The constitution of India greatly focuses on implicating a highly proficiency services to the society in which the one of the amalgamation of doctrine is judicial review. Judicial review serves a vital mechanism for assuring the constitutionality and legality of administrative action. The constitution of India emphasis that judicial review is basic feature of constitution which elucidate judiciary can review both executive and legislative for their action which invalidate constitution terms and provisions or performing unlawful duty by overall government authorities and public bodies where they misuse the power or arbitrary decision -making. The administrative action is the one through which the government policy and to develop the strength of the society reach to the public. In such cases where the exercise of certain duties and power by the authorities violates our fundamental and legal rights, by constitutional remedy under Article 226 and 32 can seek court in which judiciary can exercise their power as judicial review as the guardian and watch tower to protect those rights. This paper explores the growth of judicial review through writs are Habeas corpus, prohibition, certiorari, quo warranto, Mandamus that are engaged by courts to review administrative action as well as it probes into scope, function, limitations thrust on their use. Judicial not only focus on preventing citizen’s right but also ensuring the accountability of administration.

Judicial review is also the thus touchstone and essence of the rule of law[3]. The supreme court and High courts are the ultimate interpreters of the constitution seeking through the article 226 and article 32.In Minerva Mills Ltd v Union Of India[4] , the supreme court observed that the constitution has created an independent judiciary which is vested with the power of judicial review to determine the legality of administrative action and validity of legislation. It is the solemn duty of the judiciary to make the different organs of the government under the constitution within the power limits stated upon them by the constitution by exercising the doctrine of judicial review as sentinel on the quivive; In recent times ,judicial review of administrative action has become extensive and expansive ; The traditional limitations have vanished and the sphere of judicial scrutiny is being expanded; Under the old theory, the courts used to exercise power only in cases of absence or excess or abuse of power ; As the state activities have become pervasive and giant public corporation have some in existence, the stake of public exchequer justifies larger public audit and judicial control[5] ( Star Enterprises v City and Ind. Dev. Corpn. (1GG0) 3 SCC 280 (284)).

Judicial review means the review made by the courts of administrative actions with a view to ensure their legality. Administrative authorities are given powers by statues and such powers must be exercised within the limits of power drawn by such statues.[7]

The Indian constitution states an express provision in the shape of Article 13 for judicial review. The supreme court at the central level and High courts at the state level have the exclusive power to review the administrative actions through writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto under article 32 and 226.The writs borrowed from England where they have long history of development and have gathered many technicalities.[8]

Administrative action is residuary action which is neither legislative not judiciary. It is more detailed about taking care with treatment of Specific situation and is empty of generality. It has no procedural obligation of collecting evidence and Proceeding argument. It is completely based on subjective perspective and satisfaction where decisive is based on expediency and policy. It does not deal with deciding right even though it greatly affect a right. However, it does not means to be completely stay away from principle of natural justice when the authorities are exercising those administrative powers

In case A.K.kraipak v Union of India[9], the court observed that in order to examine whether the action of the administrative authority is administrative or quasi-judicial, one has to look into the nature of power conferred, to whom power is given , within the framework of power is conferred and the consequences.

Judicial review of administrative action is perhaps the most important development in the field of public law. The judiciary ,,therefore their duty to fund out the extent and limits of power of their coordinate branch executive and legislative and to see that they do not transgress their limits. Administrative action may be non statutory (lack of legal force) or statutory (enforce of law); but bulk of administrative action is statutory due to statue or constitution gives it absolute legal force; In some cases it implicate non statutory like directing to subordinate which has no legal force, However it’s violation may take pathway to disciplinary action. In those process of judicial review of executive and legislative action, the courts chooses the golden thread of reason behind it and meaning of law; reveals it’s fitness and disturbances; they shape the law; cut down the bad law or illegal enforcement.

If any administrative action like by legislature who acted beyond his competence (ultra vires) to the distribution of power(under article 246) , or any controversy with fundamental rights or any other mandatory provision of constitution (for instance., article 301,304) in those cases the judiciary under the judicial review power can declare a law or legislation unconstitutional. Thus, Under the article 132, the supreme court referred to the substantial question of law as to the interpretation of constitution. The exercise of ‘reasonable restrictions ‘can also take into effect in case of fundamental rights is noted to court’s supervision. Judicial review is thus the result of “the interposition of judicial restraint on executive as well as legislative organ of the government “.

In state of Bihar v Subhash Singh[11],the court held that, judicial review of administrative action under article 32 and 226 of the Indian constitution is a valid, judicial review of administrative action is an essential part of the rule of law.[12]

In Federation of Railway officers Association and Others v UOI[13] ,the supreme court observed that, where a policy evolved is inconsistent with Indian constitution and the law is arbitrary or irrational or its leads to abuse of power, the court will interfere with such matters because judicial review of administrative action is an essential part of rule of law.

In Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa[14],the court stated that it can intrude in the contract given by government to avoid any malafide intention and to avoid the favoritism of government for the charges alleged may be not suitable.

The doctrine of ultra vires is the core and basic rule of administrative law. Administrative action for which using judicial review, using the concept of intra-ultra vires and the rules of natural justice those things which ensure that the executive and legislative acts within the power conferred upon them. The main classes of action may be continued; those alleging infringement of statutory needs, disregard of natural justice rules ,alleging that decision was reached in unreasonable manner. Following those granting a court to go for judicial review to check whether the administrative action was within or outside of its power (intra- vires or ultra -vires).

Jurisdictional error: The term ‘jurisdiction’ means the power to make decision. There may be “lack ,excess or abuse of jurisdiction “.The court may retrain an administrative action on the ground of ultra vires in all those three circumstances.

In ‘lack of jurisdiction ‘is where the authority or tribunal holds no power or jurisdiction to deliver an order. In such situation the court may intervene to review whether the administrative action by authority who exercised jurisdiction which is not supposed to do.

In ‘excess of jurisdiction ‘the authority had jurisdiction initially over case but then it exceeded and later it’s action become illegal.

All administrative power exercise by the authority should be bona fide, fair and reasonable. If these powers are abused, it will definitely give up hand to a ground of judicial review.

Irrationality: A established general principle is that discretionary power of administrative authority should be exercised fairly and reasonably. The decisive of administrative authority can declare unreasonable whether it is so outrageous in its confrontation of logic or common moral standards that no reasonable man who has applications of mind to that subject could have arrived at it.

Procedural impropriety: This talks about failure to cope up with the laid down procedures. It is to cover two areas , the one in which failure to observe rules stated in the statue and the second is failure to observe the basic common- law rule of justice.

Ridge v Baldwin[17] is an case where procedural fairness showed great insistence on judicial review irrespective of the kind of body examining the matter. Ridge, the Chief Constable of Brighton was suspended on the charges of conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice. Despite the clearance of allegations against Ridge, The Judge made comments which criticized Ridge’s conduct. Following that, Ridge was dismissed from the force but he was not invited to attend the meeting which had decided his dismissal. Later, he was given an opportunity to be heard before the committee which had dismissed his appeal. Ridge then appealed to the House of Lords that the committee had totally violated the rules of natural justice. This case has been important because of the emphasis on the link existing between the right of a person to be heard and the right to know the case brought against him.

Proportionality: It means that exercise of administrative action should not be out of control or force than it requires to be. The principle of proportionality indicates that the court definitely goes into question about advantage and disadvantage of necessary action Unless the said administrative action is in its advantageous stage and in the public interest, such an action is said to be cannot upheld. This doctrine holds to balance means with ends. Courts In India have been functioning by adhering to this doctrine for a long time but the courts in England had started using this doctrine only after passing of the Human Rights Act, 1988. The court quashes the performance of discretionary power in which there is no reasonable relation between objectives to be achieved and means of achieving it in the test of proportionality. If the administrative action by authority is mischief of disproportionate, it will be quashed.

In Hind Construction Co. v. Workmen[18],some workers called for a holiday and remained absent. They were later dismissed from service. The court held that the workers should have been warned and fined instead of abruptly being dismissed in a permanent manner. It was out of the question to think that any reasonable employer would have given such extreme punishment. The court held that the punishment imposed on the workmen was not only severe but also disproportionate.[19]

Legitimate Expectation: This doctrine acts as a ground of judicial review for the protection of interest when a public authority abrogate from a representation made to person. In such cases a legitimate expectation rises in the mind of the complainant who has been comprehend expressly or impliedly that certain procedures will be pave way in reaching a decision. The expectation should possess with reasonable basis. This doctrine plays a major role to give relief to those person who were mistaken by violation of their legitimate expectation and have not in position to claim justification on the basis of law.

The India that is democratic country, the administrative authorities which includes three organ of the government one in which the judiciary exercise the power of judicial review. The administrative authorities are vested with broad discretionary powers. The exercise of those powers often becomes more subjective in case of absence of specific guidelines etc. Hence, there is essential need for control over the discretionary power to ensure that ‘rule of law’ which talks about supremacy of, equality before law should exist in all governmental action. Lord Dyson said that, “there is no principle more basic to our system of law than the maintenance of rule of law itself and the constitutional protection afforded by judicial review. “Therefore the judicial review of administrative action in the embodiment of writ jurisdiction is to make sure that decisiveness taken by authorities are fair, legal, reasonable and proper.

Article 226 and 32 of constitution of India has drawn for executing or enforcement of fundamental rights and for a judicial review of administrative action, in the configuration of writs. It is one of the most vital Constitutional remedy accessible to a aggrieved person to bring their complaints or grievances for redressal against any administrative action before the court to notice. The importance of those remedies are highlighted or reflected by the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium-where there is right, there is a remedy. Under those articles the supreme court and the High court exercise their appropriate processing of judicial review through writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warranto for the protection of fundamental rights enlightened in part three of the constitution of India.

In the administrative law, the judicial review of administrative action is one of the most important factor to take into consideration; which is inherent in the constitution of India that is based on separation of power and rule of law. It is one of the foremost accessible remedy against administrative action who exercise beyond their scope. The center point is to ensure that administrative actions of authorities are within the limits of law conferred upon on them and to protect, safeguard the rights and interest of the citizens. It is thus the very heart and soul of administrative law.[23]

Judicial review plays an enhancing role in ensuring accountability on administrative action through various writs. This form makes the authorities to stick on the power empowered on them by constitution.