CLAT PG question bank

Administrative Law MCQs for CLAT PG, Page 2

CLAT PG Administrative Law questions 26-50 of 100, with answer keys and explanations covering delegated legislation, natural justice, tribunals, discretion, judicial review, and state accountability.

100 questions20 topics26-50 on this page
Start adaptive practiceBrowse CLAT PG

Coverage

Topics in this subject

Revise core LLB subjects through CLAT PG MCQs, passage-led questions, answer keys, explanations, statutes, and exam-oriented legal principles.

  • Administrative Discretion and its Abuse5
  • Administrative Tribunals5
  • Certiorari and Ultra Vires Doctrine5
  • Control of Delegated Legislation - Parliamentary and Judicial5
  • Delegated Legislation - Nature and Validity5
  • Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Government Contracts5
  • Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel5
  • Doctrine of Proportionality in Administrative Law5
  • Doctrine of Separation of Powers in Administrative Context5
  • Judicial Review of Administrative Action - Grounds5
  • Legitimate Expectation5
  • Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem5
  • Natural Justice - Rule Against Bias5
  • Nature and Scope of Administrative Law5
  • Ombudsman - Lokpal and Lokayukta5
  • Principles of Natural Justice - Fairness in Public Law5
  • Quasi-Judicial Functions and Duty to Give Reasons5
  • Right to Information and Transparency5
  • Rule of Law - Dicey and Indian Constitution5
  • Tortious Liability of the State5
Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law / Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. IAA / Article 14

Government contracts and licences occupy a special position in administrative law because the State's superior bargaining power creates risks of exploitation and favouritism. Courts have applied Article 14 (equality before law) and the doctrine of legitimate expectation to control the State's conduct in entering, modifying and terminating contracts and licences. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979), the Supreme Court held that the State and its instrumentalities cannot act arbitrarily in awarding contracts - they must follow a procedure that ensures equal opportunity to all eligible candidates, and the selection must be based on relevant criteria applied in a transparent manner. The Court held that if the State acts arbitrarily - selecting a contractor or grantee for irrelevant or capricious reasons - the action will violate Article 14 and can be set aside. Once a government licence, permit or benefit has been granted, the holder develops a legitimate expectation of its continuance. If the State seeks to withdraw or alter the benefit, it must act fairly - giving notice and opportunity to the holder to show cause. Arbitrary withdrawal without any procedure violates Article 14. However, the State's power to modify or terminate licences for public interest reasons remains - what is required is a fair procedure and adequate justification. In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of UP (1991), the Supreme Court held that even the conduct of the State in relation to its own employees (such as government advocates) is subject to the constraints of Article 14 - the State cannot act arbitrarily even in matters not governed by specific statutory rules.

Question 26EasyDoctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Government Contracts

In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. iaa (1979), the Supreme Court held that the State in awarding contracts:

  1. A

    Has absolute discretion to award contracts to whoever it chooses

  2. B

    Cannot act arbitrarily - must follow a procedure ensuring equal opportunity and selection based on relevant criteria applied transparently

  3. C

    Must always accept the lowest bid

  4. D

    Must obtain Parliamentary approval for all contracts

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Cannot act arbitrarily - must follow a procedure ensuring equal opportunity and selection based on relevant criteria applied transparently

The passage states: 'the State and its instrumentalities cannot act arbitrarily in awarding contracts - they must follow a procedure that ensures equal opportunity to all eligible candidates, and the selection must be based on relevant criteria applied in a transparent manner.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. IAA / Article 14

Question 27EasyDoctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Government Contracts

If the State selects a contractor for irrelevant or capricious reasons, the action will violate:

  1. A

    Article 19(1)(g) alone

  2. B

    Article 14 - the right to equality - and can be set aside by courts

  3. C

    Article 21 alone

  4. D

    The Prevention of Corruption Act only

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Article 14 - the right to equality - and can be set aside by courts

The passage states: 'if the State acts arbitrarily - selecting a contractor or grantee for irrelevant or capricious reasons - the action will violate Article 14 and can be set aside.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. IAA / Article 14

Question 28MediumDoctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Government Contracts

According to the passage, once a government licence or benefit has been granted, the holder develops:

  1. A

    An absolute right to its continuance forever

  2. B

    A legitimate expectation of its continuance - requiring fair notice and opportunity to show cause before withdrawal

  3. C

    A right to triple the original benefit

  4. D

    A right to judicial review only in the Supreme Court

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A legitimate expectation of its continuance - requiring fair notice and opportunity to show cause before withdrawal

The passage states: 'Once a government licence, permit or benefit has been granted, the holder develops a legitimate expectation of its continuance.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. IAA / Article 14

Question 29MediumDoctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Government Contracts

The State's power to modify or terminate licences for public interest reasons is:

  1. A

    Completely prohibited after a licence is granted

  2. B

    Available but requires fair procedure and adequate justification - arbitrary withdrawal without procedure violates Article 14

  3. C

    Available only with Parliamentary approval

  4. D

    Available only for national security reasons

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Available but requires fair procedure and adequate justification - arbitrary withdrawal without procedure violates Article 14

The passage states: 'the State's power to modify or terminate licences for public interest reasons remains - what is required is a fair procedure and adequate justification.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. IAA / Article 14

Question 30HardDoctrine of Legitimate Expectation in Government Contracts

In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of UP (1991), the Supreme Court extended Article 14 constraints to:

  1. A

    Only formal government contracts

  2. B

    The State's conduct in relation to its own employees such as government advocates - the State cannot act arbitrarily even in matters not governed by specific statutory rules

  3. C

    Only licensing decisions

  4. D

    Only national security decisions

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The State's conduct in relation to its own employees such as government advocates - the State cannot act arbitrarily even in matters not governed by specific statutory rules

The passage states: 'In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of UP (1991), the Supreme Court held that even the conduct of the State in relation to its own employees...is subject to the constraints of Article 14 - the State cannot act arbitrarily even in matters not governed by specific statutory rules.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. IAA / Article 14

Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law / Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of UP (1979)

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a principle of equity that prevents a person from going back on a promise when another person has acted to their detriment in reliance on that promise. In the context of administrative law, it prevents the government from going back on its representations or promises when private parties have acted upon them in good faith. The doctrine was significantly expanded in India by the Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979), where the Court held that if the government makes a representation on the basis of which a person acts to their detriment, the government will be bound by the representation even without a consideration for the promise - the government cannot be allowed to 'play fast and loose' with individuals and then claim immunity. The Court held that promissory estoppel would apply against the State even in public law contexts, not merely in contract law. However, the doctrine has limitations. The government can depart from its representation if there is an overriding public interest that requires it to do so, provided it gives compensation for the loss caused by the departure. The doctrine does not apply where compliance would require the government to act contrary to law or against the public interest. The State is not prevented from making policy changes that affect general public interests, even if individuals had relied on existing policies. The relationship between promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation is close - both protect reasonable reliance on government conduct, with promissory estoppel being the private law doctrine and legitimate expectation the public law equivalent.

Question 31EasyDoctrine of Promissory Estoppel

The doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents:

  1. A

    Courts from reviewing government decisions

  2. B

    A person from going back on a promise when another person has acted to their detriment in reliance on that promise

  3. C

    The government from making any representations to citizens

  4. D

    Parliament from passing retrospective legislation

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A person from going back on a promise when another person has acted to their detriment in reliance on that promise

The passage states: 'The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a principle of equity that prevents a person from going back on a promise when another person has acted to their detriment in reliance on that promise.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of UP (1979)

Question 32MediumDoctrine of Promissory Estoppel

In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of UP (1979), the Supreme Court held that promissory estoppel:

  1. A

    Cannot apply against the government

  2. B

    Would apply against the State in public law contexts - the government cannot 'play fast and loose' with individuals even without consideration for the promise

  3. C

    Requires formal contractual consideration

  4. D

    Only applies in private commercial disputes

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Would apply against the State in public law contexts - the government cannot 'play fast and loose' with individuals even without consideration for the promise

The passage states: 'the Court held that promissory estoppel would apply against the State even in public law contexts, not merely in contract law' and 'the government cannot be allowed to play fast and loose with individuals.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of UP (1979)

Question 33MediumDoctrine of Promissory Estoppel

The government can depart from its representation under promissory estoppel if:

  1. A

    It simply changes its policy

  2. B

    There is an overriding public interest requiring departure - provided compensation is given for the loss caused

  3. C

    Parliament passes a new law

  4. D

    The original promise was made verbally

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. There is an overriding public interest requiring departure - provided compensation is given for the loss caused

The passage states: 'The government can depart from its representation if there is an overriding public interest that requires it to do so, provided it gives compensation for the loss caused by the departure.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of UP (1979)

Question 34EasyDoctrine of Promissory Estoppel

According to the passage, promissory estoppel does not apply when:

  1. A

    The representation was made by a senior official

  2. B

    Compliance would require the government to act contrary to law or against the public interest

  3. C

    The promise was about taxation

  4. D

    The promise was made more than a year ago

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Compliance would require the government to act contrary to law or against the public interest

The passage states: 'The doctrine does not apply where compliance would require the government to act contrary to law or against the public interest.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of UP (1979)

Question 35HardDoctrine of Promissory Estoppel

The relationship between promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation as described in the passage is that:

  1. A

    They are completely different doctrines with no relationship

  2. B

    Both protect reasonable reliance on government conduct - promissory estoppel is the private law doctrine and legitimate expectation is the public law equivalent

  3. C

    Legitimate expectation has replaced promissory estoppel entirely

  4. D

    They cannot both apply to the same situation

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Both protect reasonable reliance on government conduct - promissory estoppel is the private law doctrine and legitimate expectation is the public law equivalent

The passage states: 'The relationship between promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation is close - both protect reasonable reliance on government conduct, with promissory estoppel being the private law doctrine and legitimate expectation the public law equivalent.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of UP (1979)

Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law / Om Kumar v. Union of India / Puttaswamy

The doctrine of proportionality requires that administrative action - particularly action that restricts rights - must not be disproportionate to the objective it seeks to achieve. The doctrine originated in German administrative law and was adopted in English and European law before being formally received in India. Proportionality involves a structured analysis: first, the objective of the administrative action must be legitimate and important enough to justify restricting the right in question; second, there must be a rational connection between the means used and the objective (rational nexus); third, the means must be no more than necessary to achieve the objective (necessity test or minimum impairment); and fourth, there must be a fair balance between the benefits of the action and the harm caused to the right-holder (balancing or proportionality in the strict sense). In Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001), the Supreme Court distinguished between primary review (used by administrative authorities exercising discretion) and secondary review (used by courts reviewing administrative action). The Court held that proportionality as a standard of secondary review would apply when administrative action affects fundamental rights - the court would then examine whether the action was strictly proportionate to the objective. In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court confirmed that proportionality is the standard for reviewing any State restriction on the fundamental right to privacy. The doctrine has enabled more searching judicial scrutiny of executive actions that restrict rights, moving beyond the deferential Wednesbury test.

Question 36EasyDoctrine of Proportionality in Administrative Law

The doctrine of proportionality requires that administrative action:

  1. A

    Be taken only by senior government officials

  2. B

    Not be disproportionate to the objective it seeks to achieve - the means must be proportionate to the end

  3. C

    Be approved by Parliament before implementation

  4. D

    Be reviewed by the Supreme Court in all cases

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Not be disproportionate to the objective it seeks to achieve - the means must be proportionate to the end

The passage states: 'The doctrine of proportionality requires that administrative action - particularly action that restricts rights - must not be disproportionate to the objective it seeks to achieve.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Om Kumar v. Union of India / Puttaswamy

Question 37MediumDoctrine of Proportionality in Administrative Law

The four stages of proportionality analysis as described in the passage are:

  1. A

    Speed, accuracy, fairness and legality

  2. B

    Legitimate objective, rational connection between means and objective, necessity (minimum impairment), and fair balance (proportionality stricto sensu)

  3. C

    Announcement, consultation, implementation and review

  4. D

    Legal authority, consultation, implementation and appeal

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Legitimate objective, rational connection between means and objective, necessity (minimum impairment), and fair balance (proportionality stricto sensu)

The passage describes: '(1) legitimate objective; (2) rational connection between means and objective; (3) means no more than necessary (necessity test); (4) fair balance between benefits and harm (proportionality in the strict sense).'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Om Kumar v. Union of India / Puttaswamy

Question 38MediumDoctrine of Proportionality in Administrative Law

In Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001), the Supreme Court distinguished between:

  1. A

    Judicial review and appellate review

  2. B

    Primary review (by administrative authorities exercising discretion) and secondary review (by courts reviewing administrative action)

  3. C

    Review by the Supreme Court and review by High Courts

  4. D

    Mandatory and discretionary review

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Primary review (by administrative authorities exercising discretion) and secondary review (by courts reviewing administrative action)

The passage states: 'the Supreme Court distinguished between primary review (used by administrative authorities exercising discretion) and secondary review (used by courts reviewing administrative action).'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Om Kumar v. Union of India / Puttaswamy

Question 39MediumDoctrine of Proportionality in Administrative Law

According to the passage, proportionality as a standard of secondary review would apply when:

  1. A

    Any government action is challenged

  2. B

    Administrative action affects fundamental rights - the court then examines whether the action was strictly proportionate

  3. C

    A Minister personally makes a decision

  4. D

    Public money is involved

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Administrative action affects fundamental rights - the court then examines whether the action was strictly proportionate

The passage states: 'proportionality as a standard of secondary review would apply when administrative action affects fundamental rights - the court would then examine whether the action was strictly proportionate to the objective.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Om Kumar v. Union of India / Puttaswamy

Question 40HardDoctrine of Proportionality in Administrative Law

The doctrine of proportionality has enabled courts to:

  1. A

    Give more deference to executive decisions

  2. B

    Exercise more searching judicial scrutiny of executive actions that restrict rights, moving beyond the deferential Wednesbury test

  3. C

    Refuse to review administrative actions

  4. D

    Apply the same standard to all administrative actions regardless of impact

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Exercise more searching judicial scrutiny of executive actions that restrict rights, moving beyond the deferential Wednesbury test

The passage states: 'The doctrine has enabled more searching judicial scrutiny of executive actions that restrict rights, moving beyond the deferential Wednesbury test.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law / Om Kumar v. Union of India / Puttaswamy

Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.1 / Delhi Laws Act / Re Presidential Reference (1998)

The doctrine of separation of powers holds that the three organs of government - the legislature, executive and judiciary - should have distinct and separate functions, with each acting as a check on the others. In the context of administrative law, this doctrine has important implications for the validity of delegated legislation and the limits of judicial review. The executive cannot usurp legislative functions - if delegated legislation goes so far beyond the parent Act's scope that it amounts to the executive making law on its own (rather than filling in details under Parliamentary guidance), it will be struck down as unconstitutional. Similarly, if Parliament purports to vest judicial power in an executive body without adequate safeguards, this may violate the doctrine. In India, the Supreme Court in Delhi Laws Act case (1951) applied separation of powers to hold that Parliament cannot abdicate its essential legislative functions by delegating them without laying down any policy or principle to guide the delegate. Re Presidential Reference (Special Reference No. 1 of 1998) reaffirmed that the executive (including the President and the Council of Ministers) cannot exercise powers that are essentially judicial in nature - for instance, the President cannot adjudicate a legal dispute in the exercise of the executive power. However, the overlap between executive and quasi-judicial functions (where the executive exercises adjudicatory powers in administrative matters) has been permitted by the courts provided safeguards of natural justice are observed. The doctrine of separation of powers in India is described as 'functional' rather than 'rigid' - the organs are separate in their primary functions but there is significant overlap in practice.

Question 41EasyDoctrine of Separation of Powers in Administrative Context

The doctrine of separation of powers holds that:

  1. A

    One organ of government must have supreme power over the others

  2. B

    The three organs of government should have distinct functions with each acting as a check on the others

  3. C

    All government powers should be concentrated in Parliament

  4. D

    The judiciary must always yield to the legislature

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The three organs of government should have distinct functions with each acting as a check on the others

The passage states: 'The doctrine of separation of powers holds that the three organs of government - the legislature, executive and judiciary - should have distinct and separate functions, with each acting as a check on the others.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.1 / Delhi Laws Act / Re Presidential Reference (1998)

Question 42EasyDoctrine of Separation of Powers in Administrative Context

In the Delhi Laws Act case (1951), the Supreme Court held that Parliament:

  1. A

    Can delegate all powers to the executive

  2. B

    Cannot abdicate its essential legislative functions by delegating them without laying down any policy or principle to guide the delegate

  3. C

    Can delegate unlimited powers if it chooses

  4. D

    Has absolute freedom in how it structures delegated legislation

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Cannot abdicate its essential legislative functions by delegating them without laying down any policy or principle to guide the delegate

The passage states: 'Parliament cannot abdicate its essential legislative functions by delegating them without laying down any policy or principle to guide the delegate.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.1 / Delhi Laws Act / Re Presidential Reference (1998)

Question 43MediumDoctrine of Separation of Powers in Administrative Context

The overlap between executive and quasi-judicial functions has been permitted by Indian courts provided:

  1. A

    The executive gets Parliamentary approval for each decision

  2. B

    Safeguards of natural justice are observed

  3. C

    The President personally oversees each decision

  4. D

    The Supreme Court approves each adjudication

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Safeguards of natural justice are observed

The passage states: 'the overlap between executive and quasi-judicial functions (where the executive exercises adjudicatory powers in administrative matters) has been permitted by the courts provided safeguards of natural justice are observed.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.1 / Delhi Laws Act / Re Presidential Reference (1998)

Question 44MediumDoctrine of Separation of Powers in Administrative Context

The doctrine of separation of powers in India is described in the passage as:

  1. A

    Rigid - with absolute separation of functions

  2. B

    Functional rather than rigid - the organs are separate in their primary functions but there is significant overlap in practice

  3. C

    Non-existent - India has a unified government

  4. D

    Based on the American model of strict separation

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Functional rather than rigid - the organs are separate in their primary functions but there is significant overlap in practice

The passage states: 'The doctrine of separation of powers in India is described as functional rather than rigid - the organs are separate in their primary functions but there is significant overlap in practice.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.1 / Delhi Laws Act / Re Presidential Reference (1998)

Question 45EasyDoctrine of Separation of Powers in Administrative Context

According to the passage, if delegated legislation goes so far beyond the parent Act's scope that it amounts to the executive making law independently, it will be:

  1. A

    Valid as long as Parliament does not object

  2. B

    Struck down as unconstitutional - the executive cannot usurp legislative functions

  3. C

    Referred to the President for approval

  4. D

    Referred to a Parliamentary Committee

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Struck down as unconstitutional - the executive cannot usurp legislative functions

The passage states: 'if delegated legislation goes so far beyond the parent Act's scope that it amounts to the executive making law on its own (rather than filling in details under Parliamentary guidance), it will be struck down as unconstitutional.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.1 / Delhi Laws Act / Re Presidential Reference (1998)

Passage or principleAshok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.4 / Wednesbury / Council of Civil Service Unions

Judicial review of administrative action enables courts to examine whether administrative authorities have acted within their legal powers. Unlike an appeal (which examines the merits of the decision), judicial review focuses on the lawfulness of the process by which the decision was made. The grounds of judicial review were classically stated in the English case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948), where Lord Greene MR held that a court can interfere with an administrative decision if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it - this became known as 'Wednesbury unreasonableness.' Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) systematised the grounds of judicial review into three categories: illegality (the decision-maker acted outside their legal powers - ultra vires), irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness - a decision so outrageous in defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have arrived at it), and procedural impropriety (failure to observe procedural requirements including natural justice). In India, the grounds of judicial review are broader - Indian courts have developed the doctrine of proportionality (that restrictions on fundamental rights must be proportionate to the objective), the anti-arbitrariness doctrine under Article 14 (any arbitrary State action violates the right to equality), and legitimate expectation as additional grounds for challenging administrative action. The Supreme Court has held that administrative action affecting fundamental rights will be reviewed more intensively than action affecting mere statutory rights or privileges.

Question 46EasyJudicial Review of Administrative Action - Grounds

Judicial review of administrative action, according to the passage, differs from an appeal because:

  1. A

    It examines more aspects of the decision

  2. B

    Judicial review focuses on the lawfulness of the process by which the decision was made, not the merits of the decision

  3. C

    Judicial review is always faster than an appeal

  4. D

    Judicial review can only be done by the Supreme Court

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Judicial review focuses on the lawfulness of the process by which the decision was made, not the merits of the decision

The passage states: 'Unlike an appeal (which examines the merits of the decision), judicial review focuses on the lawfulness of the process by which the decision was made.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.4 / Wednesbury / Council of Civil Service Unions

Question 47EasyJudicial Review of Administrative Action - Grounds

The 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' standard holds that a court can interfere with an administrative decision if:

  1. A

    The court disagrees with the decision on merits

  2. B

    It is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it

  3. C

    The decision affects a large number of people

  4. D

    The decision is made quickly without full deliberation

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. It is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it

The passage states Wednesbury held 'a court can interfere with an administrative decision if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.4 / Wednesbury / Council of Civil Service Unions

Question 48MediumJudicial Review of Administrative Action - Grounds

Lord Diplock's three categories of judicial review grounds as stated in the passage are:

  1. A

    Legality, reasonableness and fairness

  2. B

    Illegality (ultra vires), irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness) and procedural impropriety (failure to observe procedural requirements including natural justice)

  3. C

    Fact, law and discretion

  4. D

    Bias, error and delay

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Illegality (ultra vires), irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness) and procedural impropriety (failure to observe procedural requirements including natural justice)

The passage states: 'Lord Diplock...systematised the grounds of judicial review into three categories: illegality...irrationality...and procedural impropriety.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.4 / Wednesbury / Council of Civil Service Unions

Question 49MediumJudicial Review of Administrative Action - Grounds

According to the passage, Indian courts have developed which additional grounds of judicial review beyond the English categories?

  1. A

    State immunity and political question

  2. B

    Proportionality (restrictions on fundamental rights must be proportionate to objective), anti-arbitrariness doctrine under Article 14, and legitimate expectation

  3. C

    Res judicata and estoppel

  4. D

    Only natural justice requirements

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Proportionality (restrictions on fundamental rights must be proportionate to objective), anti-arbitrariness doctrine under Article 14, and legitimate expectation

The passage states: 'Indian courts have developed the doctrine of proportionality...the anti-arbitrariness doctrine under Article 14...and legitimate expectation as additional grounds for challenging administrative action.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.4 / Wednesbury / Council of Civil Service Unions

Question 50HardJudicial Review of Administrative Action - Grounds

According to the passage, the intensity of judicial review in India depends on:

  1. A

    The seniority of the judge reviewing the decision

  2. B

    Whether the action affects fundamental rights (more intensive review) or mere statutory rights or privileges (less intensive review)

  3. C

    The size of the government body being reviewed

  4. D

    Whether the case involves foreign parties

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Whether the action affects fundamental rights (more intensive review) or mere statutory rights or privileges (less intensive review)

The passage states: 'The Supreme Court has held that administrative action affecting fundamental rights will be reviewed more intensively than action affecting mere statutory rights or privileges.'

Source note: Ashok K. Jain Admin Law Ch.4 / Wednesbury / Council of Civil Service Unions

Continue revision

ADR and Arbitration20 questions with explanationsBSA70 questions with explanationsCode of Civil Procedure 190845 questions with explanationsConstitutional Law100 questions with explanationsCriminal Law (BNS 2023)85 questions with explanationsEnvironmental Law50 questions with explanations