Judicial Review Of Administrative Inaction In India – The Proportionality Test Vs.The Wednesbury Test
- IJLLR Journal
- Jan 16
- 1 min read
Bhakti Savith Salian, BA.LLB (Hons.), Chettinad School of Law
R.A Rohith, BBA.LLB (Hons.), Chettinad School of Law
ABSTRACT
A modern democracy premised upon the principle of the rule of law entrusts the administrative authorities with broad discretionary powers to operationalise statutory objectives and to administer public duties. However, when the administrative bodies fail or refuse to act on an obligation, then such inaction and discretion would be amenable to judicial review. This research paper aims at examining the two primary standards of judicial scrutiny – the Wednesbury test of reasonableness and the proportionality test. The importance of understanding the interaction and the distinction between the two tests lies in the need to appreciate the scope of judicial review in administrative law. It is essential for determining the practicality and fairness of employing these tests in ensuring both procedural and substantive justice in matters where administrative action or discretion is involved. This study undertakes a doctrinal analysis of statutory instruments, key judicial precedents to trace the application and the trajectory of these tests within Indian jurisprudence. At the outset, it clarifies the conceptual foundations of administrative inaction by delineating its definitional scope and types. Thereafter, it identifies the legal consequences of such inaction. In its essence, this research paper provides a comparative analysis of the elements, intensity and scope of the two tests. The paper concludes by observing the evolving Indian judicial approach in addressing administrative inaction.
Keywords: Judicial review, Wednesbury Test, administrative discretion, reasonableness, administrative inaction.
