Judicial Review of Administrative action is part of enforcing the constitutional discipline over the administrative agencies while exercising their powers. It has its origin in England which was adopted in common law countries. India too inherited the idea of judicial review from England. India had laid its structure on English prerogative with a pattern which was issued by the court of King’s Bench to exercise general superintendence over the due observance of law by officials/ authorities while performing judicial or non-judicial functions.
The essence of discretion is that it is exercised on the subjective satisfaction of an administrative authority.
The subjective satisfaction, however, does not mean that it depends upon the whims and fancies of the person taking the action. As stated above, discretion has to be exercised based upon the objective material available before him. The decision thus taken is subject to judicial review. The courts look into the adequacy, relevancy and
appropriateness of the material depended upon by the authorities while taking decisions. In other words, the courts look into the question of how the discretion has been exercised and not what decision has been taken. The subjective satisfaction in matters of urgency is not ordinarily open to the courts.
1. DISCRETIONARY ACTION:
Judicial control of discretionary powers has two facets. One is to refrain the legislature from conferring too broad discretionary powers on administrative authority. This has brought in certain limitations on the conferment of such powers by invoking fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution which involves substantive as well as procedural safeguards in the exercise of powers. Two, to provide for the post-decisional review mechanism, so that authorities function within limits. The purpose of the judicial review is to ensure that there is no abuse the
discretion.
2. QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTIONS:
Legal control of optional forces has two features. One is to forgo the assembly presenting too expansive optional forces on authoritative position. This has acquired certain limits on the conferment of such powers by summoning principal rights ensured by the Constitution which includes considerable just as procedural protections in the activity of forces. Two, to accommodate the post-decisional audit system, so specialists work inside limits. The reason for the legal audit is to guarantee that there is no maltreatment the watchfulness.
To conclude one can clearly say that the grounds for challenging aforesaid administrative action is inherent in our Constitutional scheme which is based on rule of law and separation of powers. It is considered to be the basic features of our Constitution, which cannot be abrogated even by exercising the Constituent power of parliament. It is the most effective remedy available against administrative excesses. Well, it is a positive sense among the masses that if the administration undertakes any work or acting under discretion power conferred upon it either by statutory rules or under the provisions of the Constitution of India. If it is a failure to exercise discretion or abuse of discretionary power to settle its score or gain any private profit due to this discretion power, then the only option before the public is to go to the judiciary under Article 32,136 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The main purpose of it is to ensure that the laws enacted by the legislature conform to the rule of law. Judicial review has certain inherent limitations. It is more suited for adjudication of disputes than for performing administrative functions. It is for the executive to administer the law and the function of the judiciary is to ensure that government carries out its duty in accordance with the provision of the Constitution of India.
