Judicial control over administration. JUDICIAL CONTROL OVER ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS 2022-12-17
Judicial control over administration Rating:
Judicial control over administration refers to the power of courts to review and, if necessary, overturn actions taken by the executive branch of government. This power is an important aspect of the system of checks and balances that exists within most modern democratic systems, and serves to ensure that the actions of the executive branch are consistent with the rule of law and do not violate the rights of citizens.
There are several ways in which judicial control over administration can be exercised. One common method is through judicial review, which is the power of courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. If a court determines that an executive action is unconstitutional, it can declare the action null and void, effectively blocking it from being implemented.
Another way in which judicial control over administration can be exercised is through the use of writs. A writ is a legal order issued by a court directing a person or government agency to take a specific action or to refrain from taking a specific action. There are several different types of writs that can be used to exert judicial control over administration, including writs of mandamus, habeas corpus, and prohibition.
Judicial control over administration is important for several reasons. First and foremost, it helps to ensure that the executive branch of government operates within the bounds of the law. This is particularly important in situations where the executive branch may be tempted to act in ways that are contrary to the public interest or that violate the rights of citizens.
Additionally, judicial control over administration can help to safeguard against abuses of power by the executive branch. By providing a mechanism for courts to review and, if necessary, overturn executive actions, judicial control over administration helps to prevent the executive branch from acting in a manner that is undemocratic or authoritarian.
In summary, judicial control over administration is an important aspect of democratic governance that helps to ensure that the actions of the executive branch are consistent with the rule of law and do not violate the rights of citizens. Through mechanisms such as judicial review and the use of writs, courts have the power to review and, if necessary, overturn executive actions, helping to safeguard against abuses of power and ensuring that the executive branch operates within the bounds of the law.
Judicial Control over Administrative actions
These are called extraordinary remedies because the courts grant these writs except the writ of Habeas Corpus, in their discretion and as a matter of right and that too when no other adequate remedy is available. 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. These may or may not later become formalized by the legislature. Absence of Arbitrary Power: No man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or in goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land. Increased fragmentation increases the difficulty of centralized management and decreases gubernatorial influence over the executive branch.
An invariable field is staff issues. It was after the First amendment that the tussle of limits on the power of these wings started. Administration has to function according to the law and the Constitution. This is indirectly envisaging the supremacy of the legislature in making laws, based on reasonable policies that cannot be questioned. President being the executive head is also empowered to exercise legislative powers. Executive's exclusive right was diluted now the SC's collegiums- consisting of the Chief Justice of India and four senior most judges. There is not slightest doubt in my mind and in the minds of many students of Political Science, that the work of Parliament is so complicated, so vast that unless and until the members of the Legislature receive direct guidance and initiative from the members of the Executive, sitting in Parliament, it would be very difficult for Members of Parliament to carry on the work of the Legislature.
Such standards are prior hearings, consultations, access of citizens to information, transparency, but also the explanation of the facts and the legal reasoning on which a decision is grounded. This is the spark of the judicial dictatorship. This is left for the judiciary to decide. It comprises the power of a court to hold unconstitutional and unenforceable any law or order based upon such law or any other action by a public authority which is inconsistent or in conflict with the basic law of the land The role of judiciary in protecting the citizens against the excesses of officials has become all the more important with the increase in the powers and discretion of the public officials in the modern welfare states. This is why law and legal requirements lie at the heart of public administration. The general deprivation of people also results in deprivation of justice to them. They find their origin in rights and procedures defined by the constitution, general principles of law, and specialized legislation.
Extensive delegation and administrative discretion are perennial controversial issues in politics and in public law. This resulted in the judiciary creating a Constitutional dustbin for all the unconstitutional actions. It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. How far do they go in scrutinizing policymaking and implementation? A last issue is the ability of courts to integrate into their reasoning issues of efficiency and effectiveness. But, finally as the boss, the Centre amended the Master plan to allow changes in land use.
JUDICIAL CONTROL OVER ADMINISTRATION, ACCOUNTABILITY AND SEPARATION OF POWER
In certain contexts, courts even tend to become political actors. It was held that the punishment imposed on the workers were not only severe but also disproportionate. This tussle resulted in landmark judgments of Indira Gandhi, Golaknath, and Kesavananda Bharti and also laid down the basic structure doctrine. 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. It also implies the right of an aggrieved citizen to challenge the wrongful act of administration in the court of law. The stake of the Judiciary was raised higher by refusing to entertain summons filed in the Supreme Court.
Efficiency and effectiveness may, however, be considered by complementary intra- or extra-administrative mechanisms, which tend to bridge this gap, such as inspections and specialized courts of audit. This excessive delay in the delivery of justice discourages many to approach the court. Many steps have been initiated to overcome some of the limitations mentioned above. Regulate by the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Se 37 of the Specific Relief Act. In administrative disputes, courts often come to weigh individual against public interest e. Complying with this obligation simultaneously provides predictability and prevents arbitrariness. Statutory limitations; the courts may be statutorily prevented from exercising jurisdiction in certain spheres.
Judicial Deference and Executive Control Over Administrative Agencies
Other differences of European judiciaries compared with their U. Montesquieu finds that tyranny pervades when there is no separation of powers There would be an end of everything, where the same man or same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting the laws, that of executing the public resolution and typing the causes of individuals. Both are essential and judicial control is an essential concomitant of a democratic society. Also, Article 72 3 says, that: Nothing shall affect the power to suspend, remit or commute sentence of death exercisable by the Governor of a state under any law for the time being in force. The doctrine of separation of powers is not codified in the Indian constitution. Does the court examine matters of substance, does it re-evaluate facts and evidence, could and should it substitute its own judgment for that of policymakers, and how should it treat the technical judgment of the administrators or experts underlying the decision under examination? The answer would be in the negative.
Judicial Control Over Administration: Scope, Forms & Limitations
This has resulted in a situation of power without responsibility with the Supreme Court. But who is the judiciary accountable to for this intervention? Mandamus: If a public official fails to perform a duty assigned to him, the court can through this writ command him to perform the act. Limitations Of Judicial Control Over Administration The effectiveness of judicial control over administration is limited by many factors. Such are the ombudsman institution or more generally mediation mechanisms, providing citizens with easily accessible alternatives in order to challenge administrative decisions and seek remedy. It also implies the right of an aggrieved citizen to challenge the wrongful act of administration in the court of law. It is a writ that is preventive in nature. Finally in May-August 2006, the bill was passed to exempt the offices from the office of profit despite the objections from the president.