Judicial Review of Administrative Action: Meaning, Constitutional Basis, Grounds and Scope

Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine the legality of the acts of the legislature and the executive and to declare them void where they exceed the limits the Constitution and the law impose. It is the mechanism that makes the rule of law enforceable: without it, the constitutional limits on power would be exhortations, and the doctrines of ultra vires, natural justice, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness would have no forum in which to operate. In India judicial review rests on express constitutional provisions rather than on implication, it is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and it is exercised through the writ jurisdictions under Articles 32 and 226. This topic surveys the field: what judicial review is, where it comes from, how it differs from an appeal, on what grounds it is exercised and where its limits lie.

1. Meaning and Nature

Judicial review is a supervisory and not an appellate jurisdiction. The court does not ask whether the decision was right; it asks whether the authority had the power, whether it stayed within it, and whether it exercised it lawfully and fairly. Three features follow. The jurisdiction is concerned with the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision. It is discretionary, so relief may be moulded or refused for delay, alternative remedy, conduct or the rights of third parties. And it is remedial, operating by quashing, prohibiting, commanding or declaring, rather than by substituting the court's own decision.

Its subject matter is threefold: legislative action, tested for competence and conformity with the Constitution; administrative and quasi-judicial action, tested for legality, rationality and procedural propriety; and judicial action of subordinate courts and tribunals, tested for jurisdictional error.

2. Constitutional Basis

The provisions that carry the power

Article 13 declares that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void, and defines law to include rules, regulations, notifications and orders. Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights and is itself a fundamental right. Article 226 empowers every High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose, a jurisdiction wider than Article 32. Article 227 confers on the High Court superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territory. Articles 131 to 136, including Article 136's special leave jurisdiction, complete the structure.

India therefore differs from the United States, where judicial review was inferred in Marbury v. Madison (1803) rather than conferred, and from the United Kingdom, where parliamentary sovereignty leaves the courts to review executive action but not primary legislation. The Indian position lies between the two: express textual authority, extending to legislation as well as to executive action, but exercised within a written Constitution that also defines its limits.

📖 L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261

Facts: Clause 2(d) of Article 323A and clause 3(d) of Article 323B, inserted by the Forty-second Amendment, permitted laws establishing tribunals to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136. Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 accordingly excluded the jurisdiction of the High Courts. The question before a seven-Judge Bench was whether these exclusions were valid.

Held: The Court struck down the exclusionary clauses. It held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and in the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an integral and essential feature of the Constitution, forming part of its basic structure, and cannot be ousted or excluded even by constitutional amendment. Tribunals may function as courts of first instance in the fields assigned to them, but their decisions remain subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal falls.

Ratio: Judicial review under Articles 32, 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure and is beyond the reach of legislative or constitutional exclusion. Tribunals supplement the High Courts; they do not supplant them.

3. Articles 32 and 226 Compared

Basis	Article 32	Article 226
Court	Supreme Court	Every High Court
Purpose	Enforcement of fundamental rights only	Fundamental rights and for any other purpose, including legal rights
Status	Itself a fundamental right; the Court cannot refuse to entertain a proper petition	A constitutional power, discretionary in its exercise
Territorial reach	All India	The High Court's territory, and where the cause of action arises wholly or in part within it
Suspension	Was suspendable during Emergency under Article 359	Not a fundamental right, so outside Article 359 in the same way
Alternative remedy	Not an absolute bar but weighs against entertaining	A significant discretionary consideration; the petitioner is often relegated
Scope	Narrower in purpose but not in remedies	Wider in purpose; the principal forum for administrative law

4. Judicial Review Distinguished from Appeal

Basis	Judicial review	Appeal
Source	Constitutional, under Articles 32, 226 and 227	Statutory; there is no appeal unless a statute gives one
What is examined	The legality of the decision-making process	The correctness of the decision on facts and law
Evidence	Not reappreciated; the court asks whether material existed	Reappreciated; the appellate body may reach its own findings
Outcome	The decision is quashed and ordinarily remitted	The decision may be reversed, varied or substituted
Discretion	Relief is discretionary and may be moulded or refused	The appellate court must decide the appeal on its merits
Grounds	Illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, proportionality	Any error of fact or law

5. The Grounds of Review

The classification used in India follows Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, [1985] AC 374, adopted in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, with proportionality and arbitrariness added.

Illegality. The authority lacked power, exceeded it, misdirected itself in law, acted for an improper purpose, took irrelevant considerations into account or ignored relevant ones, acted in bad faith, or unlawfully delegated or fettered its discretion.
Irrationality. The decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it, the Wednesbury standard.
Procedural impropriety. Breach of a mandatory statutory procedure, or of the principles of natural justice.
Proportionality. Where a fundamental right is restricted, the means must be suitable, necessary and fairly balanced against the right.
Arbitrariness under Article 14. The independent Indian ground: an act that is capricious, irrational or without a determining principle offends equality.
Unconstitutionality. The action or the rule offends a provision of the Constitution, or the parent law is beyond competence or violates the basic structure.
Jurisdictional error. A tribunal or subordinate court assumed or declined jurisdiction wrongly, or misconceived the question entrusted to it.

6. Scope and Limits

📖 Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651

Facts: The award of licences for cellular mobile telephone services was challenged, the complaint being directed at the evaluation of tenders and the composition of the evaluating committee. The Court had to decide how far it could go in examining a governmental commercial decision.

Held: The Supreme Court set out the modern Indian statement of the scope of review. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision but the decision-making process itself; the court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; the Government must have freedom of contract and a fair play in the joints is necessary in administrative action; and the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, being in the realm of contract. The grounds were stated as illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, with the possibility of proportionality.

Ratio: The governing statement of scope. Review examines the process, not the merits, and the court accords latitude in commercial and policy matters while insisting on legality, rationality and fair procedure.

No review of policy as such. The wisdom, soundness or economic merit of a policy is for the executive and the legislature.
No reappreciation of evidence. The court asks whether material existed, not whether it was convincing.
Deference in technical and expert fields. Economic regulation, security, education and technical assessment attract a wider margin.
Alternative remedy. Where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, the petitioner is ordinarily relegated to it, subject to exceptions for want of jurisdiction, breach of fundamental rights and violation of natural justice.
Delay and conduct. Laches, acquiescence, suppression of facts and unclean hands may defeat relief.
Locus standi, relaxed. The traditional requirement of a personal grievance has been relaxed through public interest litigation, and the right to be heard extended to those vitally affected, as National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan, (1983) 1 SCC 228 illustrates.

⚠ Review is available against the exercise of public power, whoever exercises it

The reach of judicial review is settled not by the identity of the body but by the character of the power. It extends to the State and its instrumentalities under Article 12, to statutory authorities and tribunals, to bodies discharging a public function even where they are private in form, and to the State acting in the contractual field, since Article 14 governs there too. It does not extend to purely private disputes, to the internal affairs of a private body owing no public duty, or to matters where no legal right or public duty is in issue, however unfair the conduct complained of may appear.

7. The Position in Summary

Judicial review is the supervisory power of the courts to test the legality of legislative, administrative and judicial action; it examines the process, not the merits, and is discretionary and remedial.
Its constitutional basis is express: Articles 13, 32, 226, 227 and 136, and it is part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded even by amendment (L. Chandra Kumar).
Article 32 is confined to fundamental rights and is itself a fundamental right; Article 226 extends to any other purpose and is the principal forum for administrative law.
The grounds are illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, proportionality, arbitrariness under Article 14, unconstitutionality and jurisdictional error.
Its limits are the exclusion of policy and merits, the bar on reappreciating evidence, deference in expert fields, alternative remedy, delay and conduct (Tata Cellular).

8. Related Topics and Provisions

Judicial Review vs Judicial Activism (Topic 89): the boundary between review and law-making.
Writs under Articles 32 and 226: certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus.
Judicial Control of Delegated Legislation (Topic 44) and Ultra Vires (Topic 46): review of rules.
Wednesbury and Proportionality (Topics 52 and 53) and Non-Arbitrariness (Topic 56): the standards of review.
Principles of Natural Justice (Topics 58 and 59): procedural impropriety as a ground.
Constitution of India: Articles 12, 13, 14, 32, 136, 226, 227, 323A and 323B.