Author – Kanak Sharma, Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim University
Abstract
This article explores the judicial remedies available to challenge ultra vires administrative actions, which occur when public authorities exceed the legal limits of their powers. It examines the legal framework governing administrative law and the principles that ensure public bodies act within their statutory authority. The article outlines the various remedies—such as writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and injunctions—available under constitutional and statutory law. It also discusses judicial review as a mechanism for correcting administrative overreach, ensuring accountability, and protecting citizens’ rights. By analyzing case law and key legal doctrines, the article provides insights into the scope and limitations of judicial intervention in administrative matters, offering a comprehensive understanding of how courts safeguard the rule of law.
Introduction
Administrative actions play a crucial role in governance, shaping decisions that impact individuals, businesses, and society. However, these actions must remain within the legal boundaries set by law. When an administrative authority exceeds its legal powers—acting beyond its jurisdiction or violating statutory limits—such actions are deemed ultra vires (beyond powers). In such cases, judicial remedies offer affected parties a mechanism to challenge and nullify these unlawful actions. This article delves into the concept of ultra vires administrative acts and explores the judicial remedies available to ensure accountability and the protection of rights. By examining key legal principles and landmark cases, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of how courts can intervene to prevent administrative overreach.
Judicial Remedies
- Writs
The Constitution of India empower the people with its two very important articles ,i.e. Article 32 and Article 226, these articles empowers people to approach supreme court and high court against breach of the fundamental rights given to them by the Constitution of India, respectively.
Although the jurisdiction of High court under article 226 is comparatively wider than the jurisdiction of Supreme court under article 32. The high court is empowered to take action against breach of not only fundamental rights but other rights also, which effectively is not the case with the powers confined in article 32.
However, the powers of high court is discretionary in this clause, this court may reject a writ petition filed against it, involving breach of fundamental rights on the grounds,
- When there is delay and latches –
If there is an excessive delay in utilizing the court’s authority, the court may decline to grant a remedy. There is no set time for latches, unlike in limiting. Since each case will be decided based on its unique facts and circumstances, the court must provide justification for rejecting the remedy or granting any delays or latches. The court will typically refuse to provide a remedy if the statute of limitations has passed since it is not within its authority to issue an extraordinary remedy in the context of an ordinary one. However, this does not imply that the High Court must abide by the restriction. Because the extraordinary remedy is discretionary, the High Court may decide not to award relief even if the case is within the allotted time.
- When a substitute treatment is just as effective –
The court cannot deny relief on the grounds of an alternative remedy in cases where basic rights have been violated. However, the High Court has the right to reject the relief on the grounds that there is an equally effective alternative remedy if a writ petition is filed before it for any other reason. A remedy that is as effective is one that can provide the party with the same relief as that which the High Court may provide through the writ.
There are Five types of writs which the High court and Supreme court may grant. Those are:
- Habeas corpus
- Mandamus
- Certiorari and Prohibition
- Quo warranto
- Habeas Corpus
The word literally means you must have the body i.e., the person must be produced before the court, in cases where the person is illegally detained by the writ of the court to show legal justification behind the detention.
The great value of the writ of habeas corpus lies in that it enables immediate determination of the right of a person as to his freedom. The petitioner has to show a prima facie case of his unlawful detention. Once, however, the petitioner shows such a cause and the return by the detaining authority is not good and sufficient, the petitioner is entitled to habeas corpus as of right.
It is not required for the individual to be physically detained in order to uphold the writ of habeas corpus. The exercise of this writ may only require the imposition of some form of custody, control, or restraint on the person.
Since a person’s right to personal liberty is highly valued, courts have regularly expressed concern for this right and have refused to dismiss a petition just because it lacks sufficient evidence to support an order of detention. The legislation of strict interpretations apply to preventive detention, and adherence to procedural safeguards is required.
In Icchu Devi v. Union of India, The Supreme Court granted the release of a smuggler who had been detained under the COFEPOSA on the grounds that there had been an unreasonable delay in evaluating the detainee’s representation and an excessive delay in providing copies of the documents and other materials used as justification for the detention. The Court issued a warning, emphasizing that it was only holding that the petitioner’s continued detention was unlawful due to noncompliance with statutory and constitutional requirements, not that the order of detention was invalid. The Court cautioned that in order to stop a smuggler from obtaining his release from custody, the law could not be bent, especially when it came to personal liberty. The law must be applied equally to all people.
- Mandamus
Mandamus denotes an order. Mandamus is a tool used by public authorities to compel them to carry out their duties. The court’s order to carry out a public legal obligation is what mandamus is all about.
Mandamus is a command issued to a person, corporation, inferior court, or government to perform a specific task related to their office and public duty. Mandamus is issued to ensure that all types of authorities perform their public duties. Mandamus applies to any public authority, including administrative and local bodies.
Mandamus is a broad remedy for ensuring a public officer fulfills their duties and follows the law. Mandamus can be used to enforce public duties that are not optional or discretionary with the relevant authority. Therefore, Mandamus cannot be used to compel an officer who has power but does not use it to fulfill their duty.
Mandamus can only be issued if the petitioner has a legal right and the respondent has a legal duty. The duty should be mandatory and not discretionary. Mandamus cannot be issued when the government has no legal obligation. Therefore, when the applicant’s telephone was wrongfully disconnected despite regular payments. The High Court ordered the connection to be restored within a week.
The Constitution’s Article 16(4A) allows the government to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government service promotions. The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to issue a mandamus to the State Government to implement a reservation policy, citing the fact that Art. 16(4A) is only an empowering provision. If the State does not make any reservations, the High Court cannot issue a direction under Art. 226.
- Certiorari and Prohibition
The writs of certiorari and prohibition share so many similarities that they can be discussed together. These writs are intended to prevent public officials from exceeding their authority. Certiorari and prohibition are now regarded as general remedies for judicial control over both quasi-judicial and administrative bodies affecting individual rights. Certiorari is a more commonly used remedy in Administrative Law compared to prohibition.
Certiorari is frequently used to challenge decisions made by tribunals and adjudicatory bodies, as it serves as a supervisory authority over inferior bodies. Judicial review is the primary method for addressing adjudicatory bodies that operate outside of the traditional judicial system. There are numerous such bodies in India today.
In some cases, the statute establishing the tribunal does not allow for an appeal to a court. An appeal is regarded as a product of statute. There is no inherent right to appeal from an adjudicatory body to a court unless expressly stated in the relevant statute. If an adjudicatory body’s decision is not appealable, a person may seek certiorari under Arts. 226 and 32. The Supreme Court and High Courts have constitutional jurisdiction that does not require statutory support, unlike appeals.
Certiorari is issued to quash a previously made decision, typically after the body in question has made its decision. If there is a flaw in the ruling process, certiorari can be issued to nullify it. Certiorari allows the High Court to demand the record of pending proceedings for review and, if necessary, quashing. Certiorari is issued after the tribunal has reached a decision and the proceedings have ended.
On the other hand, prohibition is intended to prevent rather than cure. Prohibition is issued when a case is still pending before a decision-making body and not yet settled. The aim of prohibition is to prevent the body involved from proceeding with the issue further. If the proceedings before the relevant body have ended, only certiorari can be issued as there is nothing to prohibit.
- Quo Warranto
Quo Warranto means “by what authority.” The Supreme Court or High Court may issue an order requiring individuals in independent public offices to demonstrate their authority to hold the position.
The writ of quo warranto regulates executive appointments to public offices based on applicable statutory provisions. This writ allows a person’s appointment to a public office to be challenged if the person is not qualified for the position or if his appointment contains any legal flaws. Quo Warranto allows for the removal of individuals from positions they are not qualified for.
The necessary ingredients to fulfil for the issue of quo warranto are:
(a) the office in question must be a public office;
(b) the office has been created by law; and
(c) the person is not legally qualified to hold the said office.
In Durga Chand v. Administrator, the Delhi High Court clarified that a citizen seeking a writ of quo warranto must prove that the office in question is public and held by a usurper without legal authority, in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao. This raises questions about whether the alleged usurper’s appointment was legally valid.
Observed in the case, Niranjan Kumar v. University of Bihar, Quo warranto cannot be issued to challenge the appointment of a private college principal, as it is not considered a substantive public office.
However, in Ram Singh Saini v. H.N. Bhargava, the Supreme Court invalidated an appointment by quashing the University’s resolution due to a violation of a mandatory rule during the process. appointment. Professorships in universities should be treated as public offices, similar to vice-chancellorships, as they are equally important. A university is legally established and operates under enforceable rules and statutes, supported by government grants.
- Injunction
An injunction is a court order that directs a defendant or respondent to do or not do a specific act. If the order is to perform an act, the injunction is referred to as a mandatory injunction, whereas if the order is to refrain from performing an act, it is referred to as a preventive injunction or prohibition. In courts, preventive injunctions are commonly referred to as permanent or perpetual injunctions.
An injunction may be denied if the plaintiff’s conduct disqualifies them from court assistance (Sec. 41(1), Specific Relief Act) or if they can obtain the same relief through other means (Sec. 41(h) SRA). In cases of breach of conduct, damages may suffice as a remedy instead of an injunction. An injunction can be applied for as a final remedy or as interim relief through an interlocutory application. An interim injunction can prevent a public body from taking action until the court determines the issue.
- Damages
Individuals may seek compensation or damages against the government if they have suffered a loss due to their actions or those of its employees.
Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act allows plaintiffs to seek damages in addition to or instead of a perpetual or mandatory injunction. The court may, at its discretion, award damages. In cases of breach of contract, damages may suffice as a remedy for the aggrieved party, so an injunction is not necessary.
Conclusion
Judicial remedies play a vital role in maintaining the rule of law by holding administrative bodies accountable for ultra vires actions. Courts can intervene through remedies such as certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and injunctions to ensure that administrative decisions align with legal authority. These remedies provide citizens with necessary legal recourse, preventing arbitrary or unlawful exercises of power. By addressing ultra vires actions, the judiciary upholds both individual rights and the principles of good governance, ensuring that public authorities act within their prescribed limits and promoting fairness and accountability in administrative law.
FAQs
Q.1 What is ultra vires administrative action?
Answer. Ultra vires refers to actions taken by a government authority that exceed the scope of its legal powers.
Q.2 How can judicial review be sought?
Answer. Judicial review can be initiated in a court of law by challenging the legality of the administrative action.
Q.3 Who can challenge ultra vires actions?
Answer. Any person affected by the action can file a petition.