GROUNDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Samriddhi Mishra Jurisprudence Wed, Jun 21, 2023, at ,12:37 PM INTRODUCTIONJudicial review is the power of the court to review legislative, executive, and administrative actions. The Supreme Court and High Court have the power to do judicial review. Judicial review is the process of confirming whether the subject of review is in agreement with constitutional values; if not, the court can declare that action null and void. The process of judicial review was recognised as part of the basic structure of the constitution in Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala.Administrative action is action that is neither purely legislative nor judicial. It is quasi legislative and quasi judicial action for carrying out daily administration. These are the actions carried out to implement the core legislative and executive actions. The rise of the welfare state also led to a rise in the number of rules and regulations with a large number of administrative actions to enforce them.Judicial review ensures that administrative actions are consistent with the principles of natural justice and the Constitution.The court can review the “decision process, not the decision itself.” The court cannot review any decision randomly. The court cannot question the ‘why’ or ‘what’ of administrative action, only the "how’ of the action. The court cannot go beyond the powers given to it.“Judicial review is concerned not with decisions but with decision-making processes. Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will, under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power.”The court has to respect that the administrative agency has independence and authority to take decisions and trust the agency's wisdom. Thus, the court has limited power to do judicial review.GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEWIn the celebrated case of “Council of Civil Service Union v. Minister of Civil Service”,Lord Diplock explained few grounds for judicial review.In his words-“One can conveniently clarify under three headings the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call ‘illegality’, the second ‘irrationality’ and the third ‘procedural impropriety’. That is not to say that further development on a case-by-case basis may not in course of time add further grounds”The grounds that can be inferred from his words are- illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.These three grounds are well recognised grounds for judicial review. Apart from these three, proportionality has also come to be known as one of the grounds for judicial review. These grounds for judicial review are not exhaustive but are most common. The common grounds for judicial review of administrative action are:JURISDICTIONAL ERRORThis also falls under the doctrine of ultra vires. The action that was taken was beyond the powers defined by law. The action was executed by an incompetent authority, competent authority that exceeded the given power or by competent authority in an unlawful manner.Having jurisdiction means having the power to decide. Jurisdictional error means the powers exercised were beyond the jurisdiction given. This can happen by exceeding the given jurisdiction, a lack of jurisdiction, or an abuse of jurisdiction. An action can be declared as ultra vires if any action was taken by error of jurisdiction.Any body can lack jurisdiction if the body didn't have any jurisdiction over the subject matter. If the act or order that led to formation of the body did not assign the jurisdiction and court assigned the jurisdiction then action was taken by lack of jurisdiction.This also applies to the Real Food Products case. In such situation, the government gave instructions under Section 78-A of the Electricity Supply Act to set a concessional rate at a specific price. Our Supreme Court ruled that Section 78-A of the Act did not have the authority to mandate the establishment of a certain rate.A licence could not be revoked by the Minister in R. v. Minister of Transportation.As, it was determined that the minister's order cancelling the licence was extra vires since it was made without authority.If the authority did have jurisdiction on subject matter but the jurisdiction exercised was beyond the jurisdiction given. If while taking the action the authority overstepped their jurisdiction then the administrative action is ultra vires.A proposal by the local planning authority to charge 25 pounds for unofficial consultations between corporate executives and real estate developers was made public in R vs. Richmond upon Thames Council ex parte McCarthy & Stone Ltd. According to court, the charge's imposition was illegal. Such a fee was neither related to the local government's planning duties nor could it be assessed to the general public without statutory authorization. The council erroneously understood its authority and operated outside its bounds as a result.If the jurisdiction exercised was proper but was exercised for wrong reasons with mala fide intentions. The powers were used for reasons other than for which it was given. When there was no due diligence while making the decision the authority ignores the relevant facts and evidence.IRRATIONALITYIf the administrative authority is given some powers where it can exercise discretion to make decisions. The decision taken must be reasonable and based on logic. The power should be exercised in a way that a reasonable person would in the same circumstances. Every decision should be based on valid reasons.The action not be discriminatory or mala fide.The decision taken should not go against the logic and fail to uphold the moral standards. The authority while making the decision took all the relevant considerations.In the Associated Provincial Picture House v. Wednesbury(1947) case, which a test to determine irrationality was developed. The test is now known as the "Wednesbury test,". in case court recognised irrationality as ground for judicial review and listed three requirement to prove irrationality. 1- if no person acting reasonably would have made the same decision.2- if the authority was not taking relevant factors into consideration while making the decision.3-if authority took into consideration factors that were irrelevant.Terminating an air hostess' employment after she became pregnant is an example of a decision based on an irrelevant factor Air India v. Nargesh Mirza. The termination was found to be illogical and not lawful. The action was reversed on grounds of irrationality.PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETYIf the decision was taken without following the proper procedure then Procedural impropriety forms the basis for judicial review and declaring the action null and void. Every decision made by administrative authority must be made after following the fair and reasonable procedure. The court will not look into the substance of the decision only the procedure that was followed while arriving at that particular decision.The authority follows the procedure as mentioned in the legislation if any if not every decision must follow the two principles of natural justice. The two principles are: “Audi alteram partem- no one should be left unheard” “Nemo judex causa sua- no one should judge her own cause”. Two factors can lead to procedural impropriety- Failure to follow the procedure as laid down by a statute if any Failure to uphold the basic principle of natural justice stated above.. In the R. v. University of Cambridge case Dr. Bentley's degree was revoked by the university administration due to wrongdoing without any prior notification. The University's behaviour was deemed to violate the natural justice principle.In the case of A.K Kripak v. Union of India One of the candidates who was present before selection committee was already member of selection board, this was against principle of natural justicePROPORTIONALITYThe decision should not be excessive or too restrictive to address the purpose of the action. The action must be reasonable. The measure should be proportionate to the objective of the action.The action must be sufficient to achieve the objective and should limit the rights of individuals to an acceptable extent. The action must not have an excessive adverse effect on rights and civil liberties. The punishment should not be grossly disproportionate compared to the offence.In Sardar Singh v. Union of India. A solider on leave took 11 ruumy bootles to his home instead of allowed 4. He had to go through 3 years of rigorous imprisonment during the court martial proceeding and was also removed from service. The court overturned the decision citing the grossly disproportionate nature.LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONSWhen someone is led to believe that a certain procedure would be followed in an administrative action. Even though the expectation may not be based on the law in a strict sense, the person had a reasonable basis to base that expectation on.The doctrine has an application in two situations.The first situation occurs when a person or group is made to think that a particular course of action will be followed. The second situation occurs when a person or organisation depends on rules or policies that once oversaw a certain area of executive activity.The Corporation had pledged in Regina v. Liverpool Corporation ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operators Association (1972) that the cab drivers' licences wouldn't be suspended without their consent. However, the firm went against what it had promised. According to the court, the cab drivers had a right to consultation.This is one of way to make administrative authority accountable for its words and action.CONCLUSIONThe power of judicial review is one of the most important powers of the court because it makes sure that administrative actions are consistent with the Constitution. The common grounds for judicial review are error of jurisdiction, proportionality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and legitimate expectations. The grounds are not exhaustive. The power of judicial review should be exercised reasonably, and the court can only question the procedure of a decision, not its substance.This is one of very important powers as it ensures constitution is respected. This should used thoughtfully by making sure court don’t interfere in the process of administration but make sure the administration is done in fair and responsible manner.REFRENCES[1]https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/grounds-judicial-review-123/[2]https://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/2001v6a1.htm[3]https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/38174/8/08_chapter%202.pdf[4]https://lawcorner.in/judicial-review-of-administrative-actions-an-overview/#Grounds_of_Judicial_Review