The need for judicial control of the administrative

process is a foundational aspect of administrative law.

This control is crucial for several reasons:

1. Legality: Judicial review ensures that administrative actions are carried out within the bounds of
the law. It checks whether the actions of administrative bodies comply with the statutes that govern
them and with the broader principles of law.

2. Protection of Rights: It protects the rights of individuals from arbitrary and capricious actions by
administrative agencies. By providing a forum for grievances, courts ensure that there are remedies
available for wronged parties.

3. Checks and Balances: Judicial review is an essential component of the checks and balances system
in a democratic society. It acts as a check on the executive branch of government, ensuring that its
decisions do not exceed the powers granted by the legislature.

4. Accountability: By holding administrative agencies accountable for their actions, judicial review
promotes transparency and encourages agencies to act in good faith and with due diligence.

5. Standard Setting: Judicial review helps in setting and enforcing standards for administrative
procedures. This includes ensuring that agencies adhere to principles of natural justice and
procedural fairness.

6. Consistency and Predictability: Courts play a critical role in ensuring consistency and predictability
in administrative actions. By interpreting laws and setting precedents, courts provide a framework
within which agencies must operate.

7. Preventing Abuse of Power: Judicial oversight helps to prevent the misuse or abuse of power by
administrative bodies. It provides a mechanism for correcting actions that are deemed to be
excessive or outside the scope of authority.

These roles highlight the importance of judicial oversight in maintaining the integrity and fairness of
the administrative processes, ultimately ensuring that government actions align with the law and
respect individual rights.
Practice and concept of judicial review of
Administrative action

The practice and concept of judicial review of administrative action is a key element of
administrative law, designed to ensure that administrative decisions are made by the law, are
reasonable and are procedurally fair. Here's a deeper look into the concept and practice of judicial
review:

Concept
1. Legal Foundation: The concept of judicial review originates from the principle of the rule of law,
which asserts that no person or government is above the law. This principle compels government
bodies, including administrative agencies, to act within the confines of the law.

2. Scope of Review: Judicial review concerns itself not with the merits or wisdom of the decision but
with the process by which the decision was made and whether the decision exceeds the powers
conferred to the administrative body (ultra vires).

3. Grounds for Review: Common grounds for judicial review include illegality, procedural
impropriety, irrationality (also known as "Wednesbury unreasonableness" in the UK), and
proportionality (especially in European law contexts).

Practice

1. Initiation: Judicial review is usually initiated by an aggrieved party who feels that an
administrative decision has violated one or more principles of administrative law. This party can
challenge the decision in a court that has the jurisdiction to review such decisions.

2. Standard of Review: The intensity of the review can vary. Some decisions are given wide
deference, particularly if they involve the expertise of the administrative body (e.g., technical or
policy decisions). Others, especially those involving fundamental rights, might be subjected to a
more intense review.

3. Procedures: Judicial review procedures are generally distinct from ordinary civil proceedings. They
are often more streamlined but require very specific grounds to be articulated at the outset. For
instance, in the United States, the Administrative Procedure Act provides guidelines on how agencies
should be reviewed by the courts.

4. Outcomes: The outcomes of a judicial review can include the quashing of the administrative
decision, orders compelling an action to be taken by the administrative body, declarations, and
injunctions. Courts typically do not make the decision themselves but send the matter back to the
agency to make another decision, taking the court's findings into account.

5. Limitations: Judicial review is not unlimited. It does not allow the judiciary to act as an appellate
body reviewing the merits of decisions. Moreover, certain decisions may be excluded from review by
statute, and procedural requirements (like timeliness and exhaustion of administrative remedies)
can bar review.

Examples by Country

United States: The Supreme Court in cases like *Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc.* has established standards for when courts should defer to agency interpretations of
statutory mandates.

The United Kingdom: The principle of judicial review is a key aspect of public law and is used to
ensure that public bodies act within their legal bounds as set out in cases like *Associated Provincial
Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corp*.

Australia: The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act of 1977 outlines specific grounds on
which administrative decisions can be challenged, including abuse of power and failure to observe
procedures.

The practice of judicial review is a critical component of democratic governance, providing a

necessary check on administrative power and safeguarding against its abuse, thereby upholding the
rule of law and protecting citizens' rights.

The doctrine of ultra vires, a fundamental principle in administrative law, plays a crucial role in
delimiting the scope and validity of actions undertaken by administrative bodies. It ensures that
these entities operate within the bounds set by the law. The term "ultra vires" is Latin for "beyond
the powers", and it refers to actions taken without legal authority or exceeding granted powers.

Scope of the Doctrine of Ultra Vires

1. Legal Authority: The ultra vires doctrine asserts that any action taken by an administrative body
must be rooted in a legal mandate. This could be authority derived from statute, delegated
legislation, or regulations underpinning the entity's creation and operation.

2. Substantive Ultra Vires: This aspect of the doctrine occurs when an administrative body acts
outside the substantive powers given to it by law. This includes making decisions or taking actions
that the law does not authorize.

3. Procedural Ultra Vires: This occurs when an administrative body fails to comply with procedural
requirements laid down by the law. Even if the body has the power to make a certain decision,
failing to follow the proper process can render the action ultra vires.
4. Reasonableness: In some jurisdictions, such as the UK, administrative actions can also be
challenged on the grounds of irrationality or unreasonableness, which are often considered part of
the ultra vires doctrine under the broader heading of "abuse of discretion".

ii) Review under the Jurisdictional Principle

1. Judicial Review: The primary method of enforcing the ultra vires doctrine is through judicial
review. Courts examine whether the actions of administrative bodies exceed their statutory
authority or violate the requirements of procedural fairness.

2. Grounds for Review: The review focuses on whether the administrative action was legally
authorized and procedurally correct. Courts look at statutes and enabling legislations to determine
the scope of the agency’s powers and whether those powers were exceeded.

3. Standard of Review: The intensity of judicial scrutiny can vary based on the nature of the
administrative action and the context in which the power was used. For example, technical or
discretionary decisions often receive a more deferential standard of review compared to actions that
infringe on fundamental rights.

4. Remedies: If an action is found to be ultra vires, the court can annul or quash the decision. It may
also issue injunctions to prevent an administrative body from continuing unlawful actions and, in
some cases, may mandate specific actions to rectify the situation.

5. Impact of Judicial Findings: A finding of ultra vires can also lead to repercussions for future
actions by the administrative body, necessitating adjustments in policy or procedure to align with
legal standards.

The doctrine of ultra vires thus serves as a critical check on administrative agencies, ensuring they
operate within their legal limits and adhere to principles of good governance. This oversight is crucial
for maintaining public trust in the administrative processes of government.

Principle of Natural justice

The principle of natural justice is a key aspect of administrative law, ensuring that decisions are
made fairly, impartially, and following legal standards. This principle generally encompasses two
primary rules: the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua, or no one should be a judge in their
cause) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem, or hear the other side).

i) Scope

The scope of natural justice involves applying its principles to any decision-making process that
affects the rights, freedoms, or interests of individuals. This applies to a wide range of situations,
including disciplinary hearings, regulatory decisions, and public consultations. The application of
natural justice ensures that decisions are not only legally valid but also perceived as fair by those
they affect.

ii) Bias

Bias in the context of natural justice refers to a situation where the decision-maker may have a
personal interest in the outcome or preconceptions that might unfairly influence their decision. Bias
can be actual, imputed, or apparent:
Actual Bias: Where there is direct evidence that the decision-maker is prejudiced in favor of or
against one of the parties.
Imputed Bias: Where the decision-maker has an interest (personal or financial) in the outcome of
the decision.
Apparent Bias: Where it appears to a reasonable observer that there might be bias, regardless of
whether this is the case.

iii) Rule against Bias

The rule against bias is fundamental to the integrity of administrative processes. It stipulates that
any individual who makes a judicial or quasi-judicial decision must not have a stake in the outcome
of the process or otherwise show partiality. This rule is intended to uphold the confidence of the
public in the impartiality of administrative adjudicators.

Steps to mitigate bias include:

- Ensuring decision-makers declare any potential conflicts of interest.
- Providing mechanisms to challenge and replace potentially biased decision-makers.
- Maintaining transparency in the decision-making process.

iv) The Right to a Hearing

The right to a fair hearing is essential in upholding natural justice. It involves several key
components:

Notice: Ensuring that individuals are informed of the proceedings and charges or decisions against
them promptly.

Opportunity to be Heard: Individuals must have a reasonable opportunity to present their case,
respond to the evidence against them, and challenge the information presented by others.
Reasoned Decisions: Decision-makers should provide reasons for their decisions, which helps
demonstrate that the process was fair and considers the evidence and arguments presented.

The application of these principles in administrative processes ensures that decisions are made
transparently and equitably, fostering trust and legality in public administration.
Remedies in Administrative Law

Remedies in administrative law are tools to address grievances arising from administrative actions.
These remedies can be categorized into private law remedies, prerogative writs, and constitutional
remedies. They ensure that administrative decisions are lawful, reasonable, fair, and comply with
the principles of natural justice.

i) Private Law Remedies

Private law remedies involve the use of traditional civil law methods to seek redress against
wrongful acts of administrative bodies. These remedies include:

Damages: Compensation can be sought for loss or damage caused by unlawful administrative action.
This is common in cases of torts like negligence or breach of statutory duty.

Injunctions: Courts can issue injunctions to prevent an administrative body from acting unlawfully or
to compel it to carry out a legal duty.

Declaration: A court declaration can clarify the legal position, such as confirming or denying the
existence of legal rights or duties, without ordering any specific action or awarding damages.

ii) Prerogative Writs and Constitutional Remedies

Prerogative writs are traditional forms of judicial relief used to control governmental actions and
ensure the proper exercise of power. They include:

Certiorari: Used to quash an administrative decision that has been made without jurisdiction, with
error of law, or involving procedural improprieties.

Mandamus: Commands a public official, public body, or lower court to perform a statutory duty that
they are refusing to perform.

Prohibition: Directs a lower court or a body acting judicially to cease proceedings that exceed its
jurisdiction.

Quo Warranto: Challenges the right of a person to hold a public office.

In addition to these writs, constitutional remedies are also available, especially in jurisdictions with a
robust constitutional framework:

Constitutional Complaints: In some countries, individuals can directly challenge administrative

actions as unconstitutional in the constitutional court.
iii) Restrictions on the Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction

Although writs are powerful tools for ensuring justice, there are limitations on their use, primarily to
respect the doctrine of separation of powers and to prevent judicial overreach. These restrictions
include:

Locus Standi: The applicant must show sufficient interest in the matter to which the application
relates. Only those who are directly affected by the administrative action typically have the standing
to seek a writ.

Exhaustion of Remedies: Before approaching a court for a writ, the applicant usually must have
exhausted other available remedies unless those remedies are inadequate or unduly burdensome.

Time Limitations: Writ petitions must often be filed within a specific time frame from the date when
the grounds for the application arose.

Discretion of the Court: The issuance of writs is not an absolute right but rather a discretionary
remedy. Courts consider factors like the nature of the illegality, the behavior of the petitioner, and
the impact of the decision on public interest.

These remedies collectively ensure that administrative authorities do not exceed their powers and
that individuals have meaningful avenues to challenge administrative decisions that adversely affect
them.

Chapter 6: Administrative Tribunals

1: Introduction

Administrative tribunals are specialized bodies established to resolve disputes involving

administrative law issues. They serve as an alternative to the regular court system, providing a more
streamlined and often less formal means of adjudication. These tribunals typically have expertise in
specific areas, such as employment, immigration, or social security, and are empowered to interpret
legislation, apply the law to specific cases, and grant remedies.

The primary advantages of administrative tribunals include their ability to provide quick resolutions,
their expertise in specific legal areas, and generally lower costs for the parties involved. They play a
crucial role in the administrative justice system by ensuring that decisions of public authorities are
made fairly and following the law.
2: Constitutional Developments regarding Service
Laws until 1973

Before 1973, service laws in many jurisdictions were primarily governed by general administrative
law and specific statutes relating to public service. The constitution often provided the basic
framework for the rights and duties of public servants, but detailed provisions regarding
employment conditions, rights to appeal against disciplinary actions and other service-related
matters were typically handled outside the constitutional framework.

In several countries, the period leading up to 1973 saw significant developments in how service laws
were treated under constitutional law. This often involved the constitutional recognition of the
rights of public servants, the establishment of principles governing public administration, and
sometimes the creation of specialized bodies or mechanisms to handle disputes involving public
servants.

3: Introduction of Service Tribunals under the 1973

Constitution

With the 1973 constitution, many countries formalized the role and structure of administrative
tribunals, particularly those dealing with public service matters. This move was part of a broader
trend to provide public servants with fair and specialized forums for the resolution of employment
disputes. These service tribunals were designed to offer a more focused and expert consideration of
complex public service laws and regulations than what might be expected in the regular courts.

The introduction of service tribunals under the 1973 constitution often included provisions such as:

Jurisdiction: Defining the specific types of cases and disputes that service tribunals could handle,
typically related to employment, disciplinary actions, and benefits within the public service.

Composition: Outlining how these tribunals would be composed, often requiring a mix of legal
experts and those with experience in public administration or specific service sectors.

Procedural Rules: Establishing the procedures these tribunals would follow, aiming to balance the
need for thorough, evidence-based adjudication with the need for expedient resolutions.

Appeals Process: Detailing the process for appealing decisions of the service tribunals, usually to
higher judicial bodies or specialized appellate tribunals.
The establishment of service tribunals was a significant step in the administrative justice system, as it
provided a formalized path for addressing the grievances of public employees and helped ensure
that administrative decisions were made transparently and fairly, consistent with constitutional
protections. This framework typically aims to strengthen the principles of good governance and
accountability within the public sector.