Judicial Control Over Administration

The exercise of official authority may on occasion encroach upon the constitutional or statutory rights of the individuals, whether by reason of error, misunderstanding, or excessive zeal. Increased administrative powers have necessitated increased safeguards against their abuses. Protection of private rights becomes as much as essential part of government policy as the implementation of other governmental policies. While the administration is concerned with the latter, the judiciary is primarily concerned with the former. Both are essential and judicial control is an essential concomitant of a democratic society.

Judicial control over administration means the powers of the courts to examine the legality of the officials’ acts and thereby to safeguard the rights of the citizens. It also implies the right of an aggrieved citizen to bring a civil or criminal suit in a court of law against a public servant for the wrong done to him in the course of discharge of his public duty. The end sought by judicial control of administrative acts to ensure their legality and thus protect the citizen against unlawful trespass on their constitutional or other rights.

The Judiciary intervenes into administrative cases on the following grounds :

Lack of Jurisdiction (overfeasance): Every officer has to act within the limits of the authority given to him and also within a specified geographical area. If he acts beyond his authority or outside the geographical limits of his powers, his acts will be declared by the courts as ultra vires’ and hence ineffective. As, for example, in India it is expressly laid down in the Constitution that ‘No government employee shall be dismissed by an authority below the rank to the authority which appointed him’; otherwise the action of the dismissal shall be declared ultra vires due to lack of jurisdiction.
Error of Law (Misfeasance). A public servant may misinterpret the law and may impose upon the citizens duties and obligations which are not required by law. A citizen who has suffered on account of this has the right to approach the court for damages.
Error of Fact-Finding : Thirdly, there may be cases in which the official has erred in discovering facts. He may wrongly interpret facts or ignore them and thus may act on wrong presumptions. This may affect a citizen adversely and so there may be ground for bringing a case in a court of law.
Abuse of Authority (Malfeasance) : If a public official uses his authority vindictively to harm some person, the courts can intervene and punish him if he is found guilty of using the authority to take a personal revenge.
Error of Procedure: Above all, public officials have to act according to a certain procedure as laid down by laws and if they do not follow the prescribed procedure, the courts have a right to question the legality of their action and appeal from the party affected. For example, the law requires that an employee should be served with a notice of the charges before any action of suspending or dismissing him can be taken against him. Suppose the officer takes the action against him without serving a proper notice, then his action shall be declared null and void by the court.

Methods of Judicial Control : Control of administration by the courts may take one of the following forms: Judicial Review, Statutory Appeals, Suit against Government/ Government Officials, and Extra-ordinary Remedies in the form of Writs.

Judicial Review: By “Judicial Review we mean the power of the courts to review the administrative acts and decisions for their validity. On examination, if such decisions and acts are found to be ultra-vires, the courts refuse to enforce them. It has now become common place for courts to exercise this power in the countries following the Anglo-Saxon system of. Jurisprudence.

Statutory Appeals : Statutory appeal occurs where certain provisions of the statute themselves provide for appeal against administrative decisions and actions. By virtue of such provisions of the statutes the adversely affected or aggrieved citizens will have the right to appeal to a court or a higher administrative tribunal. Statutory appeals are now steadily gaining ground as legislative regulation of the administrative process increases.

Suits against the Government : Judicial intervention can be in the form of suing the government itself or the public official concerned against whom any citizen may want to be redressed of his grievance. The position regarding the suability of the government and public officials differs in different countries.

Extra-ordinary Remedies in the form of ‘Writs’ : The extra-ordinary Judicial Remedies consist of the ‘Writs’ of : Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition and Quo-Warranto. In England these are known as prerogative orders or common law remedies. To these may be added a sixth one called “Injunction’.

Habeas Corpus : Habeas Corpus literally means “you may have the body”. It is a court order issued to a public official who has another person in custody. The writ requires the detainer to show the court that the detention is proper. The court will set the imprisoned person free if it sees no valid reason for his imprisonment. Thus, this writ is useful to secure immediate hearing on the propriety of the detention of person. This writ is a real protection of individual liberty against administrative oppression or arbitrary detention.

Mandamus : Mandamus literally means “We command”. By issuing this writ the court can compel any public officer to perform a duty which results from his official position. Thus this writ is useful to enforce a public duty which an officer falls to perform. It cannot be used to enforce discretionary acts. It is remedial in nature because it redresses the grievances and compels action.

Certiorari: It means “to be certified”. This writ is issued by a superior court to an inferior court for removing the records of some proceedings from the inferior court to the superior one, for the purpose of determining the legality of the proceedings. Such an order may also be issued by the superior court for giving fuller or more satisfactory effect to the proceedings of the court below. Thus it is useful to stop a wrongful judicial action by a public body.

Prohibition : It literally means “to forbid”. This writ is used to bring the decision of an inferior court up for review and to quash that decision if necessary. It is useful in preventing an inferior court from usurping jurisdiction with which it is not vested. The basic defect of this writ, like certiorari, is that it will lie in respect of only judicial acts. Both certiorari and prohibition do not lie in those cases where the public authority is acting in a purely administrative or ministerial capacity

Quo-Warranto : Quo-Warranto’ means ‘by what authority’. It is a writ issued by the courts to enquire into the right of an occupant of a public office to hold the office. The action will normally be brought by a person who claims the office. Judgement will go against the occupant if he fails to prove title to the office, Little use is made of this writ in administrative activity.

Injunction: ‘Injunction is one of the most important methods of judicial control over administrative officers. It is a writ that is preventive in nature. Normally, an injunction requires the person to whom it is issued to refrain form doing a particular thing or specified activity. It thus prevents a threatened injury. An injunction may also order some positive action, but this is rare, The order may have temporary effect or a permanent effect.

In India, according to Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme court can be moved to issue the various writs mentioned above for the enforcement of only ‘Fundamental Rights’ guaranteed by the Constitution. Thus the purpose for which the writs are issued by the Supreme court is restrictive in nature. However, the High Courts are empowered with issue of these writs not only for the purpose of enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for any other purpose. Any individual or company may move the court in this direction.

Limitations of Judicial Control

The Judicial Remedies mentioned above provide an effective ntrol against official excesses or abuse of power, and in protecting the liberties and rights of citizens. However, judicial controls are also subject to certain limitations, They are:

Exclusion of some acts : All administrative actions are not subject to judicial control. There are many kinds of administrative actions which according to constitution cannot be in to reviewed by the law courts. Then there is a tendency on the part of the Legislature also to exclude : by law certain administrative acts from the jurisdiction of the judiciary. example, in India, the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 vests final judicial powers in the Custodians and Custodian General of Evacuee Property and the law courts have no jurisdiction to interfere in the decision made under this act. The exclusion of certain acts as stated above undermines the control of the judiciary which is theoretically regarded as final interpreter of the legality of all administrative acts.
Lack of Suo Moto Powers: A serious restriction imposed on the judiciary is that it cannot act on its own. It can intervene only on the request of somebody who has been affected or is likely to be affected by an official action. This imposes a serious limitation on the extent of judicial control as most of the injustices suffered by administrative excesses are not reported.
Dilatory procedure : The judicial process is very slow and cumbersome. The courts follow certain set technical pattern of procedure beyond the comprehension of a layman, the procedure is so lengthy that it cannot be known as to when the final judgement shall be given. There have been instances when cases have been pending with the courts for years together. Most of the times the decision of the court comes when the damage that has been done, cannot be undone. An aggrieved person cannot wait indefinitely to avail himself of JUDO the judicial remedy. The dilatory judicial procedure will not in any way console the sufferer si to or reconcile his afflicted mind. Tired of the delay he will lose hoped become a victim of e bureaucracy.
Inadequate and Ineffective Remedies : Sometimes the remedies offered by the law courts are inadequate and ineffective. In many cases, especially relating to business activities mere to announcement of an administrative action or even a reminder concerning a proposed action may cause an injury to the individual against whom not even a suit can be filed in the law court.
Flexibility of the Executive in changing the rules : The government may deprive the person of the remedy granted to him by the court by changing the law and rules thereof In a leading case, the High Court ordered that the petitioners be promoted to the senior posts of professors and that direct selection for these posts contravenes the provisions of the in ‘States Reorganisation Act’ in as much it changes the conditions of service of the petitioners os to their disadvantages. The Government did promote the petitioners thereby giving effect to the judgement of the court. But after sometime these posts were withdrawn on the ground 2500 of financial stringency and the persons were reverted to their substantive posts.
You Expensive procedures :’ Judicial action is prohibitively expensive. Hence a common man cannot take advantage of judicial interventions. Moreover the procedures cause a great deal of inconvenience to the litigant and hence it is a general feeling that it is better to keep away form litigations.
Lack of expertise : The highly technical nature of most of the Administrative actions saps the force of judicial review. The judges are only legal experts and they may have little knowledge of the technicalities and complexities of administrative problems. Their legal. no bent of mind may hinder them in arriving at a right decisions a right decisions. They have to follow the prescribed procedures and observe some formalities.

Overcoming the Limitations of Judicial Review :

The Government has taken a few steps to offset the above mentioned lacunae in the process of judicial intervention into administrative action. The most important among them are : The method of Public Interest Litigation and the establishment of Quasi-Judicial Authorities.

Public Interest Litigation : A useful judicial innovation in India which has developed in recent times is the Public Interest Litigation. This has been a progressive trend in judicial remedies against citizens’ complaints not only in our country, but also in various other countries like the U.S.A. and U.K. The Supreme Court in 1978, has propounded a liberal view of standing so as to provide judicial redress for public injury arising out of any breach of public duty or from violation of the Constitution. Complaints involving maladministration, like patients not getting proper medicines in government hospitals, inefficient administration of prisons, failure of administration in checking environmental pollution, irregularities in the administration of educational institutions etc. are being challenged under the category of public interest. The rules of the Supreme Court which were revised, to bring in this provision, facilitate any citizen or group of citizens to appeal to the court, on behalf of any group of people affected by any act of government. So even if the citizen himself has no personal complaint against the administration, he can still lodge a complaint against the administrative injustice which according to him is being done.

The Public Interest Litigation has acted as a catalyst in providing additional protection and securing social justice to citizens in India especially to the poor and illiterate.

Establishment of Quasi Judicial Authorities : In order to speed up the judicial procedures and also to improve its expertise the Government of India has set up Quasi Judicial Authorities. The most important of them are the institutions of : Administrative Tribunals and the Ombudsman.

Administrative Tribunals: Besides regular courts of law, in some countries, administrative courts and tribunals are functioning to deal with the complaints lodged against administrative action. In India, there are Administrative Tribunals established under various Acts to deal with specific kinds of citizens’ grievances. Some of these Tribunals include Industrial Tribunals, Income Tax Tribunals, Railway Rates Tribunals etc. These Tribunals which adjudicate upon disputes between the citizens and administrative agencies are said to be inexpensive, efficient than ordinary courts and being headed by experts are equipped with greater technical knowledge. The Tribunals perform Quasi-Judicial functions whereas a court exercises only judicial functions. They are administrative authorities performing judicial functions. For examples, matters like determination of election disputes, assessment of tax, adjudication of industrial disputes etc. are dealt by the different types of tribunals.

Ombudsman: An Ombudsman is “an independent, high level officer who receive complaints, who purposes inquiries into the matters involved, and who makes recommendations for suitable action”. He may also investigate on his own motion. He makes periodic public reports. his remedial weapons are persuasion, criticism and publicity.

We have discussed above how the Administration is made accountable through the means of Parliamentary, Executive and Judicial controls. In the final analysis we can conclude that the ultimate sanction for the accountability of administration of the people lies in the democratic mores and traditions of a country.