From Wednesbury To Proportionality: A Critical Analysis Of The Evolution Of Judicial Review Over Administrative Discretion In India
- IJLLR Journal
- 18 minutes ago
- 1 min read
Sahaj Agarwal, OP Jindal University
ABSTRACT
The growth of the administrative and regulative state has allowed the executive branch greater discretionary authority. The main question of administrative law is how to establish a standard of judicial review that puts a check on arbitrary executive action without displacing the administrative role. Over decades, Indian jurisprudence was based on the English doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness, which is characterized by such a high level of judicial deference and insistent observance of the separation of powers. But the constitutionalization of rights discourse brought to light the shortcomings of the Wednesbury standard in protecting basic liberties. As such, the Indian judiciary has over time adopted the proportionality doctrine, a multi-pronged, structured doctrine which was imported into the European jurisprudence. This critical analysis of this jurisprudential transition is presented as a doctrinal paper. The paper will contend by deconstructing some of the most important case laws and scholarly writings that proportionality is being proclaimed as the victory of human rights, but it will necessarily force the courts to conduct reviews based on merit. This change upsets the balance of power, making the judiciary a secondary reviewer of process, instead of a primary evaluator of administrative policy.
