GENERAL

PRINCIPLE
OF
JUDICIAL
REVIEW ON
ADMINISTR
ATIVE ACTI
ON IN
INDIAN
LEGAL
SYSTEM
The doctrine
of judicial
review has
been
originated and
developed by
the American
Supreme
Court,
although there
is no express
provision
in the
AmericanConst
itution for the
judicial review.
In Marbury
v. Madison,
[1]the Supreme
Court madeit
clear that it
had the power
of judicial
review. Chief
Justice George
Marshall
said,Certainly
all those who
have framed
the written
Constitution
contemplate
them
asforming the
fundamental
and paramount
law of the
nations, and
consequently,
thetheory of
every
such Governm
ent must
be that an act
of the
legislature,
repugnant to
theConstitutio
n is void
.There is
supremacy of
Constitution
in U.S.A. and,
therefore, in
case of conflict
betweenthe
Constitution
and the Acts
passed by the
legislature, the
Courts follow
theConstitutio
n and declare
the acts to be
unconstitution
al and,
therefore,
void. The
Courtsdeclare
void the acts of
the legislature
and the
executive,
if they are
found in
violation of the
provisions of
the Constitutio
n.
 A. Meaning
Judicial review
is a great
weapon in the
hands of
judges. It
comprises the
power of
acourt to hold
unconstitution
al and
unenforceable
any law or
order
based upon
such law or any
other action by
a public
authority
which is
inconsistent or
in conflict with
the basic law of
the
land.Kailash
Rai defines
judicial review
as the
authority of the
Courts to
declare void
the actsof the
legislature and
executive, if
they are found
in the violation
of the
provisions of
theConstitutio
n. Judicial
Review is the
power of the
highest Court
of a
jurisdiction
toinvalidate on
Constitutional
grounds, the
acts of other
Government
agency within
that jurisdicitio
n.[2] Broadly
speaking,
judicial review
in India deals
with three
aspects: (i)
judicial review
of legislative
action;
(ii) judicial
review of
judicial
decision; and
(iii) judicial
review
of administrati
ve action.[3]In
this short-
paper, we are
concerned with
the
last aspect,nam
ely, judicial
review
of administrati
ve action.
 It is necessary
to distinguish
between
judicial
review
and judicial
control. The
term judicial
review has
a restrictive
connotation as
compared to
the term
judicial
control.Judicia
l review is
supervisory,
rather than
corrective, in
nature.
Judicial review
isdenoted by
the writ system
which
functions in
India under
Arts. 32 and
226 of
theConstitutio
n. Judicial
control, on the
other hand, is a
broader term.
It denotes
a much broade
r concept and
includes
judicial review
within itself.
Judicial
control
comprises
of all methods
through which
a person can
seek relief
against the
Administration
throughthe
medium of the
courts, such as,
appeal, writs,
declaration,
injunction,
damagesstatut
ory remedies
against
the Administra
tion.[4]
B
. Object
The
underlying
object of
judicial review
is to ensure
that the
authority does
not abuse
itspower and
the individual
receives just
and fair
treatment and
not to ensure
that
theauthority
reaches a
conclusion
which is correct
in the eye of
law. As
observed by
the Supreme
Court in
Minerva Mills
Ltd. v. Unio