The Supreme Court has clarified that judicial review of administrative action focuses on the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself. Courts may intervene if actions are based on irrationality, mala fide, procedural impropriety, or violation of constitutional norms, rather than just the subjective satisfaction of the authority. Live Law +2
Key Aspects of the Clarified Scope:
- Review of Subjective Satisfaction: When administrative actions are based on subjective opinion, the court can review the existence of facts or circumstances used to form that opinion.
- Three Grounds of Review: Administrative action is controlled by three main heads: illegality (violating laws), irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness), and procedural impropriety (breach of natural justice).
- Restraint in Administrative Matters: Courts generally do not interfere with administrative decisions, such as those regarding performance evaluations (e.g., Annual Confidential Reports), unless there is a clear legal violation or the decision is utterly arbitrary, as noted in Bharat Ram Meena v. Rajasthan High Court.
- Exceptions to Finality: While compulsory retirement is a subjective satisfaction, it remains subject to review to prevent misuse or lack of bona fides, according to the CaseMine report on precedent.
- Constitutional Mandate: Judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the rule of law, protecting against abuse of power under Article 32 and Article 226.
- Judicial Review Limits: Per the CaseMine article, the court often limits the scope of judicial review of administrative action to check for legality and reasonableness, rather than substituting its own judgment for that of the administration.
- Role of Evidence: The International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis article shows that a clear demonstration of legal or procedural violation is necessary for the court to intervene in administrative action.
- Review of Disciplinary Actions: As shown in the CaseMine study, the Supreme Court has limited the high court’s jurisdiction to review administrative decisions, emphasizing that disciplinary actions, particularly those taken by the High Court in a case of a subordinate judicial officer, are in the administrative realm and should only be interfered with if they show a clear legal or procedural flaw.
- Administrative Discretion: The EBC Law Explorer article explains that administrative discretion is broad and that the courts’ scope of review is, for this reason, limited, ensuring that courts do not overstep into the domain of the executive.