.

AMITY UNIVERSITY CHHATTISGARH

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDICAL REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVEADMINISTRATION ACTION

AMITY LAW SCHOOL

Submitted To: Prof. Amit Pradhan

Submitted By: Vedant Sethiya
BBA.LLB(H) - Semester- IV
A80621522009
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Introduction
 administrative action and judicial review___________________________________1
 The importance of judicial oversight over administrative agencies_______________2

2. Grounds for Judicial Review

 Illegality: Review administrative decisions for compliance with laws/regulations___3
 Irrationality: Review for reasonableness, consideration of relevant factors_________4
 Procedural Impropriety: Review for fair hearing, bias, proper procedures
followed___5
 Error of Law: Review for correct interpretation and application of
laws____________5

3. Scope and Standards of Review

 The level of deference given to administrative
decisions________________________6
 Varying intensity of review based on subject matter expertise of agency___________7
 Issues of fact vs issues of law - differing
standards____________________________7

4. Remedies in Judicial Review

 Different remedies: quashing, mandamus, prohibition, declaration, injunction______8
 Analyse leading cases on remedies________________________________________9

5. Recent Developments and Reforms

 Statutory reforms impacting judicial review_________________________________9
 Impact of Brexit, emergence of domestic courts_____________________________10
 Moves towards deference or increasing
scrutiny_____________________________11

6. Conclusion
 Importance of balancing oversight and deference____________________________12
 Future challenges and need for
reform_____________________________________13
 TABLE OF CONTENT
7. Bibliography__________________________________________________________15
 1. INTRODUCTION

A. Administrative action and judicial review-

Administrative Action:
Administrative action refers to the decisions, orders, or actions taken by
administrative agencies or governmental bodies while carrying out their regulatory
and enforcement functions. Administrative agencies are created by the government to
implement and enforce laws and regulations within their specific areas of authority.
Administrative actions can take various forms, including:

 Rulemaking: Administrative agencies have the power to create rules and

regulations that interpret and implement the laws passed by the legislative branch.
These rules have the force of law and are binding on the public.

 Adjudication: Administrative agencies also have quasi-judicial powers to conduct

hearings, make findings of fact, and issue orders or decisions in specific cases
involving individuals or organizations.

 Enforcement: Administrative agencies are responsible for enforcing the laws and
regulations within their jurisdiction. They may issue citations, impose fines,
suspend, or revoke licenses, or take other enforcement actions against individuals
or entities that violate the applicable laws or regulations.

 Licensing and permitting: Many administrative agencies are responsible for

issuing licenses or permits to individuals or businesses that meet certain
requirements, such as professional licenses, environmental permits, or zoning
approvals.

 Policy decisions: Administrative agencies can also make policy decisions that
guide their operations and interpretations of the laws and regulations they
administer.

Judicial Review:
Judicial review is the process by which the decisions or actions of administrative
agencies are subject to review by the court system. The purpose of judicial review is
to ensure that administrative agencies act within the scope of their legal authority and
follow proper procedures.
Judicial review typically involves the following aspects:

 Standing: The party seeking judicial review must have a legitimate interest or
stake in the administrative action being challenged.

1
  Reviewability: Not all administrative actions are subject to judicial review. Courts
generally cannot review actions that are committed to agency discretion by law or
involve certain policy decisions.

 Standard of review: Courts apply different standards of review depending on the

type of administrative action being challenged. For example, courts may review
questions of law de novo (without deference to the agency's interpretation) but
defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes or regulations.

 Remedies: If the court finds that an administrative action is unlawful or arbitrary

and capricious, it may set aside or remand the action back to the agency for further
consideration or proceedings.

Judicial review1

B. The importance of judicial oversight over administrative agencies-

 In the realm of modern governance, administrative agencies play a pivotal role in the
implementation and enforcement of laws and regulations. These governmental
bodies, vested with specialized expertise and authority, are tasked with overseeing
various aspects of societal functioning, ranging from economic activities to
environmental protection. However, the far-reaching powers wielded by
administrative agencies necessitate a robust system of checks and balances to ensure
accountability and prevent potential abuse of authority. This is where the concept of
judicial oversight emerges as a critical safeguard, upholding the principles of due
process, transparency, and the rule of law.

 Judicial oversight over administrative agencies serves as a vital counterweight to the

expansive administrative state, striking a delicate balance between the imperatives of
efficient governance and the protection of individual rights and liberties. Through the
process of judicial review, courts possess the authority to scrutinize the decisions and
actions of administrative bodies, ensuring their adherence to the constitutional
framework and the bounds of their statutory mandates.

 One of the fundamental justifications for judicial oversight lies in the preservation of
the separation of powers doctrine, a cornerstone of democratic governance.
Administrative agencies, while endowed with regulatory and adjudicatory powers,
are ultimately creatures of the legislative branch, deriving their authority from
statutes enacted by elected representatives. Judicial review serves as a vital check on
this delegated authority, safeguarding against potential overreach or arbitrary
exercise of power by unelected bureaucratic entities.

1
Judicial review plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance of power between administrative agencies and the judiciary, ensuring that
administrative actions are consistent with the laws and regulations established by the legislative branch and constitutional principles.

2
  Another salient aspect of judicial oversight is the promotion of transparency and
accountability in administrative decision-making. By subjecting agency decisions to
independent scrutiny, judicial review compels administrative bodies to articulate
clear and well-supported justifications for their actions, grounded in the appropriate
legal and factual foundations. The case of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. 2

 The landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137 (1803)) firmly established the
principle of judicial review, empowering courts to evaluate the constitutionality of
legislative and executive actions, including those of administrative agencies. This
seminal decision underscored the judiciary's role in upholding the supremacy of the
Constitution and ensuring that governmental actions remain within the bounds of
their legally prescribed authority.

2. Grounds for Judicial Review

1. Illegality: Review administrative decisions for compliance with

laws/regulations-
Administrative agencies are created by legislative enactments and derive their authority from
statutory mandates. As such, their actions and decisions must remain within the confines of
the laws and regulations that govern their operations. Judicial review plays a crucial role in
ensuring that administrative agencies do not exceed their legal authority or act in
contravention of established laws and regulations.
The principle of reviewing administrative decisions for illegality is rooted in the concept of
the rule of law and the separation of powers doctrine. Administrative agencies are not free to
act arbitrarily or beyond the scope of their legally prescribed powers. They must operate
within the boundaries set by the legislative branch, which defines the extent and limitations
of their authority.
Judicial review of administrative decisions for illegality involves an examination of whether
the agency's action or decision complies with the relevant statutes, regulations, and
constitutional provisions. Courts assess whether the agency has acted ultra vires, which
means beyond its legal authority or in violation of the governing laws and regulations.
In the landmark case of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defence Council, Inc.
(467 U.S. 837 (1984)), the Supreme Court established a two-step framework for reviewing an
agency's interpretation of statutes. First, the court must determine whether the statutory
language is clear and unambiguous. If the statutory language is unambiguous, the agency's
interpretation must conform to the plain meaning of the statute. However, if the statutory
language is ambiguous, the court must defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation,
provided it is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

2
2 (463 U.S. 29 (1983)) illustrates this principle, where the Supreme Court held that an agency's decision to rescind a regulation must be
based on a reasoned analysis and supported by substantial evidence.

3
This judicial review process ensures that administrative agencies do not overstep their
statutory authority or act in a manner that contradicts the legislative intent behind the
governing laws and regulations. It serves as a check on administrative overreach, preventing
agencies from engaging in actions or decisions that are unlawful or ultra vires.
Furthermore, judicial review for illegality extends beyond statutory compliance to encompass
adherence to constitutional principles and other binding legal norms. Courts may scrutinize
administrative actions to ensure they do not violate constitutional rights, such as due process
or equal protection guarantees, or conflict with established case law or legal precedents.

2. Irrationality: Review for reasonableness, consideration of relevant factors-

Judicial review of administrative decisions for irrationality is a crucial safeguard against
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable actions by administrative agencies. It ensures that
administrative decisions are grounded in reason, logic, and a thorough consideration of
relevant factors and evidence.
The concept of irrationality in administrative decision-making encompasses actions or
decisions that are devoid of a rational basis, lack evidentiary support, or fail to account for
pertinent factors and considerations. Administrative agencies are expected to engage in a
reasoned decision-making process, weighing relevant factors, and articulating a satisfactory
explanation for their actions.
In assessing irrationality, courts review whether the agency's decision-making process was
reasonable and whether the agency adequately considered relevant factors and evidence
before arriving at its conclusion. This review process ensures that administrative decisions are
not arbitrary, capricious, or based on impermissible considerations.
The landmark case of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co. (463 U.S. 29 (1983)) is a seminal decision that exemplifies the
judicial review of administrative decisions for irrationality. In this case, the Supreme Court
held that an agency's decision to rescind a regulation must be based on a reasoned analysis
and supported by substantial evidence.
The court emphasized that an agency must articulate a satisfactory explanation for its actions,
considering relevant factors and demonstrating a rational connection between the facts and
the decision. Mere conclusory statements or unsupported assertions are insufficient to
withstand judicial scrutiny. The agency's decision-making process must be transparent,
rational, and grounded in evidence and reasoned analysis.
Another significant case addressing irrationality in administrative decision-making is Citizens
to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (401 U.S. 402 (1971)). In this case, the Supreme
Court outlined the scope of judicial review for administrative actions, stating that courts must
ensure that the agency's decision was based on a consideration of relevant factors and that
there was no clear error in judgment.

4
3. Procedural Impropriety: Review for fair hearing, bias, proper procedures
followed
Administrative agencies are vested with significant authority to adjudicate disputes and issue
orders that can profoundly impact the rights and interests of individuals and organizations. To
ensure fairness and due process, these agencies are obligated to adhere to established
procedural safeguards and conduct their proceedings in an impartial and unbiased manner.
Judicial review plays a crucial role in scrutinizing administrative proceedings for procedural
impropriety, ensuring that agencies follow proper procedures, afford fair hearings, and
maintain neutrality in their decision-making processes.
The concept of procedural impropriety encompasses a range of potential violations,
including:
 Failure to provide a fair hearing: Administrative agencies must grant parties affected by
their decisions an opportunity to be heard and present their case. Judicial review
examines whether the agency afforded a fair and adequate hearing, allowing for the
submission of evidence and arguments.
 Bias or lack of impartiality: Administrative adjudications must be conducted by unbiased
decision-makers free from conflicts of interest or predetermined opinions. Courts review
whether agency officials or adjudicators exhibited bias or lacked the necessary
impartiality to render a fair decision.
 Violation of procedural rules: Administrative agencies are bound by their own
procedural rules and regulations, as well as general principles of due process. Judicial
review assesses whether the agency adhered to these procedural requirements during the
proceedings.
The landmark case of Goldberg v. Kelly (397 U.S. 254 (1970)) exemplifies the importance
of procedural fairness in administrative proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that welfare
recipients were entitled to an evidentiary hearing before the termination of their benefits,
underscoring the requirement for due process protections in administrative actions affecting
individual rights.
Judicial review for procedural impropriety safeguards the integrity of administrative
proceedings, ensuring that agencies adhere to due process requirements, provide fair and
impartial hearings, and follow proper procedures. By scrutinizing administrative actions for
procedural irregularities, courts uphold the principles of fairness, transparency, and
accountability in the administrative process, ultimately protecting the rights and interests of
individuals and organizations subject to administrative decisions.

4. Error of Law: Review for correct interpretation and application of laws

Administrative agencies are granted authority to interpret and apply laws and regulations
within their respective domains. However, this authority is not absolute, and judicial review
plays a crucial role in ensuring that agencies correctly interpret and apply legal principles,
preventing erroneous or inconsistent interpretations that could undermine the rule of law.

5
Judicial review for errors of law involves scrutinizing administrative decisions to determine
whether the agency has correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutes, regulations,
and legal precedents. This review process serves as a safeguard against administrative actions
that are based on flawed or incorrect legal reasoning, ensuring consistency and adherence to
established legal principles.
One of the seminal cases addressing judicial review for errors of law is INS v. Chadha (462
U.S. 919 (1983)). In this case, the Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto provision,
which allowed Congress to overturn administrative decisions without following the
constitutional process for enacting laws. The court's decision reinforced the judiciary's role in
ensuring that administrative actions comply with constitutional principles and the correct
interpretation of laws.
Judicial review for errors of law extends beyond statutory interpretation to encompass the
application of legal principles and adherence to case law precedents. Courts may scrutinize
administrative decisions to ensure that agencies have correctly applied relevant legal tests,
followed established legal doctrines, and adhered to binding judicial decisions.

3. Scope and Standards of Review

1. The level of deference given to administrative decisions-

The level of deference given to administrative decisions by courts is a crucial aspect

of administrative law. It determines the extent to which courts will scrutinize and
potentially overturn decisions made by administrative agencies. The principle of
deference recognizes the expertise and specialized knowledge that agencies possess in
their respective fields of regulation.

The highest level of deference is known as "Chevron deference," established by the

Supreme Court in the landmark case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defence Council, Inc. (1984)3.If the statute is clear, both the court and the agency
must give effect to the unambiguous intent of Congress. However, if the statute is
ambiguous or silent, the court must defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation, if
it is a permissible construction of the statute.

The rationale behind granting deference to administrative decisions is twofold. First,

agencies are presumed to have specialized expertise and technical knowledge in their
respective fields, which courts generally lack. Deferring to agency interpretations
allows for more informed and consistent decision-making within the regulatory
framework. Second, deference promotes efficiency and uniformity in the
implementation of complex regulatory schemes by allowing agencies to interpret and
apply statutes consistently across various situations.

3
3. Under the Chevron two-step test, courts must first determine whether the statutory provision in question is
ambiguous or silent on the specific issue

6
2. Varying intensity of review based on subject matter expertise of agency-

The level of deference afforded to administrative agencies by courts is closely tied to

the specific subject matter expertise of the agency in question. Generally, agencies
with greater technical knowledge and specialized experience in a particular regulatory
domain tend to receive more deference from reviewing courts.

For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granted significant

deference when it comes to environmental regulations and policies due to its scientific
and technical expertise in areas such as air and water quality, hazardous waste
management, and environmental impact assessments. Courts recognize that the EPA
possesses specialized knowledge that allows it to make informed decisions based on
complex scientific data and analysis.

Similarly, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is afforded substantial

deference in matters related to the regulation of interstate energy markets, including
the transmission and sale of electricity, natural gas, and oil. FERC's expertise in these
highly technical and economically intricate areas justifies a higher degree of judicial
deference to its decisions and interpretations.

In contrast, agencies without specific subject matter expertise in a particular area may
receive less deference from courts. For instance, if the Department of Labor were to
issue regulations concerning environmental protection or energy markets—matters
outside its core competencies—courts would likely scrutinize those decisions more
closely and afford less deference to the agency's interpretations.

Additionally, the level of deference may be modulated based on the specific issue at
hand. While an agency may receive substantial deference on matters within its core
expertise, it may receive less deference on peripheral issues or those that implicate
broader legal principles or policy considerations that fall outside the agency's
specialized knowledge.

3. Issues of fact vs. issues of law- differing standards-

When an administrative decision involves findings of fact, courts generally grant a

higher level of deference to the agency's expertise and fact-finding abilities. Agencies
are presumed to have developed specialized knowledge and experience in gathering
and evaluating factual evidence within their respective regulatory domains.

The standard of review for factual issues is typically the "substantial evidence" test.
Under this deferential standard, courts will uphold an agency's factual findings if there
is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion." This standard acknowledges that agencies are better positioned to
evaluate the weight and credibility of evidence within their areas of expertise.

Courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the agency on factual matters if the
agency's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
This deference recognizes that agencies have the necessary resources, technical
expertise, and firsthand exposure to the evidence that courts may lack.

7
In contrast, when an administrative decision involves interpretations of law, such as the
meaning of statutes or regulations, courts apply a more stringent standard of review. Courts
have the ultimate authority to interpret and determine the correct meaning of laws, and they
generally do not defer to an agency's legal interpretations.

The standard of review for legal issues is typically de novo review, which means that courts
review the legal questions independently and without deference to the agency's interpretation.
Courts are not bound by an agency's conclusions of law and will make their own
determinations based on established principles of statutory construction, legal precedents, and
constitutional considerations.

4. Remedies in Judicial Review

1. Different remedies: quashing, mandamus, prohibition, declaration,
injunction-

Quashing (Certiorari):

This remedy allows a court to review and potentially overturn an administrative decision
that exceeds the agency's jurisdiction or is tainted by legal errors. When a court quashes a
decision, it essentially renders it invalid or void. In academic terms, quashing is akin to a
higher authority revoking or invalidating a lower authority's action due to its
unlawfulness or lack of proper jurisdiction.

Mandamus:

Mandamus is a judicial remedy that compels an administrative agency or public authority

to perform a legal duty that it has failed or refused to carry out. It is a court order
directing the agency to act in accordance with its statutory obligations. Academically
speaking, mandamus can be seen as a mechanism for ensuring administrative bodies
adhere to their prescribed duties and responsibilities, preventing them from neglecting or
evading their lawful obligations.

Prohibition:

Prohibition is a preemptive remedy that prevents an administrative agency from

exceeding its jurisdiction or acting beyond its legal authority. It is a court order that
prohibits or restrains an agency from taking unlawful or unauthorized action. In academic
terms, prohibition can be viewed as a judicial safeguard against administrative overreach,
confining agencies within the boundaries of their statutorily defined powers.

Declaration:

A declaration is a formal statement by a court that clarifies the legal rights, status, or
obligations of parties involved in an administrative dispute. It may declare an
administrative action or decision to be valid or invalid or clarify the interpretation of a

8
 statute or regulation. Academically, a declaration serves as an authoritative legal
pronouncement, providing clarity and guidance on the legal issues at hand.

Injunction:

An injunction is a court order that requires an administrative agency to refrain from a

specific action or conduct. It can be used to prevent an agency from implementing an
unlawful decision or policy, or to compel it to take a particular action required by law.
Injunctions provide a means of judicially enforcing compliance with legal requirements.
In academic terms, an injunction can be seen as a powerful tool for courts to exert control
over administrative actions, ensuring they align with legal and constitutional principles.

2. Analyze leading cases on remedies-

a) Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147

In this seminal case, the House of Lords established the principle of "anisminic
unreasonableness," which allowed courts to quash administrative decisions that
were so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached them. This
expanded the scope of judicial review, empowering courts to scrutinize the
substantive merits of administrative decisions, rather than being limited to
procedural irregularities.

b) London & Clydeside Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council [1980] 1 WLR
182.This case involved a dispute over the interpretation of a statutory provision
concerning the calculation of development land tax. The House of Lords granted
a declaration clarifying the correct interpretation of the provision, providing
guidance to the parties and administrative bodies on the legal issue at hand.

c) R v Secretary of State for Transport, Ex parte Factortame Ltd [1990] 2 AC

85. In this landmark case, the House of Lords upheld the power of English courts
to grant interim injunctions against the Crown (and, by extension, administrative
bodies) to suspend the operation of national legislation that appeared to conflict
with European Community law. This affirmed the use of injunctions as a remedy
to ensure compliance with legal obligations, even against government agencies.

5. Recent Developments and Reforms

1. Statutory reforms impacting judicial review-

The scope and intensity of judicial review of administrative actions have been shaped by
several statutory reforms over the years. These reforms aim to strike a balance between
respecting the expertise of administrative agencies and maintaining judicial oversight to
ensure that agencies act within their legal boundaries.

9
  Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (United States):

Enacted in 1946, the APA provides a comprehensive framework for the operation of
federal administrative agencies in the United States. It establishes procedures for
rulemaking, adjudication, and judicial review of agency actions. The APA sets forth
the "arbitrary and capricious" standard for reviewing agency decisions, requiring
agencies to provide reasoned explanations and consider relevant factors.

 Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007 (UK):

This Act reformed the system of tribunals in the United Kingdom, aiming to enhance
the independence and impartiality of administrative tribunals. It established a unified
tribunals system and created a right of appeal from tribunal decisions to the Upper
Tribunal and, in some cases, to the Court of Appeal.

 Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 (UK):

This recent Act aims to reform and update the judicial review process in the UK. It
introduces measures to filter out unmeritorious judicial review claims, sets time limits
for bringing claims, and provides courts with the power to suspend quashing orders to
allow public bodies time to rectify flaws in their decisions.

2. Impact of Brexit, emergence of domestic courts-

~Impact of Brexit

 Departure from the European Union (EU) legal framework: Prior to Brexit,
administrative decisions in the UK were subject to scrutiny under EU law, and
the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had the final say on matters
of EU law interpretation. After Brexit, the UK courts are no longer bound by
the CJEU's decisions, and EU law has diminished influence over administrative
law in the UK.

 Reassertion of parliamentary sovereignty: Brexit has reinforced the principle

of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK, which could potentially limit the scope
of judicial review over administrative decisions. There is a risk that the
executive branch may seek to curtail judicial oversight under the guise of
respecting the will of Parliament.

 Divergence from EU principles: The UK courts may gradually diverge from

established EU principles and precedents in their approach to judicial review,
as they are no longer obliged to follow CJEU rulings. This could lead to shifts
in the standards and intensity of review applied to administrative decisions.

10
 ~Emergence of domestic courts

 The UK Supreme Court as the final arbiter: With the UK's departure from
the EU legal framework, the UK Supreme Court has become the final authority
on interpreting domestic law, including administrative law principles. This
reinforces the role of domestic courts in shaping the jurisprudence and
standards for judicial review of administrative decisions.

 Potential for more assertive judicial review: Some legal scholars argue that
the UK courts, particularly the Supreme Court, may become more assertive in
their oversight of administrative decisions, as they are no longer constrained by
the need to align with EU law interpretations.

 Development of domestic jurisprudence: The UK courts now have greater

flexibility to develop their own jurisprudence and approach to judicial review,
tailored to the specific needs and context of the UK's administrative law
landscape. This could lead to the emergence of distinct domestic principles and
doctrines.

 Balancing expertise and accountability: The domestic courts will need to

navigate the balance between respecting the expertise of administrative
agencies and ensuring effective judicial oversight and accountability. This may
involve revisiting or refining existing doctrines, such as the Wednesbury
reasonableness test or the principles of deference.

3. Moves towards deference or increasing scrutiny-

~Moves towards Deference

 Respect for Agency Expertise: One of the primary arguments for judicial
deference is the recognition of administrative agencies' specialized expertise and
technical knowledge in their respective fields. Courts may be inclined to defer to
agencies' reasonable interpretations and decisions within their areas of expertise,
acknowledging the agencies' superior understanding of complex regulatory
frameworks and policy considerations.

 Efficiency and Regulatory Certainty: Proponents of deference argue that it

promotes efficiency and regulatory certainty by allowing agencies to interpret and
apply statutes consistently across various situations. Increased judicial scrutiny
could lead to inconsistent decisions and undermine the uniform implementation of
regulatory schemes.

11
  Separation of Powers: Some advocates of deference assert that it respects the
separation of powers principle by preventing courts from encroaching on the
executive branch's authority and policymaking discretion. Excessive judicial
intervention in administrative decisions could be seen as an overreach into the
executive's legitimate domain.

~ Moves towards Increasing Scrutiny

 Accountability and Rule of Law: Critics of excessive deference argue that it

undermines the judiciary's role in ensuring that administrative agencies act within
the bounds of their legal authority and comply with constitutional principles.
Increased judicial scrutiny is necessary to maintain accountability and uphold the
rule of law.

 Concerns about Agency Capture: There are concerns that administrative

agencies may be susceptible to undue influence or "regulatory capture" by the
industries they regulate, leading to decisions that prioritize narrow interests over
the public good. Heightened judicial review can serve as a check against such
potential biases or conflicts of interest.

 Protection of Individual Rights: In cases where administrative decisions

implicate fundamental individual rights or civil liberties, courts may be inclined to
apply more stringent scrutiny, even in areas of agency expertise, to ensure that
these rights are adequately protected.

 Statutory Reforms: Some recent statutory reforms, such as the Judicial Review
and Courts Act 2022 in the UK, have introduced measures to enable greater
judicial scrutiny of administrative decisions, reflecting a legislative intent to
enhance oversight and accountability.

***important about deference or increasing scrutiny4

6. CONCLUSION

1. Importance of balancing oversight and deference-

 Respecting Agency Expertise: Administrative agencies are staffed by subject

matter experts with specialized knowledge and experience in their respective
fields. Deference acknowledges that agencies are better positioned to interpret and
apply complex regulatory frameworks within their areas of expertise.

4
4. The debate between deference and increasing scrutiny reflects the ongoing tension between respecting agency expertise and maintaining
effective checks and balances on administrative power. Ultimately, the appropriate level of deference or scrutiny may depend on the specific
context, the nature of the administrative decision, and the potential implications for individual rights, public interests, and regulatory
certainty.

12
 Failing to grant appropriate deference could undermine agencies' ability to
effectively carry out their statutory mandates and make well-informed decisions
based on their technical knowledge.

 Promoting Regulatory Consistency and Efficiency: Deference to agencies'

reasonable interpretations and decisions promotes consistency and predictability
in the implementation of regulatory schemes. Without deference, courts could
issue conflicting rulings, leading to regulatory uncertainty and inefficiencies that
could hinder the smooth functioning of administrative processes.

 Separation of Powers and Democratic Accountability: Deference respects the

separation of powers principle by recognizing the executive branch's legitimate
authority and discretion in policymaking and regulatory matters. Administrative
agencies are accountable to the elected branches of government, and excessive
judicial interference could undermine democratic accountability.

 Ensuring Lawful and Constitutional Action: While deference is important, it

cannot be absolute. Judicial oversight is crucial to ensure that administrative
agencies act within the bounds of their statutory authority and comply with
constitutional principles and individual rights. Courts play a vital role in
safeguarding the rule of law and preventing arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful
administrative actions.

 Maintaining Public Trust and Accountability: Robust judicial review

mechanisms help maintain public trust in the administrative process by providing
a check on potential abuse of power, bias, or agency capture. Effective oversight
promotes transparency and accountability, ensuring that administrative decisions
are made in the public interest and not unduly influenced by special interests.

2. Future challenges and need for reform-

I. Adapting to Emerging Technologies and Complex Regulatory Domains:

 With the rapid pace of technological advancement and the emergence of new
industries (e.g., artificial intelligence, data privacy, and digital platforms),
administrative agencies will need to grapple with increasingly complex and
technical regulatory domains.
 Courts may face difficulties in adequately reviewing highly specialized and
technical administrative decisions, highlighting the need for mechanisms to
enhance judicial expertise or reliance on expert testimony.
 Reform efforts may focus on providing specialized training for judges,
establishing dedicated courts or tribunals for specific regulatory areas, or
exploring alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

II. Ensuring Transparency and Public Participation.

13
  As administrative decision-making processes become more complex, there is a
risk of diminished transparency and limited opportunities for public
participation.
 Reforms may be needed to enhance transparency requirements, strengthen
notice, and comment procedures, and facilitate greater public engagement in
administrative rulemaking and adjudication processes.
 The use of digital technologies and online platforms could be leveraged to
improve access to information and facilitate public input.

III. Addressing Concerns over Agency Capture and Regulatory Bias:

 There are ongoing concerns about the potential for regulatory capture, where
agencies may become unduly influenced by the industries they regulate or
special interest groups.
 Reforms may focus on strengthening conflict of interest rules, enhancing
whistleblower protections, and increasing transparency regarding agency
interactions with regulated entities.
 Judicial review could play a more robust role in scrutinizing administrative
decisions for potential bias or undue influence.

IV. Balancing Expertise and Accountability in an Era of Politicization:

 There is a risk of increased politicization of administrative agencies, with their

decisions being influenced by shifting political priorities rather than objective
expertise.
 Reforms may be needed to reinforce the independence and insulation of
agency decision-making from undue political interference.
 Judicial review could serve as a counterweight, ensuring that administrative
decisions are based on reasoned decision-making and adhere to statutory
mandates, rather than political expediency.

V. Revisiting Deference Doctrines and Standards of Review:

 As the administrative state evolves, there may be a need to revisit and refine
existing doctrines and standards of judicial review, such as the Chevron
deference or the arbitrary and capricious standard.
 Reforms could aim to provide clearer guidance on the appropriate levels of
deference based on the nature of the administrative decision, the agency's
expertise, and the potential implications for individual rights or public
interests.

14
 7. Bibliography
1. Cases:
 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defence Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837
(1984)
 Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944)
 Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)
 Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (HL)
 R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex parte Preston [1985] AC 835 (HL)

2. Statutory Sources:
 Administrative Procedure Act (United States)
 Tribunals, Courts, and Enforcement Act 2007 (United Kingdom)
 Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (United Kingdom)
 Deregulation Act 2015 (United Kingdom)
 Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 (United Kingdom)

3. Journal Articles:
 Sunstein, C.R. (1984). Reviewing Agency Inaction After Heckler v. Chaney.
Administrative Law Review, 52(2), 653-670.
 Merrill, T.W. (1992). Judicial Deference to Executive Precedent. Yale Law Journal,
101(5), 969-1041.
 Hickman, K.E. (2018). Chevron's Inevitability. Duke Law Journal, 67(6), 1435-
1506.

15