Administrative Law

Illegality, Irrationality and Procedural Impropriety

Master the three classic grounds of judicial review, Wednesbury unreasonableness and their relationship with proportionality.

By Advocate Aditya Sharma7 min read

Quick answer

A public decision may fail because the authority misunderstood its power, reached an irrational result or used an unfair procedure.

The classic framework

The categories organise analysis but often overlap, so the answer should identify the concrete defect rather than force one label.

Illegality

The authority must correctly understand its jurisdiction and law. Wrong purpose, irrelevant factors, dictation and fettering can all produce illegality.

Irrationality

A decision is reviewable when it falls outside the range a reasonable authority, properly directing itself on law and facts, could reach.

Procedural impropriety

The authority must follow mandatory statutory procedure and natural justice, including impartiality and fair hearing where applicable.

Overlap

Failure to disclose decisive evidence can be procedural unfairness, produce an irrational finding and also violate Article 14.

Wednesbury and proportionality

Both doctrines control unreasonable power, but they ask different questions and operate with different intensity.

Wednesbury restraint

Traditional irrationality does not let the court reweigh merits. It catches outcomes beyond the lawful range of reasonable administrative responses.

Proportionality

Where constitutional rights are restricted, the court may examine legitimate aim, rational connection, necessity and the balance between harm and public benefit.

Evidence and reasons

The more serious the interference, the more important relevant material and intelligible reasons become, even when the court respects expert judgment.

Remedial focus

The court identifies the legal defect and normally restores the choice to administration unless only one lawful outcome remains.

Landmark cases

Learn the facts, the rule and why the case matters. The citation alone will not strengthen an answer.

Tata Cellular v. Union of India

(1994) 6 SCC 651

Facts: The award of cellular-service licences was challenged on the basis that the government's tender evaluation and treatment of bidders were legally defective.

Legal question: How far may courts review administrative and commercial decisions without taking over the merits?

Held: Illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety provide the classic framework while review remains directed to the decision-making process.

Reasoning: Review examines the process through illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety while allowing the administration legitimate freedom of contract and policy choice.

Use in an answer: Use it to structure almost every general judicial-review answer.

Read the judgment

Om Kumar v. Union of India

(2001) 2 SCC 386

Facts: Government officers challenged the proportionality of disciplinary penalties imposed after findings connected with unauthorised property transactions.

Legal question: How do Wednesbury review and proportionality operate in Indian administrative law?

Held: Indian public law distinguishes traditional Wednesbury review from proportionality analysis, especially where Fundamental Rights are directly restricted.

Reasoning: Traditional administrative review uses the restrained Wednesbury standard, while direct restrictions on Fundamental Rights can attract closer proportionality analysis.

Use in an answer: Use it to explain the intensity of review and rights cases.

Read the judgment

How to write this answer in an exam

  1. State the three classic grounds.
  2. Attach facts to each legal defect.
  3. Explain the high irrationality threshold.
  4. Consider proportionality where rights are restricted.
  5. State a process-focused remedy.

Quick revision

  • Illegality asks about lawful power.
  • Irrationality asks about the lawful range.
  • Procedure asks how the decision was made.
  • Grounds may overlap.
  • Rights can trigger proportionality.

Test yourself

  1. What does illegality include?
  2. Why is Wednesbury review demanding?
  3. What stages form proportionality analysis?

Frequently asked questions

Is every unreasonable decision Wednesbury irrational?

No. The threshold is not ordinary disagreement. The decision must fall outside the range a reasonable authority could lawfully reach.

When is proportionality especially important?

It is especially important when State action directly restricts a Fundamental Right and the court must examine whether the restriction goes further than necessary.

Sources and further reading

Continue learning

Administrative LawAbuse and Failure to Exercise Administrative DiscretionUnderstand improper purpose, irrelevant factors, bad faith, dictation, rigid policy and other forms of abuse or non-exercise of discretion.Administrative LawLegitimate Expectation and Promissory EstoppelCompare legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel through their elements, remedies and public-interest limits against government.Administrative LawAdministrative Discretion: Meaning, Need and Legal LimitsUnderstand administrative discretion, why statutes confer choice and how legality, relevance, reasonableness and fairness control its exercise.Administrative LawJudicial Review of Administrative ActionLearn the constitutional basis, scope, grounds, remedies and limits of judicial review over administrative decisions in India.