PSIR Simplified

In governance, the primary function of the executive is to implement laws enacted by the legislature and to formulate policies. Currently, in all countries, the executive consists of two parts: the political executive, comprising ministers, and the permanent executive, comprising administrative officials and the bureaucracy. In almost all democratic nations, including India, mechanisms exist for legislative and judicial control over the executive and the administration.

This post discusses the judiciary’s control over the administration in India.

Image Courtesy: LawBhoomi

The mechanisms for judicial control over the administration in India are as follows:

1. Judicial Review

Judicial review refers to the power of the judiciary to declare legislative laws and executive orders void if they violate the provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution of India does not explicitly mention the power of judicial review. Under Article 13 of the Constitution, the judiciary can declare laws and orders void if they violate fundamental rights. Subsequently, the judiciary expanded this authority into the broader power of judicial review.

2. Statutory Appeal

Many laws enacted by Parliament include provisions allowing an aggrieved person to appeal to the judiciary. For instance, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, provides that an aggrieved party may appeal to the Supreme Court against the decisions of the National Consumer Forum. Such appeals are known as statutory appeals.

3.Suits against the Government

Citizens have the right to file lawsuits against the Central Government or the concerned State Government to protect their rights. In such instances, the judiciary gets the opportunity to hear cases against the government. However, under Article 361 of the Constitution, subject to limited exceptions, no person has the right to file a lawsuit in court against the President or a Governor during their tenure.

4.Civil and Criminal cases against Public servants

Civil and criminal proceedings can be initiated against public servants for their official actions with the prior permission of the government.

5. Constitutional Remedies

Under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court possesses original jurisdiction in cases involving the violation of fundamental rights. Similarly, under Article 226, High Courts have jurisdiction regarding fundamental rights as well as other rights. To protect citizens’ rights, both courts can issue the following five types of orders against the administration and subordinate courts:

Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Quo Warranto, Prohibition, and Certiorari.

What is the basis or scope of judicial control over the administration?

The judiciary can examine the actions or orders of the administration on the following grounds:

A. Lack of Jurisdiction

If an administrative officer issues an order that falls outside their legal jurisdiction, the court can quash that order.

B. If the order is irrational

The court can also quash administrative orders and actions that are irrational. To test for irrationality, India has adopted the ‘Wednesbury Test’ rule from Britain (1947). According to this rule, an administrative act or order is deemed irrational in the following three circumstances:

1. If it is based on a consideration that should not have been included, or

2. If it omits a consideration that should have been included, or

3. If the order or act is such that a rational person would not have taken it.

C. Procedural Weakness

If the prescribed procedure is not followed in an administrative order or act, the courts may declare it illegal. In this regard, it is also mandatory for the administration to adhere to the principles of natural justice.

d. Error of Facts and Law

If an administrative officer fails to correctly assess the facts or misinterprets the law, the resulting order may be flawed and liable to be quashed by the court. In legal terminology, this is referred to as ‘misfeasance’.

E. Abuse of Authority

If an administrative officer deliberately abuses their authority to practice discrimination or secure personal gain, the courts may declare such an act illegal. In legal terminology, this is known as ‘malfeasance’. This also encompasses conduct where an officer was required to perform a specific task but deliberately refrained from doing so; this is termed ‘nonfeasance’.

In summary, the judiciary can scrutinize administrative actions based on the five grounds mentioned above.

Image Courtesy: Grammarist

Limitations on Judicial Control over the Administration

1. The judiciary exercises control over administrative actions only when a case is brought before it by an aggrieved party.

2. There is a lack of public awareness, and court proceedings are expensive, placing them beyond the reach of the common person.

3. Judicial scrutiny begins only after an administrative action has already been completed. This makes it difficult to halt the administrative action.

4.   The judiciary faces a massive backlog of cases and a lack of time. This leads to delays in the delivery of justice.