Judicial Control Over Administrative Discretion
Rohit Kadian, National Law Institute University, Bhopal
Sarga PS, National Law Institute University, Bhopal
ABSTRACT
This study examines judicial control over administrative discretion in India, tracing how courts have used the writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to keep administrative authorities within the bounds of legality, fairness, and reasonableness. Taking as its starting point the tripartite classification of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety developed in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, the study examines how each ground has been received and adapted by Indian courts, with particular attention to the natural justice principles established in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India and to the more structured standard of review developed under the doctrine of proportionality.
The study further examines the doctrines of legitimate expectation and proportionality as they have developed in Indian administrative law, and situates these doctrines against the limits that courts have placed on their own jurisdiction in matters of policy, economic judgment, and academic or technical evaluation.
Drawing on the principle, articulated in Tata Cellular v Union of India, that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself, the study argues that Indian courts have, on the whole, maintained a workable balance between restraining arbitrary administrative action and preserving the flexibility that effective governance requires.
