ABSTRACT:
The scope of judicial review of administrative action has been the central theme of discussion in administrative law. Initially common law countries including India adopted the doctrine of wednesbury reasonableness to review administrative action. But subsequently under influence of civil law systems and Strasburg jurisprudence the doctrine of proportionality is being gradually accepted as the standard of judicial review by the common law countries. There are two models of proportionality namely the British Model or the state limiting conception of proportionality and the European model or the optimizing concept of proportionality. Of the two the European model is more objective and hence preferred. The Indian Supreme Court accepted the doctrine of proportionality in the year 2000. Yet even today the Indian legal system has not come to terms with the doctrine. There is hardly any case where the doctrine has been practically applied. The need of the hour is to increasingly apply the doctrine of proportionality to review administrative action in India.
Cite this article:
Alok Mishra. The Emerging Concept of Administrative Action in India. International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences. 2023; 11(1)33-0. doi: 10.52711/2454-2679.2023.00006
Cite(Electronic):
Alok Mishra. The Emerging Concept of Administrative Action in India. International Journal of Advances in Social Sciences. 2023; 11(1)33-0. doi: 10.52711/2454-2679.2023.00006 Available on: https://ijassonline.in/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2023-11-1-6
REFERENCE :
1. 5 US 137 (1803)
2. See Associated Picture House v. Wednesbury Corporation (1947) 2 All ER 74 (CA).
3. Justice Anand Byrareddy, Proportionality vis-à-vis irrationality in administrative law (2008) 7 SCC J-29, p.32
4. Infra n. 22
5. Infra n. 9
6. Id., p. 950
7. Wheeler v. Leiscester City Council (1985) A.C. 1054, per Lord Roskill, p. 1078
8. For e.g., See John Adler, General Principles of Constitutional and Administrative law, (4th ed., 2002) p. 368
9. Council of Civil Service Unions. v. Minister for the Civil Services (1984) 3 All ER 935, pp. 950, 951
10. Ibid., p. 951
11. (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA)
12. Ibid., pp.682, 683
13. See Supra n. 9 at p. 951
14. R v. Goldsmith (1983) 1 WLR 151, p. 155
15. See Supra n. 8 at p. 385
16. See Supra n. 9 at p 950
17. Id., p.368
18. Id., p.366
19. Id., p.367
20. Ibid.
21. R(Mahmood) v. Secretary of State for Home Department (2001) 1 WLR 840, per Laws L.J., p. 847
22. See Omkumar v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3689, p. 3689
23. Signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 (i.e., Members of Council of Europe who signed the Convention)
24. Julian Rivers, Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review, (2006) 65 (1) C.L.J.174, p. 175
25. Id., pp. 191-194
26. Id., p. 193
27. Id., p 176
28. Ibid
29. (2001) 3 All ER 433 (HL)
30. (1999) 1 A.C. 69
31. See Id., p 80
32. See Supra n. 24 at p. 179
33. Id., p. 176
34. Id., p. 180
35. See Supra n. 24 at p. 3696
36. (1991) 1 C.M.L.R. 507
37. Supran24 at p. 181
38. Id., p.174
39. Id., p. 203
40. Ibid
41. Supra n. 24
42. (1997) 7 SCC 463
43. Id., p.479
44. AIR 2000 SC 3689
45. Id., p. 3697
46. Id., p.3698
47. Id., p.3702
48. Id.,p.3704
49. Ibid
50. Id., p. 3705
51. See for e.g., Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Praba D. Kanan AIR 2007 SC 548; State of U.P. v. Sheo Shankar Lal Srivastava (2006) 3 SCC 276
52. Brind v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1991) 1 All ER 720 p. 723
53. Id., p. 739.
54. See R (AlConbury Developments Ltd.) v. Secretary of State for Enviroment, Transport and Regions (2001) 2 All ER 929.
55. Article 25 of the Constitution of India
56. Article 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India
57. AIR 1991 SC 537
58. Id., p.554
59. See Supra n. 51
60. (2006) 1 SCC 501
61. Id., p.508
62. Id., p.507
63. Supra n. 24
64. Supra n. 22 at p. 3697