Administrative Law
Judicial Review of Administrative Action
Learn the constitutional basis, scope, grounds, remedies and limits of judicial review over administrative decisions in India.
Quick answer
Judicial review examines the legality of public decision-making, while an appeal may reconsider the correctness of the result.
What judicial review examines
The reviewing court keeps public authorities within constitutional and statutory boundaries without becoming the administrator.
Constitutional foundation
The Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 protect rights and legality, while Article 227 supplies supervisory control over courts and tribunals.
Decision-making process
Review asks about jurisdiction, legal interpretation, relevant material, fairness, reasons, good faith and rationality rather than simply whether the judge prefers another result.
Grounds overlap
Illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety are useful headings. Article 14 arbitrariness, proportionality, mala fides and legitimate expectation can refine them.
Restraint and effective remedies
The intensity of review depends on the legal question, institutional expertise, impact on rights and quality of the administrative process.
Institutional restraint
Courts give appropriate space to technical assessment, economic policy and contractual choice, but expertise does not protect bad faith or legal error.
Evidence threshold
The court does not reweigh every fact. It can intervene where there is no relevant evidence, material facts were ignored or the conclusion is legally irrational.
Public-law remedies
Depending on the defect, the court may quash an order, prohibit unlawful proceedings, compel a public duty, declare rights or order lawful reconsideration.
Relief remains discretionary
Delay, alternative remedy, conduct, prejudice and public impact may affect relief, though they do not turn an unlawful act into a lawful one.
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 651Facts: 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: Judicial review targets the decision-making process through illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety while respecting administrative freedom of choice.
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 as the leading framework for scope and restraint.
Read the judgmentL. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
(1997) 3 SCC 261Facts: Tribunal provisions attempted to exclude High Court review and place specialised adjudication outside the ordinary constitutional review structure.
Legal question: Can administrative tribunals wholly replace judicial review by High Courts?
Held: Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure and cannot be wholly excluded by routing disputes through tribunals.
Reasoning: No. Tribunals may act as first forums, but review under Articles 226 and 227 and the Supreme Court role under Article 32 belong to the Constitution's basic structure.
Use in an answer: Use it for the constitutional status of High Court review.
Read the judgmentHow to write this answer in an exam
- Distinguish review from appeal.
- Identify the constitutional jurisdiction.
- Classify the alleged legal defect.
- Apply the proper intensity and restraint.
- Choose a remedy tied to the defect.
Quick revision
- Review examines legality.
- Appeal can reconsider merits.
- Process is the primary focus.
- Expertise affects intensity, not jurisdiction.
- Remedy should restore lawful administration.
Test yourself
- How does judicial review differ from appeal?
- What are the three classic grounds?
- Why may a court remit rather than substitute?
Frequently asked questions
Can contractual decisions of government be judicially reviewed?
Yes, for public-law defects such as arbitrariness, mala fides, illegality and procedural unfairness, with appropriate restraint for commercial judgment.
Must a person always exhaust an alternative remedy?
It is ordinarily an important rule of judicial restraint, but exceptions can arise for jurisdictional error, Fundamental Rights, natural justice or an ineffective remedy.