Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Writ Jurisdiction) notes — Unit 4

Judicial Review is the power of the courts to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to ensure they conform to the Constitution and the law.

⇒Review of Decision-Making Process

Crucially, in Administrative Law, judicial review is NOT an appeal. The court does not sit to decide if the administrator's decision was 'right' or 'wrong' on facts. The court only reviews the decision-making process. (Did they have jurisdiction? Did they follow natural justice? Was it arbitrary?)

⇒Constitutional Basis

In India, Judicial Review is a Basic Feature of the Constitution, exercised primarily through Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts).

In the famous UK case Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) v. Minister for the Civil Service (also known as the GCHQ case), Lord Diplock beautifully categorized the grounds for judicial review of administrative action into three heads:

• 1. Illegality: The decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and give effect to it. (Acting ultra vires or without jurisdiction).
• 2. Irrationality: (Also known as Wednesbury Unreasonableness). A decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have arrived at it.
• 3. Procedural Impropriety: Failure to observe the basic rules of Natural Justice (Bias, lack of fair hearing) or failure to observe procedural rules laid down in the statute.

Indian courts have fully adopted these three grounds.

The power of judicial review is exercised by issuing 'Prerogative Writs'.

⇒Article 32 vs Article 226

Because Art 226 includes "any other purpose," the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is actually wider than that of the Supreme Court.

Meaning: "You may have the body."

⇒Purpose

It is a remedy available to a person who is confined without legal justification. The court commands the authority holding the person to produce the body of the prisoner before the court and explain the legal justification for the detention. If there is no valid law backing the detention, the court orders immediate release.

⇒Key Features:

• Who can file? Normally, the detained person. But since a prisoner might be unable to approach the court, any relative or friend can file it on their behalf (Exception to strict Locus Standi).
• Against Whom? It can be issued against the State (police/prisons) AND against private individuals (e.g., a husband illegally confining his wife).

Meaning: "We Command."

⇒Purpose

It is an order from a superior court to any government, court, corporation, or public authority to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do. It is used to compel the performance of a public duty.

⇒Conditions for Mandamus:

• The petitioner must have a legal right to compel the performance of the duty.
• The duty must be public and statutory (not a private contract).
• The authority must have refused to perform the duty despite a demand being made (Demand and Refusal rule).
• Cannot be issued against: The President of India, State Governors (for their official duties), or private bodies.

Meaning: "To be certified or to be fully informed."

⇒Purpose

It is issued by a higher court (SC/HC) to a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority to quash (cancel) an order already passed by them.

⇒Grounds for issuing Certiorari:

• Lack of Jurisdiction: The lower body acted without jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction.
• Violation of Natural Justice: The lower body passed an order without hearing the affected party or was biased.
• Error of Law Apparent on the Face of the Record: The decision contains a glaring, obvious legal error (not just a minor factual mistake).

(Certiorari is a curative writ. It cures an illegal order that has already been passed).

Meaning: "To forbid or to stop."

⇒Purpose

It is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal directing them to stop proceedings in a case because they are stepping outside their jurisdiction.

⇒Certiorari vs Prohibition

Both are issued against judicial/quasi-judicial bodies on similar grounds (lack of jurisdiction). The difference lies in the stage of the proceeding:

• Prohibition: Issued while the proceeding is going on, to stop the lower court from passing an illegal order. (Prevention is better than cure).
• Certiorari: Issued after the proceeding is over and the illegal order has been passed, in order to quash it. (The Cure).

Meaning: "By what authority or warrant?"

⇒Purpose

It is issued to restrain a person from holding a public office to which they are not legally entitled. The court asks the person to show by what legal authority they are holding the office. If they cannot prove legal validity (e.g., they lack the educational qualifications, or were appointed illegally), the court ousts them.

⇒Conditions:

• The office must be a Public Office, created by statute or Constitution.
• The duties of the office must be public in nature.
• The person must actually be holding the office (not just a candidate).
• Locus Standi relaxed: Any member of the public can file this writ; they do not need to show that their personal right was infringed.

Traditionally, to file a writ, you must have 'Locus Standi' (the right to be heard). This meant only the person whose legal right was directly infringed could approach the court.

⇒Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

The Supreme Court (led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati) radically relaxed the strict rule of locus standi in the 1980s. Under PIL, if a legal wrong or constitutional violation happens to a person or a class of persons who, by reason of poverty, disability, or social disadvantage, cannot approach the court, any public-spirited individual or NGO can file a writ petition on their behalf.

This revolutionized Administrative Law, allowing courts to review administrative inaction regarding bonded labour, undertrial prisoners, and environmental degradation.

Writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy. It is not meant to bypass the regular legal system.

⇒The Rule

If a statute provides a complete machinery for appealing an administrative decision (e.g., the Income Tax Act provides for appeals to the ITAT), the High Court will generally refuse to entertain a writ petition under Art 226 until the petitioner has exhausted those alternative statutory remedies.

⇒Exceptions to the Rule

The court MAY entertain a writ despite alternative remedies if:

• A Fundamental Right is directly violated.
• The administrative order is wholly without jurisdiction.
• The order was passed in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice.

There is no strict statutory limitation period for filing a writ petition (unlike civil suits which are governed by the Limitation Act).

⇒Delay Defeats Equity

However, courts apply the equitable doctrine of "Laches." If a petitioner sleeps over their rights and approaches the court after an inordinate, unexplained delay, the court will dismiss the writ. (e.g., You cannot challenge your termination from service 10 years after it happened).

Does the civil procedure rule of Res Judicata (a matter once decided cannot be reopened) apply to Constitutional Writs?

⇒The Rule

Yes. The Supreme Court has held that the principle of Res Judicata applies to writ petitions to bring finality to litigation.

If you file a writ under Art 226 in the High Court and it is dismissed on merits, you cannot file the exact same writ petition under Art 32 in the Supreme Court on the same facts. You must file an Appeal (SLP) against the High Court's judgment.

⇒Summary of Master Concepts

• Judicial Review: Review of the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision.
• Art 32 vs 226: 226 is wider as it covers legal rights in addition to fundamental rights.
• Habeas Corpus: Produce the body. Can be against private individuals.
• Mandamus: Command to perform public duty.
• Certiorari vs Prohibition: Certiorari quashes a passed order. Prohibition stops a pending proceeding.
• Quo Warranto: By what authority do you hold this public office?
• Filters: Writs can be dismissed for Laches (delay) or failure to exhaust alternative remedies.

⇒University Exam Tips for this Unit (Premium Advice)

• Certiorari vs Prohibition: This is a classic exam question. Explain that both deal with jurisdictional errors, but distinguish them based on the timing of the writ (Prevention vs Cure).
• Article 32 vs 226: When comparing them, clearly state that Art 32 is a fundamental right itself, so the SC usually cannot refuse to hear it. Art 226 is discretionary. But 226 has a wider scope.
• Locus Standi & PIL: If an essay question asks about modern trends in administrative law, discussing the relaxation of locus standi via PIL is mandatory.