The Administrative State: A Case-Study of Judicial Review

**Navigating the Delicate Balance between Power and Accountability in Indian Administrative Law** As I sat hunched over my desk, nursing a cold cup of coffee at 2 am, I found myself pondering the intricacies of Indian Administrative Law. Specifically, I was revising Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which deals with the constitution of Administrative Tribunals. But what really caught my attention was the concept of judicial review and its application in India. In this article, we'll embark on a case-study walkthrough to explore the relationship between the executive and the judiciary in India, and how it plays out in the realm of Administrative Law.

**The Genesis of Judicial Review in India**

The concept of judicial review in India is rooted in the Constitution, specifically Article 32, which provides for the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. In the landmark case of Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985), the Supreme Court of India held that the concept of judicial review is an integral part of the Constitution and is not limited to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This decision paved the way for the judiciary to review administrative actions and decisions.

**The Role of the Ombudsman: A Mediator between Power and Accountability**

In India, the Ombudsman is an institution established to investigate complaints against administrative bodies and to ensure accountability. The Lok Pal and Lok Ayukta Act, 2013, provides for the establishment of the Lok Pal (also known as the Ombudsman) to investigate complaints against Members of Parliament and State Legislatures. However, the effectiveness of the Ombudsman is often questioned, and the institution has been criticized for being toothless.

**The Supreme Court's Role in Checking Executive Excesses**

The judiciary has played a crucial role in checking executive excesses and ensuring accountability in India. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to be free from arbitrary action by the State. This decision has been cited in numerous cases to strike down executive actions that are deemed arbitrary or unjust.

"Justice is not only about the law, but also about the manner in which it is administered." - Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer

As we conclude our case-study walkthrough, it is evident that the relationship between the executive and the judiciary in India is complex and dynamic. While the judiciary has played a crucial role in checking executive excesses, the effectiveness of institutions like the Ombudsman remains a subject of debate. As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer so aptly put it, justice is not only about the law, but also about the manner in which it is administered.