Author(s): Rudrani Mistri and Aishik Lahiri
Paper Details: Volume 4, Issue 4
Citation: IJLSSS 4(4) 01
Page No: 01– 11
ABSTRACT
Judicial review is one of the most important mechanisms through which administrative power is kept within constitutional limits. In a modern welfare state, the administration is required to make a wide variety of decisions that affect rights, livelihoods, and public opportunities. Because these decisions are often taken by bodies that are not courts, the law must ensure that discretion does not degenerate into arbitrariness. This project examines the development of judicial review in India with particular emphasis on the shift from traditional Wednesbury unreasonableness to a more structured and rights-sensitive proportionality review. It also explains how Indian constitutional law has treated arbitrariness as a serious constitutional defect, especially under Article 14, and how fairness has been strengthened through landmark decisions such as Maneka Gandhi, Tata Cellular, Om Kumar, and K.S. Puttaswamy. The study argues that judicial review in India has expanded beyond mere supervision of legality and now performs a deeper constitutional role in protecting fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality. At the same time, the project recognises that courts must preserve a degree of restraint so that administrative expertise and democratic accountability are not displaced by excessive judicial intervention.
1. INTRODUCTION
Administrative law is concerned with the exercise of public power by authorities other than ordinary courts. In contemporary governance, the State acts through ministries, departments, boards, tribunals, regulators, and statutory corporations. These bodies take decisions that can affect liberty, property, employment, access to services, and even dignity. The very breadth of administrative power makes legal control indispensable.
Judicial review is the principal legal device through which courts examine whether administrative action conforms to law. It is not an appeal on merits, and it does not allow courts to substitute their own policy preferences for those of the administration. Rather, it asks whether the authority acted within jurisdiction, followed fair procedure, took relevant considerations into account, avoided irrelevant considerations, and arrived at a decision that is legally defensible.
In India, judicial review has a constitutional character. It flows from the commitment to the rule of law and is closely connected with Articles 14, 19, and 21. Over time, the Indian Supreme Court has moved from a narrow view of administrative control to a more robust understanding of constitutional fairness. This development is particularly visible in cases involving procedural fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.
This project focuses on the expanding scope and limits of judicial review of administrative action in India. The core question is not whether judicial review exists, but how far it should go. Too little review may allow arbitrary power to flourish; too much review may undermine administrative flexibility and flood governance with litigation. The challenge, therefore, is to preserve a workable balance between authority and accountability. [1]
2. CONCEPT AND CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial review in administrative law refers to the power of courts to examine the legality of decisions made by public authorities. The emphasis is on legality, not on the wisdom of the decision. Courts ask whether the authority had power to act, whether it acted in accordance with statutory purpose, whether the procedure was fair, and whether the decision is so unreasonable that no lawful authority could have arrived at it.
The constitutional basis of judicial review in India is found in the structure of the Constitution itself, particularly in the role assigned to the Supreme Court and High Courts as guardians of fundamental rights and constitutional governance. Articles 32 and 226 give powerful remedial jurisdiction to courts, while Article 13 ensures that unconstitutional laws cannot prevail over fundamental rights. Together, these provisions create a system in which public power is answerable to constitutional standards.
Judicial review also reflects the broader principle of the rule of law. A government of laws requires that power be exercised according to law, and not according to mere will. The administrative state needs discretion, but discretion must operate within legal boundaries. Judicial review therefore serves as the bridge between effective administration and constitutional restraint.
3. EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA
The early approach to judicial review was relatively cautious. Courts were concerned primarily with jurisdictional errors and procedural violations. If the authority had power under the statute and had not violated an express legal requirement, intervention was often limited. That approach reflected a formal understanding of administrative legality.
The position changed significantly in the post-Emergency constitutional era, when the Supreme Court increasingly insisted that fairness is not a discretionary ideal but a legal requirement. In Maneka Gandhi, the Court interpreted procedure under Article 21 as requiring fairness, not mere formality. This marked a decisive move toward substantive constitutional scrutiny of state action.
Later decisions developed this trend further. In E.P. Royappa and Ajay Hasia [2], arbitrariness was treated as antithetical to equality. In Tata Cellular, the Court emphasised judicial restraint in commercial and policy matters, but still clarified that administrative decisions must satisfy standards of reasonableness, fairness, and legality. In Om Kumar, the Court explained the relationship between Wednesbury review and proportionality. In Puttaswamy, proportionality emerged as a central constitutional standard in rights adjudication.
The evolution, therefore, is not a simple expansion without limits. It is a calibrated shift from formal legality to constitutional reasonableness. Courts have not abandoned restraint, but they now review administrative action through a more principled lens.
4. GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
4.1 ILLEGALITY
Illegality arises when the authority acts beyond the powers granted by law, misconstrues the statute, fails to consider itself bound by relevant legal standards, or uses power for a purpose other than the one for which it was conferred. The court does not ask whether the outcome is desirable; it asks whether the decision-maker stayed within the legal framework.
4.2 IRRATIONALITY AND WEDNESBURY UNREASONABLENESS
The traditional common law ground of irrationality is associated with the well-known Wednesbury standard. Under this approach, a decision may be interfered with only if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have taken it. The standard is deliberately high, and it reflects respect for administrative expertise. However, its very height also makes it weak as a rights-protecting device.
4.3 PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY
Procedural impropriety includes violation of natural justice, breach of mandatory procedure, denial of hearing, bias, and failure to give reasons where reasons are required. In Indian law, this ground has acquired special importance because fairness in procedure is often the pathway through which courts control arbitrary state action.
4.4 ARBITRARINESS
Arbitrariness is one of the most important constitutional grounds of review in India. An arbitrary decision is one that lacks rational basis, is capricious, or is marked by unequal and inconsistent treatment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly linked arbitrariness with Article 14, thereby transforming equality into a live standard of administrative fairness.
4.5 PROPORTIONALITY
Proportionality asks whether the measure adopted by the authority is suitable, necessary, and balanced in relation to the objective pursued. It is more searching than Wednesbury review because it permits the court to examine whether the same objective could have been achieved through a less restrictive means and whether the impact on rights is excessive when compared to the public purpose served.
5. LANDMARK CASE LAW
5.1 MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA [3]
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India is a turning point in Indian administrative law. The case arose out of the impounding of a passport, but its significance extends far beyond passport regulation. The Court held that the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable, and not arbitrary or oppressive. This interpretation made fairness a constitutional demand rather than a mere administrative courtesy.
The case also strengthened the interrelationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21. Administrative action was no longer assessed in isolated constitutional compartments. Instead, the Court treated fundamental rights as part of an integrated guarantee of liberty and fairness. For judicial review, this meant that procedural defects and unfairness could be challenged not only on statutory grounds but also on constitutional ones.
The lasting contribution of Maneka Gandhi is that it broadened the standard of review from technical legality to substantive fairness. It became the foundation for later developments in arbitrariness review and rights-based judicial control.
5.2 TATA CELLULAR V. UNION OF INDIA[4]
Tata Cellular is the leading authority on the scope of judicial review in matters involving government contracts and administrative discretion. The Court acknowledged that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not with the decision itself. It stressed that courts should not act as appellate bodies over administrative choices in commercial matters.
At the same time, Tata Cellular did not give the administration a free hand. The Court laid down the classic grounds on which intervention remains possible: illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and sometimes proportionality. The judgment is therefore important because it marks the balance between restraint and supervision. Courts must avoid substituting their own views, but they must still check abuse of power.
The significance of Tata Cellular lies in its insistence that public authorities, even when acting in commercial fields, are bound by constitutional discipline. Tender decisions, although involving economic judgment, must be fair, non-arbitrary, and made in accordance with the rule of law.
5.3 OM KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA[5]
Om Kumar is crucial because it clarified the relationship between Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality in Indian law. The Court observed that proportionality is especially relevant where the court reviews administrative action affecting fundamental rights, while Wednesbury remains more appropriate in ordinary administrative matters where rights are not directly engaged.
This distinction matters because it preserves judicial structure. The Court recognised that proportionality permits closer scrutiny than Wednesbury, but it also acknowledged that proportionality should not collapse the boundary between review and appeal. Om Kumar thus provided a doctrinal bridge between older common law review and modern constitutional adjudication.
The case shows that Indian administrative law has not abandoned classical doctrines. Rather, it has arranged them into a hierarchy of scrutiny depending on the seriousness of the rights impact.
5.4 K.S. PUTTASWAMY V. UNION OF INDIA[6]
K.S. Puttaswamy established privacy as a fundamental right and placed proportionality at the heart of constitutional analysis. The Court recognised that state interference with privacy can be justified only if it pursues a legitimate aim, has a rational connection with that aim, is necessary, and is proportionate in the strict sense.
Although the case is often discussed in the context of privacy, its implications are much broader. It demonstrates the modern direction of Indian constitutional law, where the State must justify intrusions into rights by reference to structured reasoning. Administrative action affecting data, surveillance, identity, welfare delivery, and digital governance must therefore be assessed in terms of necessity and balancing.
Puttaswamy confirms that judicial review in India is no longer limited to checking whether there was formal authority to act. It now asks whether the act itself is constitutionally justified in light of the rights and interests involved.
6. EXPANDING SCOPE AND PRESENT LIMITS
The scope of judicial review has expanded in at least three important ways. First, the courts now look beyond express statutory compliance to constitutional fairness. Second, they examine arbitrariness as an independent vice even where the statute is silent. Third, in rights-intensive cases, they employ proportionality rather than the more deferential Wednesbury standard.
This expansion has made administrative law more protective of individual rights, but it has also raised concerns. If courts scrutinise every policy choice too closely, they may end up managing administration rather than reviewing it. Policy involves expertise, prioritisation, budgetary considerations, and institutional judgment that courts are often not best placed to evaluate. Judicial review must therefore remain disciplined.
The limits of judicial review are equally important. Courts generally do not decide whether a policy is wise, whether one tender is better than another, or whether a particular economic model is preferable. They intervene when the process is defective, when relevant factors are ignored, when discretion is used for an improper purpose, or when constitutional rights are disproportionately affected.[7]
The present position of Indian law may be described as structured restraint. Courts are willing to protect rights vigorously, but they also recognise that governance requires space for administrative choice. The role of judicial review is to make administration lawful and fair, not to take over administration itself.
7. CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The biggest strength of the Indian approach is its commitment to fairness. By recognising arbitrariness as a constitutional defect and proportionality as a rights-based standard, the courts have ensured that public power remains answerable to law. This is especially valuable in a system where administrative decisions often have immediate and serious consequences for ordinary citizens.
However, there is still doctrinal overlap. Terms such as irrationality, arbitrariness, unreasonableness, and proportionality are sometimes used without sufficient precision. This can make judicial review appear inconsistent. For a student of administrative law, the challenge is to understand that these doctrines are related, but not identical. Each serves a different function and may operate with a different intensity of scrutiny.
Another concern is institutional competence. Courts are expert in law, but administration is often expert in policy. A mature system of judicial review must respect that distinction. The answer is not to reduce review to a rubber stamp, nor to convert it into judicial governance. The proper balance is achieved when courts insist on legality, fairness, and rational justification while leaving room for administrative judgment on matters of policy.
The expansion of judicial review in India cannot be understood without appreciating the gradual shift from a formalistic to a substantive understanding of administrative law. Initially, courts were reluctant to interfere in administrative decisions unless there was a clear jurisdictional error. However, over time, the judiciary has adopted a more interventionist approach, particularly where fundamental rights are implicated.
One of the most significant developments in this regard has been the incorporation of constitutional morality into administrative decision-making. Courts have increasingly emphasized that administrative authorities are not merely executors of statutory powers but are also bound by constitutional values such as fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness. This shift has allowed courts to scrutinize not only the legality but also the quality of administrative decisions.
Further, the doctrine of proportionality has played a transformative role in redefining the limits of administrative discretion. Unlike the Wednesbury[8] standard, which permits intervention only in cases of extreme irrationality, proportionality allows courts to examine whether the means adopted by the authority are appropriate and necessary to achieve the intended objective. This ensures a more balanced approach between individual rights and administrative efficiency.
In addition, the role of judicial review in public contracts has evolved considerably. Traditionally, courts avoided interference in contractual matters involving the state. However, with the recognition that state actions must conform to Article 14, even contractual decisions are now subject to scrutiny on grounds of arbitrariness, mala fides, and lack of transparency. This has significantly enhanced accountability in governmental dealings.
Another important dimension is the interplay between judicial review and emerging technologies. With the increasing use of algorithmic decision-making by administrative authorities, questions arise regarding transparency, bias, and accountability. While Indian jurisprudence in this area is still developing, the principles of natural justice and proportionality are likely to play a crucial role in shaping future standards.
Moreover, the tension between judicial activism and judicial restraint continues to define the contours of judicial review. While an expansive approach ensures protection of individual rights, excessive intervention may undermine administrative autonomy and efficiency. Therefore, courts have attempted to strike a balance by evolving self-imposed limitations, particularly in policy matters and economic decisions.
It is also pertinent to note that judicial review serves not only as a mechanism for redress but also as a deterrent against misuse of power. The mere possibility of judicial scrutiny compels administrative authorities to act within the bounds of law and adhere to principles of fairness.
Finally, the future of judicial review in India lies in its ability to adapt to changing socio-economic realities while maintaining its core commitment to the rule of law. As governance becomes more complex, the role of the judiciary in ensuring accountability and transparency will become even more significant.
In that sense, the expansion of judicial review should be understood as constitutional deepening rather than judicial domination. The law has moved from asking merely whether the authority had power, to asking whether power was exercised fairly, proportionately, and without arbitrariness. That is a significant and desirable development, provided its limits are carefully observed.
8. CONCLUSION
Judicial review of administrative action is indispensable in a constitutional democracy. As the administrative state grows, so too does the need for legal control. Indian courts have responded to this reality by expanding judicial review from a narrow supervisory function to a more meaningful constitutional safeguard.
The journey from Wednesbury unreasonableness to proportionality and arbitrariness review shows that Indian administrative law is now more attentive to rights, fairness, and reasoned justification. Maneka Gandhi laid the foundation for fairness; Tata Cellular explained restraint in administrative discretion; Om Kumar clarified doctrinal choice; and Puttaswamy strengthened proportionality as a constitutional tool.
The present law seeks balance. It protects individuals from abuse of power while preserving the administration’s ability to govern effectively. That balance is the true strength of judicial review. Its expanding scope is a sign of constitutional maturity, but its limits remain essential to preserve democratic governance and institutional competence.
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
M.P. Jain, Treatise on Administrative Law.
C.K. Takwani, Lectures on Administrative Law.
P.P. Craig, Administrative Law.
H.W.R. Wade and C.F. Forsyth, Administrative Law.
I.P. Massey, Administrative Law.
S.P. Sathe, Administrative Law.
CASES
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651.
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3.
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722.
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
ONLINE RESOURCES
The Judicial Review Of Administrative Action, https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/THE-JUDICIAL-REVIEW-OF-ADMINISTRATIVE-ACTION-AN-ANALYSIS-.pdf
Alok Mishra. The Emerging Concept of Administrative Action in India. International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences. 2023; 11(1)33-0. doi: 10.52711/2454-2679.2023.00006, https://ijassonline.in/HTMLPaper.aspx?Journal=International%20Journal%20of%20Advances%20in%20Social%20Sciences;PID=2023-11-1-6
Understanding Judicial Review in Administration, https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Understanding-Judicial-Review-in-Administration.pdf
Chandra, Saurabh & Sai, Boddu. (2025). Scope of Judicial Review and Oversight of Administrative Actions Affecting India and Other Jurisdictions. 10.4018/979-8-3693-7468-9.ch011., https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390716586_Scope_of_Judicial_Review_and_Oversight_of_Administrative_Actions_Affecting_India_and_Other_Jurisdictions
[1] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625.
[2] E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3.
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722.
[3] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
[4] Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651.
[5] Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386.
[6] K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[7] B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749.
[8] Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 KB 223.