Leading Cases on Judicial Review of Administrative Action: A Complete Case Digest

📖 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, and section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 accordingly excluded the High Courts.

Held: A seven-Judge Bench struck down the exclusionary clauses. 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 even by constitutional amendment. Tribunals may act as courts of first instance in their fields, but their decisions remain subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court.

Ratio: Judicial review is part of the basic structure and beyond legislative or constitutional exclusion. Tribunals supplement the High Courts; they do not supplant them.

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

Facts: The award of licences for cellular mobile telephone services was challenged, the objection being directed at the evaluation of tenders and the composition of the evaluating committee.

Held: 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 and has no expertise to correct an administrative decision. The Government must have freedom of contract and fair play in the joints, and the terms of an invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny. The grounds are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, with proportionality in prospect.

Ratio: The governing Indian statement of the scope of review. Process, not merits; latitude in commercial and policy matters; legality, rationality and fair procedure insisted upon.

📖 Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147

Facts: The Commission rejected a compensation claim on a construction of the governing Order under which the nationality of the claimant's successor in title was treated as relevant, when on the true construction it was not. The statute provided that a determination by the Commission shall not be called in question in any court of law.

Held: The determination was a nullity and the ouster clause did not apply. The Commission had asked itself the wrong question, and a decision reached in that way is not a determination at all; an ouster clause protects genuine determinations made within jurisdiction and does not protect a nullity.

Ratio: Most errors of law now go to jurisdiction, and a finality or ouster clause does not protect a decision that is a nullity.

📖 Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386

Facts: The Supreme Court proposed to reopen and enhance punishments imposed in departmental inquiries on officers of the Delhi Development Authority connected with the allotment of land to Skipper Construction Co.

Held: Where a fundamental right under Article 19 or Article 21 is restricted, the court applies proportionality in a primary role and decides for itself whether the restriction is excessive. Where administrative action is attacked as arbitrary under Article 14 in the sense of unreasonableness, the court applies Wednesbury in a secondary role. The quantum of punishment is for the disciplinary authority, reviewed in the secondary role at the shocking-disproportion threshold. On that footing the Court declined to enhance the punishments.

Ratio: The allocation of the two standards by subject matter, and the distinction between the court's primary and secondary roles.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225

Basic structure doctrine; the amending power is limited, and judicial review is among the features protected

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625

Judicial review is a basic feature; clauses excluding it from constitutional amendments were struck down

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1

Even a proclamation under Article 356 is justiciable for material, relevance and mala fides, though not for adequacy

Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority, (1979) 3 SCC 489

The State cannot act arbitrarily in giving contracts, jobs or largesse; Article 14 governs its dealings

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722

Tests for identifying an instrumentality of the State under Article 12, and thus the reach of writ jurisdiction

ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation, (2004) 3 SCC 553

A writ under Article 226 lies against the State in contractual matters; disputed facts are not an absolute bar

Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 KB 223

The two senses of unreasonableness, and the narrow threshold for interference on the substance

Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, [1985] AC 374

The threefold classification of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, with proportionality in prospect

Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477

Certiorari corrects errors of law apparent on the record, not errors of fact; a finding on no evidence is an error of law

Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364

The no-evidence rule; a departmental finding resting on nothing is perverse

Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, AIR 1967 SC 295

A subjective satisfaction is examinable for the existence of the circumstances the statute requires

State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471

Malice in law: the use of statutory power for purposes foreign to the statute is bad without proof of spite

Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, [1968] AC 997

Discretion is a trust for the statutory purpose; a permissive power is not a power to do nothing

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3

Arbitrariness is a denial of equality; Article 14 becomes a general ground of review

Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71

Legitimate expectation confers a right to fair consideration, not to the benefit expected

Modern Dental College v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353

The four-part proportionality test: proper purpose, rational connection, necessity and balancing

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

Legality, legitimate aim and proportionality for any invasion of privacy, with procedural safeguards added later

R. v. Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith, [1996] QB 517

Anxious scrutiny: the more substantial the interference with rights, the more justification required

State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566

Considerable freedom in economic policy; restraint, and no interference merely because a different policy is conceivable

R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675

Greater latitude for economic legislation; play in the joints and freedom to experiment

Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364

The court examines whether the limits of a power were transgressed, not the wisdom of the policy

Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass, (2008) 1 SCC 683

Judicial restraint as a constitutional discipline; courts cannot create posts or take over administration

Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737

Policy is reviewable only for unconstitutionality, conflict with statute, arbitrariness or abuse of power

Balco Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333

Disinvestment reviewed for illegality, mala fides and irrationality in the process, not for commercial wisdom

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241

Binding guidelines may be laid down to fill a legislative vacuum, expressly until Parliament legislates

Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216

The two-question test for tender review: mala fides or irrationality, and effect on the public interest

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation, (2016) 16 SCC 818

The author of a tender document is the best judge of its requirements; restraint because interference delays projects

B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749

Review of a departmental inquiry examines the process; no reappreciation of evidence; remit rather than substitute on penalty

Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610

The checklist of what the High Court may and may not do under Articles 226 and 227 in disciplinary matters

Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27

In academic matters the court examines vires, not the soundness of the academic judgment

Cellular Operators Association v. TRAI, (2016) 7 SCC 703

An expert regulator's regulation may be struck down as manifestly arbitrary; expertise is not immunity

R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628

Severability: intention of the maker, and whether the residue can operate independently and without alteration

State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1

A void order bears no brand of invalidity; it must be challenged, and limitation applies

Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of A.P., (1981) 3 SCC 132

The de facto doctrine: acts of an officer holding office under colour of authority are valid as to third parties

Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727

Relief calibrated to prejudice, with remission to the stage of default rather than wholesale quashing

⚠ Three pairs worth holding together

Tata Cellular and Ramana Dayaram Shetty together: the first confines review to the process, the second insists that the process be non-arbitrary, and between them they fix the boundary of review in the contractual field. Om Kumar and Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank together: the first allocates proportionality and Wednesbury by subject matter, the second confirms that the allocation depends on the nature of the right and interest affected. Nandlal Jaiswal and Cellular Operators together: the first accords wide latitude in economic and technical fields, the second shows that latitude is not immunity where a measure is manifestly arbitrary.