Judicial review of administrative decisions: recent trends and challenges
What is Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
A quick refresher: judicial review refers to the power of courts to examine administrative (executive) actions to ensure they comply with law, including constitutional norms, procedural fairness, reasonableness, non‐arbitrariness, due process, etc. In India, this is grounded in Articles 14, 19, 21, etc., and in the writ jurisdiction of High Courts (Article 226) and Supreme Court (Article 32), etc.
Recent Trends in Judicial Review
Over the last few years, several trends have become noticeable in how Indian courts, especially the Supreme Court, approach judicial review of administrative decisions:
Widened scope of rights‑based review: Courts are more willing to scrutinize administrative decisions for impacts on constitutional rights (equality, privacy, free speech, etc.) and not merely on technical or procedural grounds.
Transparency and information demands: Increasing expectation of transparency, accountability (for example, in political funding, public appointments, etc.) as part of administrative review.
Public interest litigation (PIL) & activist judges: More cases being brought in PIL mode challenging executive decisions, often with administrative law implications (environment, reservation, welfare).
Balancing deference and oversight: Courts are sometimes more deferential to executive or legislative policy choices, especially in domains of national security, economic policy, etc., but there is tension over when deference becomes abdication of judicial duty.
Standard of review concerns: There is growing focus on what standard applies (e.g. reasonableness, proportionality, Wednesbury unreasonableness, etc.), and whether courts should adopt more rigorous standards especially when constitutional rights are at stake.
Concern of judicial overreach: Pushback or criticism that courts are too involved in policy, or micro‑managing administrative decisions, thus blurring separation of powers.
Procedural fairness: Emphasis on fairness even where statutes do not explicitly mandate hearings, etc.; courts insisting that decisions affecting rights must give people a chance to be heard, give reasoned orders, avoid bias.
Delivering timely justice: Because administrative decisions often affect people immediately, delay in judicial review is being seen as more problematic; courts trying to provide faster remedies in some domains.
Challenges
With these trends come many challenges. Some of the current issues are:
Backlog and delays: Cases challenging administrative actions often get delayed, reducing the practical usefulness of review.
Clarity of what counts as administrative action: Sometimes, what is “administrative” vs. “legislative” or “judicial” is contested; this affects whether review is available.
Ambiguity in standards: The standard of reasonableness / proportionality vs. deference is not always clearly defined or consistently applied.
Access to justice: Costs, legal aid, awareness limit people from challenging administrative decision.
Political and institutional resistance: Some court interventions are challenged as overreach; sometimes executive responds by legislation reducing scope of review.
Preservation of separation of powers: Ensuring that judicial review does not usurp powers of legislature or executive, but courts also cannot ignore abuse of executive discretion.
Proof of “malafide” or “arbitrariness” often difficult; evidence may be withheld by administrative bodies; transparency issues.
Recent Case Laws Illustrating These Trends & Challenges
Here are several recent / relatively recent Indian Supreme Court / High Court / Tribunal decisions that illustrate these trends and challenges. I explain more than four in detail.
Case 1: Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024) ‒ Electoral Bonds Scheme
Facts: The Electoral Bonds scheme (2018) allowed political donors to buy bonds anonymously and donate to political parties. The scheme was challenged for violating transparency and voters’ right to know.
Issue: Whether the scheme violates constitutional rights (e.g. right to information, transparency) and whether administrative decisions in implementing it are reviewable in light of those rights.
Held: The Supreme Court struck down the scheme as unconstitutional. It found that the scheme violated the right to information of voters (Article 19(1)(a)), undermined democratic accountability, and the scheme was not in the nature of mere regulation but provided excessive anonymity, which is not justifiable in a democratic setup.
Significance: This is a strong example of rights‑based judicial review of administrative/policy decisions. The Court did not shy from reviewing legislative/executive policy insofar as it infringes constitutional norms. It reflects the trend of emphasizing transparency and information as core to administrative legitimacy.
Case 2: State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024)
Facts: The issue was about reservation in services and education under state laws. Specifically, whether Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can be sub‐classified by State governments to ensure more equitable access.
Issue: Whether state governments have power to make sub‑classifications within SC/ST categories; also whether judicial review should take account of socio‑economic realities and policy perspectives.
Held: A 7‑judge bench held that state governments do have the power to subclassify SCs/STs for reservation purposes under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. It recognized the need for policy choices to reflect social and economic realities, and that judicial review must keep such real world contexts in view.
Significance: This case shows courts engaging more deeply with socio‑economic data and policy, not just legal theory. It demonstrates how judicial review is adapting to a more empirical approach, balancing deference to policy makers while ensuring constitutional values.
Case 3: Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022)
Facts: Deepika Singh, a nurse in a government institute, was denied maternity leave by virtue of the fact that she had earlier availed child care leave for non‑biological children (from spouse’s prior marriage). The CAT and the High Court had denied her.
Issue: Whether denial of maternity leave in such a case violates equality under Article 14, and whether administrative rules/actions by tribunal or other bodies should be reviewed in terms of impact on rights.
Held: The Supreme Court held that a woman’s statutory right to maternity leave cannot be denied because she used child care leave for non‑biological children. The Court interpreted “family” broadly. The decision emphasized that administrative/regulatory rules must be inclusive and not discriminatory, and administrative decisions must align with constitutional equality.
Significance: Presents the expanding scope of judicial review to address discrimination in administrative rules; shows willingness of courts to correct rigid administrative practices in favour of constitutional values even in seemingly technical routes.
Case 4: Kunal Kamra v. Union of India (2023‑2024)
Facts: This case challenged the 2023 amendments to the Information Technology Rules (2021), which introduced rules for fact‑checking units etc., authorizing government oversight over content related to “fake, false or misleading” information about government affairs.
Issue: Whether these administrative rules violate constitutional rights of free speech, are vague/arbitrary, and whether a judicial review can invalidate rules that grant broad discretions to executive bodies under enabling statutes.
Held: The Bombay High Court, and in part the Supreme Court, held that some of the rules were unconstitutional. They found them vague, lacking adequate procedural safeguards, creating chilling effects. The Supreme Court granted interim relief. Ultimately, parts of the rules were held to be unconstitutional for reasons including arbitrary delegation, inadequacy of safeguards, etc.
Significance: This case underscores modern challenge of administrative decision‑making in digital spaces (content regulation, speech). Shows how judicial review pushes back against over‑broad executive rules, especially where freedom of expression is at stake. Emphasizes importance of clarity and procedural safeguards in administrative rules.
Case 5: Validity of Unstamped Arbitration Agreement (NN Global, etc.) (2023‑2024)
Facts: The question was whether an arbitration agreement that is unstamped or under‐stamped (i.e. not complying with Stamp Act’s stamping requirement) is void and unenforceable. Initially, a 5‑judge bench held in NN Global (2023) that an unstamped or insufficiently stamped arbitration agreement is void. However, soon after, a 7‑judge bench reconsidered and held that such a defect is curable; i.e. courts can condone insufficient stamping under certain conditions.
Issue: Whether administrative or judicial bodies should rigidly enforce formalities even if minor, or take a more flexible approach in view of substance over form; deciding when administrative / procedural formalities must lead to invalidity vs when they are to be remedied.
Held: The 7‑judge bench held that the unstamped agreement defect is curable, underlining that not every procedural flaw must lead to invalidity; courts must balance formal legal compliance with fairness, commercial practicality.
Significance: This shows trend towards judicial moderation: recognizing efficiency, certainty, commercial realities, fairness. Not every procedural non‑compliance leads to nullification. It reflects balancing review of administrative / judicial action in contract and commercial domain.
Case 6: In Re: Article 370 Case (2023)
Facts: The revocation of the special status of Jammu & Kashmir by the Union government via abrogation of Article 370 and reorganization.
Issue: Whether the decision was subject to judicial review in terms of constitutional violation.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the central government’s power to abrogate Article 370, but also clarified that judicial review is confined to constitutional violations. Courts will not second guess policy choices or wisdom of political decisions where they do not breach constitutional limits.
Significance: Highlights boundary of review: even when executive or legislature makes bold policy or constitutional change, judiciary will preserve its role in ensuring constitutional compliance but will not trespass into policy or political wisdom. This is a reaffirmation of deference in certain extreme or high‑stakes decisions.
Analysis: What These Cases Show
Putting the above cases together, here are some patterns / insights:
Courts are increasingly sensitive to rights impact of administrative decisions (transparency, equality, free speech, etc.), moving beyond mere procedural technicalities.
The trend is towards contextual, empirical review, rather than rigid formalism. For example, using socio‑economic data in the reservation case; looking at chilling effect etc.
Courts are insisting on procedural safeguards in administrative rules / executive actions—especially where rights are involved—ensuring clarity, hearing, reasoned orders.
But there is also stronger acknowledgment of administrative / legislative policy space, especially in areas of national security, state reservation policy, etc. Courts are cautious about substituting their own judgments or expertise in policy matters.
Deference is being balanced—not blindly, but with emphasis that policies must still respect constitutional values.
Key Challenges Moving Forward
Consistency of Standards: There are still variations in how strongly courts enforce standards of reasonableness, proportionality, etc. Sometimes courts are strict, often deferential. Predictability is low.
Delay and access: Even recent cases take years. Litigants affected by administrative decisions suffer if review is slow.
Evidence and transparency: Administrative bodies often do not disclose underlying data, motives; making proving “malafide” or arbitrariness difficult.
Judicial capacity: Courts sometimes do not have the technical capacity/expertise to evaluate specialized administrative decisions (e.g. environment, technology, public health), yet must do so.
Overreach vs underreach: Striking the correct balance is difficult. Sometimes judiciary criticized for overreach (micro‑management of administrative field), other times underreach where glaring administrative wrongs are tolerated.
Statutory constraints: Some statutes attempt to limit judicial review by ousting or curtailing the scope (e.g. ouster clauses, privative clauses). Courts must navigate these.
Changing socio‑legal expectations: Citizens expect more transparency, participation, and rights‑based governance; administrative law must adapt, but sometimes institutionally slow.
Conclusion
The judicial review of administrative decisions in India is in a phase where it is expanding in some respects (rights‑based scrutiny, transparency, scrutiny of rules/administrative policy) and also being constrained in others (deference in certain policy areas, political questions, etc.). The courts are trying, but many challenges remain in terms of consistency, speed, accessibility, and balancing institutional roles.
RELATED Blog
0 comments