts can invalidate them to prevent overreach.
    
3. Quasi-Judicial Actions: Quasi-judicial actions occur when administrative bodies make decisions that resemble judicial functions, such as issuing licenses, adjudicating disputes, or imposing penalties. Judicial review of such actions ensures that the decisions are made fairly, following due process and the principles of natural justice. Courts may scrutinize these actions for bias, procedural errors, or legal violations, ensuring that the administrative bodies act justly and within their legal mandate.

Limitations And Challenges Of Judicial Review Of Administrative Actions In India:

Judicial review is a cornerstone of India's legal system, providing a crucial check on the executive and legislative branches. However, it is not without its limitations and challenges.

Limitations of Judicial Review:

• Doctrine of Separation of Powers: While India follows a system of checks and balances, the doctrine of separation of powers is not strictly adhered to. This can sometimes lead to overlap in functions between the judiciary and the executive, creating complexities in judicial review.
• Political Questions Doctrine: Courts generally avoid interfering in matters that are considered political in nature. This can limit judicial review in areas such as foreign policy, national security, and inter-state disputes.
• Policy vs. Law Distinction: Courts are reluctant to substitute their judgment for that of the executive on policy matters. They primarily focus on the legality of the decision, rather than its wisdom.
• Lack of Specialized Administrative Tribunals: While India has some administrative tribunals, their jurisdiction is limited. This often leads to a heavy burden on the regular courts, causing delays and affecting the efficiency of judicial review.
• Delay and Pendency: The overwhelming caseload of Indian courts often leads to significant delays in judicial review proceedings. This can frustrate the purpose of the remedy and cause undue hardship to affected parties.

Challenges in Judicial Review:

• Defining Administrative Action: Determining whether a particular action is administrative and, therefore, subject to judicial review can be challenging. The boundaries between administrative, legislative, and judicial functions are not always clear-cut.
• Standard of Review: The appropriate standard of review to be applied in different cases is a complex issue. Whether to apply strict, deferential, or intermediate scrutiny can impact the outcome of the case.
• Access to Justice: Financial constraints and lack of legal aid can hinder access to justice for many, limiting their ability to challenge administrative actions through judicial review.
• Enforcement of Judgments: Even when a court upholds a challenge to an administrative action, enforcing the judgment can be difficult, especially against powerful government agencies.
• Balancing Efficiency and Accountability: Striking a balance between ensuring administrative accountability through judicial review and avoiding undue interference with the administration's functioning is a constant challenge.

Landmark Judgements:
A.K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras. Union Of India:
The A.K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras case, decided on May 19, 1950, is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law. A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and he challenged his detention, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 did not require Indian courts to apply a "due process of law" standard, meaning the procedure established by law was sufficient. The Court upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, stating that it did not violate the Constitution. This case highlighted the limitations of judicial review concerning preventive detention laws and was later revisited in the Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case, which expanded the interpretation of Article 21 to include "due process of law."

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Raj Narain (1975):
The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raj Narain (1975) case is a landmark judgment in Indian legal history, particularly significant for its implications on judicial review of administrative actions and the right to information. Raj Narain, a political opponent of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, filed an election petition alleging misuse of government resources during the 1971 elections. The Supreme Court ruled that a confidential government document, the "Blue Book," must be disclosed, emphasizing that the public interest in transparency outweighed the government's claim of privilege. This decision reinforced the judiciary's role in reviewing administrative actions and underscored the right to information as part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

This landmark judgment transformed the understanding of Article 21, linking it with Articles 14 and 19 to ensure that any law or administrative action affecting personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. The decision greatly expanded the scope of judicial review, allowing courts to scrutinize administrative actions for procedural fairness and substantive reasonableness, beyond mere legality.

Manika Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978):
The case of Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India (1978) is a landmark judgment that expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Maneka Gandhi was denied the right to travel abroad when her passport was impounded by authorities. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to travel is part of personal liberty and emphasized that any procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable. This judgment established a connection between Article 21 and other fundamental rights, reinforcing the principles of natural justice and limiting arbitrary administrative actions in India.

This landmark judgment transformed the understanding of Article 21, linking it with Articles 14 and 19 to ensure that any law or administrative action affecting personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. The decision greatly expanded the scope of judicial review, allowing courts to scrutinize administrative actions for procedural fairness and substantive reasonableness, beyond mere legality.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, Judicial review of administrative actions in India serves as a crucial mechanism for upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability in governance. It empowers the judiciary to examine the legality and constitutionality of administrative decisions, protecting citizens' rights against arbitrary actions. By balancing the powers of the executive and legislative branches, judicial review fosters transparency and fairness in public administration, ultimately reinforcing democratic principles and promoting justice within the framework of the Indian Constitution.

References:

• https://blog.ipleaders.in/judicial-review-administrative-action-2/
• https://lawbhoomi.com/judicial-review-of-administrative-action/
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1857950/
• https://www.livelaw.in/

Written By: Tanisha Pruthi (BBA-LLB 3rd year law student GGSIPU)'