Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Judicial review of Administrative Action

No description
by

Vasundhra Sharma

on 19 October 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Judicial review of Administrative Action

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL
OBJECT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
TO ENSURE THAT THE AUTHORITY DOES NOT ABUSE ITS POWER AND THE INDIVIDUAL RECEIVES JUST AND FAIR TREATMENT
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL
1. WHEN ?
2. JUDICIAL REVIEW BY WHOM ?
3. UNDER WHAT PROVISIONS ?
4. AGAINST WHOM ?
5.WHO CAN FILE REVIEW ?
6. GROUNDS/REASONS
JUDICIAL REVIEW
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
WHO HAS THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ?
Supreme Court U/A 32 & 136

High Count U/A 226 &227
RES JUDICATA
STANDING
LOCUS STANDI : Aggrieved person

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
(PIL) :
(a) standing to include notional injury
(b) "Public Duties" standing
(c) "class" standing
(d) "public concern" standing

LACHES
OR UNREASONABLE DELAY
Buttu Prasad V. Steel Authority of India 1995 Supp (2) SCC225

R S Makashi V. I I Menon (1982)1 SCC 379
All administrative remedies must be pursued to the fullest before resorting to judicial review.
GROUNDS
1. Failure to exercise discretion
2. Excess or Abuse of discretion
3. Doctrine of Proportionality
4. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations

The issue before the court has already been decided by another court between same parties
Res Judicata shall not apply in cases of:
(a) writ of habeas corpus
(b) summary trial
(c) dismissed as withdrawn
(d) dismissed otherwise than on merits

State of UP V. Nawab Hussain (1977)2 SCC 806
Maganbhai v UOI 1970 3 SCC 400
Failure to exercise Discretion
(a) Sub- delegation
(b) Imposing fetters on discretion
(c) acting under dictation
(d) non- application of Mind
(e) Power couples with duty
Excess or Abuse of Discretion
1. Acting without discretion
2. exceeding jurisdiction
3. Arbitrary action
4. Irrelevant considerations
5. Leaving relevant considerations
6. Mixed consideration
7. Mala fide
8. collateral purpose : Improper object
9. Colourable exercise of power
10. Colourable Legislation : Fraud on constitution
11. Non- observance of Natural Justice
12. Unreasonableness

ACTING WITHOUT JURISDICTION
EXCEEDING JURISDICTION
Govt. of Andhra Pradesh V. M.T.Khan (2004) 1 SCC 616
Sudeer V Bar Council of India (1999) 3SCC 176
ARBITRARY ACTIONS
IF THE ACTION COMPLAINED IS ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY , IRRATIONAL, UNREASONABLE OR PERVERSE CAN BE SET ASIDE
Ranjit Thakur V. UOI(1987) 4 SCC 611
The Army Act, 1950 1
IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
R L Arora V. State of UP AIR 1962 SC 764

State of MP V. Ramashanker (1983) 2 SCC 145

State of Rajasthan v. U O I (1977) 3 SCC 592
LEAVING OUT RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
Administrative authorities cannot take into account irrelevant or extraneous considerations/fails to take into consideration relevant considerations/
MIXED CONSIDERATIONS
The order is partly based on relevant and existent considerations and partly on irrelevant or non-existent considerations
Power conferred must be exercised on the considerations relevant to the purpose for which it is conferred.
(1) Conclusions based on Subjective satisfaction (
"they are satisfied", "it appears to them", "in their opinion", "such action as they think fit" et
c)
(2) Conclusions based on objective facts
Unreasonableness
What is the Test for unreasonableness ?
Rampur Distillery Co. Ltd. v Company Law Board (1969) 2 SCC 774
Khudiram Das V. State of West Bengal 1975 AIR 550
Pyarelal Sharma V Managing Direcor (1989) 3SCC 488
Irrelevant or extraneous considerations
Improper or collateral purpose
If it is without the authority of law/ there is no evidence
Unreasonableness
mala fide exercise of powers
Colourable Exercise of power (Fradulent exercise of power)
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations
If inferior court/tribunal takes into account irrelevant considerations/leaves relevant considerations, erroneously admits inadmissible evidence/refuses to admit admissible evidence/ finding of fact is based on no evidence
Error apparent on the face of the record
Not a mere error but a manifest error based on clear ignorance or disregard of the law
Sangram Singh V Election Tribunal AIR 1958 SC 440
Bangalore Medical Trust V. B S Muddappa & Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 54
Somawanti V. State of Punjab AIR 1963 337
Illegality
Irrationality
Procedural Impropriety
Proportionality

Means ill-will, dishonest intention/corrupt motive
power is exercised out of personal animosity or vengeance or fraudulently with the intent to achieve an object foreign to the statute
- A Branch of Public Law
- It applies the principles of fairness and reasonableness to the situation where a person has an expectation or interest in a public authority retaining a long standing practice or keeping a promise
- Part of Natural Justice
- doctrine of LE supplements the doctrine of locus standi
Schmidt V. secretary of State for Home Affairs 1969 1 All ER 904 (A)
Mclness V. Onslow Fane (1978) 3 All ER 211 (Ch.D)
Violation of Public Policy
Public Policy means the principles and standards regarded by the legislature or by the court as being of fundamental concern to the state, the whole of society.
Violation of public policy if it is contrary to:
(1) fundamental policy of India
(2) the interests of India
(3) justice and morality
(4) patently illegal
Doctrine of Proportionality

Council of civil service union V. Minister for the Civil Service
Ranjit Singh v. UOI
Sardar Singh V UOI
Associated Privincial Picture House Ltd V. Wednesbury corporation 1948 1 K B223
Full transcript