Judicial Review of Executive Action

Judicial review is the power of constitutional courts to examine whether executive action conforms to the Constitution and law. It controls arbitrariness by invalidating unlawful decisions, enforcing fundamental rights and granting effective remedies, while ordinarily leaving the merits of policy to the executive.

Constitutional basis

The Supreme Court and High Courts enforce constitutional limits through their writ jurisdiction. Judicial review is also recognised as part of the Constitution's basic structure.

• Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Under Article 226, High Courts may issue writs for fundamental rights and for any other legal purpose, giving them wider remedial jurisdiction.
• Executive action must comply with Articles 14, 19 and 21, including equality, permissible restrictions on freedoms and fair legal procedure.
• In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court treated judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 as an integral feature of the Constitution.

Grounds for controlling arbitrariness

Courts examine the legality of the decision-making process rather than merely whether they agree with the result.

• Action may be struck down when it is ultra vires, meaning beyond statutory or constitutional authority.
• Courts intervene for mala fides, irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant material or manifest unreasonableness.
• Violation of natural justice, such as denial of a fair hearing or decision by a biased authority, can invalidate administrative action.
• The proportionality test examines whether restrictions on rights pursue a legitimate objective and impair rights no more than justified.

Remedies and institutional limits

Courts may quash an unlawful order, restrain excess of jurisdiction, compel performance of a public duty or protect personal liberty through the constitutional writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus. They generally do not substitute their preferred policy for that of the competent executive, but ensure that discretion remains within constitutional and statutory limits.