Aspirant Academy

Public Administration

Judicial Control of Administration

Control of Public Administration: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Control

Paper III · Unit 2 Section 5 of 10 0 PYQs 25 min
Topic Preview Subject Inventory

Public Section Preview

Judicial Control of Administration

4.1 Concept and Constitutional Basis

Judicial control is the external, post-action supervision of administration by courts — ensuring that executive actions are lawful, constitutional, and do not violate fundamental rights.

Key constitutional provisions:

  • Article 13: Laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void.
  • Article 32: Supreme Court's power to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights.
  • Article 226: High Court's power to issue writs — broader than Article 32 (covers both fundamental rights and "any other purpose").
  • Article 136: Special Leave Petition (SLP) — Supreme Court may grant leave to appeal from any judgment.
  • Article 227: High Court's superintendence over all courts and tribunals in the State.
  • Article 323A: Parliament may establish Administrative Tribunals for service matters.
  • Article 323B: Parliament/State Legislatures may establish tribunals for other specified matters.

4.2 The Five Writs

Writ Literal Meaning Purpose Against Whom?
Habeas Corpus "You shall have the body" Release person from illegal/unjustified detention Any public authority, private person detaining
Mandamus "We command" Compel a public body/officer to perform a legal duty they are obligated to perform Public authorities, inferior courts
Prohibition "To forbid" Prevent inferior tribunal from proceeding beyond jurisdiction or acting contrary to natural justice Inferior courts, quasi-judicial bodies
Certiorari "To be certified/informed" Quash a decision already made by inferior tribunal acting beyond jurisdiction Inferior courts, quasi-judicial bodies
Quo Warranto "By what authority?" Inquire into the authority by which a person claims to hold a public office Persons claiming to hold public offices

Key distinctions:

  • Prohibition vs Certiorari: Prohibition prevents; Certiorari cures — prohibition is prospective (before decision), certiorari is retrospective (after decision).
  • Mandamus vs Habeas Corpus: Mandamus compels performance of duty; Habeas Corpus relates to personal liberty.
  • Quo Warranto vs Certiorari: Quo Warranto challenges the right to hold office; Certiorari challenges a specific decision.

Article 32 vs Article 226:

  • Article 32 — only for fundamental rights; cannot be suspended except during national emergency (Article 359).
  • Article 226 — broader; for fundamental rights AND other legal rights; available even during national emergency (except when Article 358 suspends Article 19).
  • Both courts can issue all five writs.

4.3 Judicial Review of Administrative Actions

Judicial review in India is broader than in many other systems. Courts can invalidate administrative actions on grounds of:

  1. Unconstitutionality: Action violates a fundamental right or the Constitution.
  2. Ultra vires (beyond powers): Administrator acted beyond the powers granted.
  3. Error of law: Wrong application of law.
  4. Procedural irregularity: Natural justice violated — audi alteram partem (right to be heard) or nemo judex in causa sua (no one a judge in own cause).
  5. Unreasonableness: Wednesbury unreasonableness (UK) / proportionality principle — decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it.
  6. Malafide (bad faith): Decision motivated by improper purpose.

Key doctrines:

  • Natural Justice: Every person affected by an administrative decision has the right to know the case against them (audi alteram partem) and to be heard before an unbiased decision-maker.
  • Proportionality: The action taken must be proportionate to the purpose — excessive punishment for minor transgression is reviewable.
  • Legitimate Expectation: A person who has been led to expect a particular benefit may have a right to expect fair treatment even without a legal entitlement.

4.4 Administrative Tribunals (Central Administrative Tribunal)

Article 323A enables Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals to adjudicate service matters — removing them from ordinary High Court jurisdiction.

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 established:

  • Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): Jurisdiction over service matters of Central Government employees; principal bench at Delhi; regional benches in 17 cities.
  • State Administrative Tribunals: States may establish their own (several have done so).

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997):
The Supreme Court held that CAT decisions could be challenged before the Division Bench of the relevant High Court (not directly the Supreme Court as previously thought), and that tribunals cannot oust the constitutional jurisdiction of superior courts. This is a landmark ruling on judicial review of tribunals and the preservation of superior courts' constitutional jurisdiction.

4.5 Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

PIL expanded judicial control from the individual to the collective — allowing any public-spirited person to approach courts for enforcement of rights even when the victims cannot do so themselves.

Origin: Justice P.N. Bhagwati (Hussainara Khatoon, 1979 — undertrial prisoners) and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh, 1981) liberalised locus standi.

Key PILs impacting administration:

  • Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997): Hawala scandal; CVC given statutory status; CBI independence issue.
  • Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Sexual harassment at workplace guidelines.
  • MC Mehta v. Union of India (multiple): Environmental enforcement; Taj Trapezium Zone.
  • Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006): Police reforms; State Police Complaints Authorities.

Criticism of PIL: "PIL industry" — frivolous petitions; media-driven litigation; courts "legislating" (judicial overreach); delaying constitutional matters with PIL backlog.

4.6 Limitations of Judicial Control

  1. Post-facto: Courts can only intervene after an administrative action — prevention of maladministration is limited.
  2. Technical expertise: Courts lack technical knowledge to second-guess decisions in specialized domains (economic policy, defence, scientific).
  3. Delay: Indian courts are overburdened — relief may come years after the administrative wrong.
  4. No merit review: Courts generally do not substitute their judgment for the administrator's on policy merits — only legality is reviewable.
  5. Execution gap: Courts pass orders; enforcement depends on the administration — contempt proceedings are cumbersome.
  6. PIL misuse: Frivolous PILs clog courts; some PILs serve private interests.