Abstract

Administrative agencies act as quasi-judicial authorities to adjudicate upon legal issues. Informal rulemaking and adjudication by administrative agencies is often perceived as a design to ensure speedy disposal of disputes. Difference in opinions of jurists regarding the scope and existence of administrative law paved the way for judicial control over administrative actions. Judicial review of administrative actions could presumably be perceived as a watchdog scheme against arbitrary acts of administrative agencies. Arbitrary procedure in discharging administrative functions remained unaddressed for decades under the British regime since they focused more on executive rather than judicial independence. To secure ‘Rule of Law’ it is vital that the state or its officials are expected to carry their administrative duties in conformity with Constitutional mandates. Blurred lines of arbitrary laws must be declared unconstitutional to safeguard egalitarian social order. Administrative authorities must be held accountable to impose arbitrary laws. The written Indian constitution incorporates essential principles of governance that are prevalent in many common law countries around the globe. Public interest is upheld by judicial review since basic structure of Indian Constitution extends protection to the development of judiciary (i.e. judge made laws) in a welfare state. By introducing transparency in adjudicating disputes between the parties administrative authorities are made accountable to general public. The scrutiny of judge made laws reveals the nature of governance established in a state. Therefore, judge made laws are nothing but a counter measure available against absolute power exercised by small group of people having majority in a state. In this paper, delegated legislation and examination of judicial review of administrative actions will be evaluated for uniformity.

Keywords