Judicial Control over Administration: Its Instruments, its Reach and the Limits that Define It

Writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226

Quashing, commanding, prohibiting, releasing and testing title to office

Superintendence under Article 227

Keeping courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority

Statutory appeals and revisions

Reconsideration on facts and law where the statute provides for it

Suit in the civil court

Damages, possession and declaration, subject to Article 300 and section 80 of the Code

Declaration and injunction

Declaring rights and restraining unlawful action, subject to the Specific Relief Act

Public law compensation

Monetary relief for the violation of fundamental rights

Contempt jurisdiction

Enforcement of judicial orders against officials personally

Special leave under Article 136

Discretionary review of the decision of any court or tribunal

📖 Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323

Facts: A retired Judge sought the benefit of a revised scale of pension, and the High Court had granted relief by reading the statutory provision in a manner that extended it to a class not covered by its language, on the footing that a literal construction would produce a discriminatory and unjust result.

Held: The Supreme Court set aside the relief. It held that it is not the duty of the court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous; the court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation, for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The Court held that a casus omissus cannot be supplied by the court except in the case of clear necessity and when reason for it is found within the four corners of the statute itself; the power to legislate has not been conferred on the courts, and where a provision produces hardship the remedy lies with the legislature. The Court added that under the guise of interpretation the court cannot add words to a statute or read into it something which is not there.

Ratio: Judicial control does not extend to supplying what the legislature has omitted or to reframing a provision whose language is plain. The court interprets and applies the law; it does not make it.

📖 State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709

Facts: An amendment to the State prohibition legislation banning the manufacture and sale of certain liquors was challenged, and among the grounds advanced was that the law was arbitrary and unreasonable, it being contended that arbitrariness is an independent ground on which a statute may be struck down under Article 14.

Held: The Supreme Court rejected that contention. It held that a law made by Parliament or a State legislature can be struck down on only two grounds: that it is beyond the legislative competence of the legislature that made it, and that it is contrary to a constitutional provision, principally Part III or another express limitation. There is no third ground, and no enactment can be struck down merely by saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable: some constitutional infirmity must be found. The Court observed that the applicable standards differ according to the right in question, and that while an executive or administrative action may be struck down for arbitrariness under Article 14, that ground does not apply in the same way to plenary legislation, which is the product of a body answerable to the electorate.

Ratio: A statute may be struck down only for want of legislative competence or for contravention of the Constitution. Arbitrariness as such is not an independent ground against plenary legislation, though it is against executive and administrative action.

The policy is unwise

Outside; policy is for the executive and the legislature

The decision was mistaken on the facts

Outside; evidence is not reappreciated

Money was wasted though lawfully spent

Outside; a matter for audit and the Public Accounts Committee

The official was inefficient, slow or discourteous

Outside; a matter for internal discipline and grievance mechanisms

A better decision was possible

Outside; the court is not an appellate authority

A statute is unreasonable

Outside, unless a constitutional infirmity is shown (McDowell)

The legislature has omitted to provide for a situation

Outside; the court cannot supply a casus omissus (Deoki Nandan Aggarwal)

The decision was beyond power or procedurally unfair

Within; the core of judicial control

The decision rests on no material or is perverse

Within

A fundamental right has been violated

Within, with compensation available in public law

Initiated by

The affected citizen or the public in PIL

The House and its committees

Superiors and audit

Standard applied

Legality

Policy, wisdom and propriety

Efficiency, propriety and compliance

Coverage

Only what is challenged

Selective, limited by time

Comprehensive in principle

Outcome

Binding and enforceable

Political, and non-binding in committee

Administrative and disciplinary

Speed

Slow, though faster in urgent matters

Slow and episodic

Immediate

Independence

Complete

Constrained by party discipline

The controller and controlled are the same body

Effect beyond the case

Precedent binds all comparable cases

General, through legislation

Confined to the department

⚠ Judicial control is the most binding and the least comprehensive

The two features that define judicial control pull in opposite directions, and holding them together explains most of what is said about it. It is the only control whose outcome must be obeyed: a committee reports, a Minister directs, an auditor objects, but a court orders, and disobedience is contempt. It is also the least comprehensive: it reaches only what a litigant brings, only on the ground of legality, and only after the event. The consequence is that judicial control is intense where it operates and absent everywhere else, which is why it cannot substitute for the legislative and internal controls however vigorously it is exercised, and why the failure of those controls shows up as pressure on the courts rather than as a gap anyone else fills.