Published on: 11 October 2022 at 11:15 IST
Court – Supreme Court of India
Citation – State of U.P. v. Rakesh Kumar Keshari (2011) 5 SCC 341
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that decisions and actions of the authority which do not have adjudicative power would not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review court. It is held that judicial review is not available for an appeal over the decisions of administrative bodies unless the order is perverse or illegal or result in miscarriage of justice.
Para – 29
The court in Johri Mal case also held that the decisions and actions which do not have adjudicative disposition would not strictly fall for consideration before a judicial review court. According to this Court the limited scope of judicial review is:
(i) Courts, while exercising the power of judicial review, do not sit in an appeal over the decisions of administrative bodies;
(ii) A petition for a judicial review would lie only on certain well-defined grounds;
(iii) An order passed by an administrative authority exercising discretion vested in it, cannot be interfered in judicial review unless it is shown that exercise of discretion itself was perverse or illegal;
(iv) A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the power of judicial review;
(v) The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on a court is limited to seeing that the Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and that its decisions do not occasion miscarriage of justice; and
(vi) The Court shall not ordinarily interfere with a policy decision of the State.
Drafted by – Abhijit Mishra
Key Words – Judicial Review, Adjudicative Authority, Administrative.