1. v
JUDICIAL REVIEW
v
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION

2. PRESENTED TO:
MR. AHMAD WARRAICH v
v
GROUP MEMBERS
HAMZA SHAUKAT
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY
I.A.S DEPARTMENT

4. TABLE OF CONTENT
• INTRODUCTION
• THE JURISDICTIONAL
PRINCIPLES /DOCTRINE OF ULTRA
VIRES
• MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
• NATURAL JUSTICE
• LIMITATION OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
• CONCLUSION

5. INTRODUCTION

6. JUDICIAL REVIEW
• Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative
and executive actions are subject to review (and
possible invalidation) by the judiciary. Specific courts
with judicial review power must annul the acts of the
state when it finds them incompatible with a higher
authority (such as the terms of a written constitution).

7. NEED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
• The function of judicial review is to act as “a check
against excess power in derogation of private right” yet it
cannot supervise all administrative adjudications for it
exists to check, not to supplant them.

8. SCOPE
• The scope of judicial review depends upon whether a
given function is administrative or judicial in nature. The
administrative finding of facts is not generally reviewed
unless it goes to the very jurisdiction or the findings are
manifestly wrong in which case they are likely to be
characterized as flawed in point of law.

9. RATIONALE
• Through past experiences it has been learned that if the
executive is allowed to exercise its powers unchecked by
the judiciary, it may become colored with
capriciousness, political influences and arbitrariness etc.
so this makes up the historical rationale for judicial
review.

10. PRACTICE AND CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW:
• The concept of judicial review has developed in
countries like England, US, and also Pakistan and India.

11. FRANCE
• The concept of review of order of administrative bodies
by the ordinary courts is foreign to civil law countries like
France and West Germany.
• Court structure in France has been strictly separated into
distinct jurisdictions: judicial courts and administrative
courts. These two exercise their jurisdictions
independent of each other and orders passed by courts
of one side cannot be reviewed by other side.
• The council of state has the highest administrative
jurisdiction and is also a court of original jurisdiction in
several administrative actions.

12. • Due to administrative reforms, carried out by the Decree
of September 30, 1953, (modified by the decree of june
11, 1954), a number of administrative tribunals were
created with original jurisdiction in most administrative
matters.
• A Court of Conflicts has been constituted, consisting of
judges of both jurisdictions, which settles conflicts
between judicial and administrative courts.

13. BRITAIN
• In England the idea of an administrative adjudicatory
authority was thought to be inconsistent with the
maintenance of rule of law.
• Influential writer A V Dicey wrote: “in England and in
countries which, like the United States, derive their
civilization from English sources, the system of
administrative law and the principles upon which it rests
are in truth unknown”.

14. • Today Britain‟s administrative law has fully recovered
from Dicey‟s denial of its existence.
• In the post war period in Britain tribunals and
administrative bodies started to deal with the problems of
war and since they have stayed in Britain.
• In 1967 an act was passed named as “parliamentary
commissioner act” under which the office of
parliamentary commission was set up to deal with
maladministration in tribunals.

15. PAKISTAN:
• In Pakistan the development of judicial review of
administrative action has followed that of Britain and
USA. There has been no marked opposition to the
administrative process but it has been accepted as
imminent of national planning and growth of the welfare
state.

16. POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER
ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
PAKISTAN, 1973
• 199. Jurisdiction of High Court.
• Article 199, clause 1 states:
• Subject to the Constitution, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no
other adequate remedy is provided by law,-
• (a) on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order-
• (i) directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation,
a Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is
not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to
do; or
• (ii) declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions
in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local
authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of
no legal effect; or

17. • (b) on the application of any person, make an order-
• (i) directing that a person in custody within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court be brought before it so that the Court
may satisfy itself that he is not being held in custody without
lawful authority or in an unlawful manner; or
• (ii) requiring a person within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Court holding or purporting to hold a public office to show
under what authority of law he claims to hold that office;
• (c) on the application of any aggrieved person, make an order
giving such directions to any person or authority, including any
Government exercising any power or performing any function
in, or in relation to, any territory within the jurisdiction of that
Court as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of the
Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of Part 11.

18. THE JURISDICTIONAL
PRINCIPLES /DOCTRINE OF
ULTRA VIRES

19. ULTRA VIRES
• Ultra vires is a Latin phrase meaning literally "beyond
the powers"
• "If an act requires legal authority and it is done with such
authority, it is characterized in law as intra vires (literally
"within the powers";
• Acts that are intra vires may equivalently be termed
"valid" and those that are ultra vires "invalid"

20. SCOPE
• Most fundamental concepts in administrative law
• The doctrine of Ultra Vires stands for the acts, which are
for any reason in excess of power, are often described
as being outside jurisdiction.
• Professor Wade declares "any administrative act or
order, which is ultra vires or outside jurisdiction, is void in
law".

21. Doctrine of ultra vires is in fact is a scale for the
measurement of delegated legislation, its validity and the
proper observance of procedure created by the said
legislation.
The doctrine is of two kinds:
• SUBSTANTIVE ULTRA VIRES:
The situation where the executive authorities enact laws
or rules, for which they are not authorized by the
parliament.
• PROCEDURAL ULTRA VIRES:
When the authorities fail to follow the procedural
requirement prescribed by the statutes.

22. IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIARY
• One peculiar aspect of all South Asian
countries, particularly Pakistan, is that socio-economic
conditions are extremely oppressive
• The government machinery, in each one of these
countries, has become an instrument in the hands of the
corrupt elite to oppress the common man.
• Instead of getting justice from the administration, the
common citizens need protection from its officials.
• Independence of judiciary in Pakistan is its ability and
capacity to support and protection of the rights of the
citizens.

23. REVIEW UNDER THE
JURISDICTION PRINCIPLE
• In the theory, jurisdictional principle enables that courts
merely to prevent the authorities from acting in excess of
their powers but in reality, they have increasingly entered
into the heart of the subject matter by interfering on
grounds of reasonableness, bad faith, extraneous
considerations, unfairness, manifest injustice,
arbitrariness.

24. • To what extent does the jurisdiction principle enable the
reviewing courts to control the exercise of power by the
administrative authorities?
• Principles applied in Pakistan examined below:
1. Reasonableness
2. Improper motives/ malafide
3. Irrelevant considerations
4. Acting under dictation
5. Abdication of authority
6. Subjective discretion

25. REASONABLENESS
• The doctrine of reasonableness has been adopted in the
rule that powers, particularly discretionary ones, have to
be exercised “judiciously and not arbitrary or
capriciously”.
• Arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction has been called abuse
of jurisdiction. Where the land could be auctioned for
„public purpose‟, if the „immediate need‟ for possessing
it was established, the order of requisition was held
arbitrary, since the requirement of public purpose and
immediate need were not provided.

26. IMPROPER MOTIVES/
MALAFIDE
• A malafide order means that which is passed not for the
purpose contemplated by the enactment granting the
power to pass the order, but for some other collateral or
ulterior motive.
• The court can inquire the motives of the authorities
passing order when such orders are under review.
Where the government issued notifications for
acquisition of land, declaring that the land was needed
for a „public purpose‟ while in fact it was required for a
commercial company, the acquisition was held invalid.

27. IRRELEVANT ACTING UNDER
CONSIDERATIONS DICTATION
It is an established principle Discretionary powers must
that in exercising be exercised only by the
discretion, the authorities persons authorized by the
must have regard to all statute. One of the rules to
relevant considerations and ensure this policy is that
disregard all irrelevant the persons so authorized
considerations. must not act under
dictation

28. ABDICATION OF SUBJECTIVE
AUTHORITY DISCRETION
Exercise of subjective
discretion by authority
Persons invested with allowed under an enactment
discretion must exercise it has been brought under
properly and are not judicial review
allowed to „surrender their
Expressions such as” shall
power‟ to any other
make such orders as it may
authority.
think fit” do not allow to
make a fanciful or capricious
order unrelated to the case
before it.

29. MODES OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW

30. MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Following are the modes of judicial review
of administrative action
Public Law Review
Private Law Review

31. PUBLIC LAW REVIEW
• An important aspect of Public Law review is not only
enforcement of private right but to keep the
administrative and quasi-administrative machinery within
proper control.

32. CONSTITUENCY OF
PUBLIC LAW REVIEW
• Under the provision of article 184 (3) and 199 of
Pakistan constitution. The Supreme Court and High
Court have power to issue writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo
warrants.

33. LIMITS ON PUBLIC LAW
REVIEW
Principles or the limits on Public Law review, the presence
of which is quite mandatory for the issuing of writs are
mentioned
• Laches or unreasonable delay
• Alternative remedy
• Res Judicata

34. LACHES OR UNREASONABLE DELAY
Through writ issuing power of Supreme Court and the high
Court is mandatory, however the court may refuse remedy if
there is unreasonable delay in invoking the jurisdication of
the court.
Unlike limitation there is no fixed period for laches. Every
case will be determined on its own merits.
ALTERNATIVE REMEDY:
The Supreme Court or High Court cannot issue writ if
alternative remedy is available.
Exception: if the person complaints of violation of
fundamental rights the Supreme Court and High Court
cannot refuse relief U/A 184(3) and 199 on the ground of
alternative remedy.

35. RES JUDICATA
• The principle of Res Judicata which is grounded on
public policy applies in the public review area also.
• The principle also applies in cases for the enforcement
of fundamental rights

36. MODES OF PUBLIC LAW
REVIEW
Following are the different kinds of writs which can be
issued on certain grounds by Supreme Court and High
Court
• Habeas corpus
• Mandamus
• Prohibition
• Certiorari
• Quo warranto

37. • MANDAMUS
to do anything he is required by law• HABEAS CORPUS
to do
directing that a person in custody
• PROHIBITION within the territorial jurisdiction
functions in connection with the of the Court be brought before it
affairs of the Federation, a so that the Court may satisfy
Province or a local authority, to itself that he is not being held in
refrain from doing anything he is custody without lawful authority
not permitted by law to do. or in an unlawful manner.
• CERTIORARI
functions in connection with the
affairs of the Federation, a
• QUO WARRANTO
Province or a local authority has
been done or taken without requiring a person within the
lawful authority and is of no territorial jurisdiction of the Court
legal effect holding hold a public office to
show under what authority of
law he claims to hold that office

38. Private Law Review
• Private law review refers to the ordinary
courts of the land, exercised in accordance
with the ordinary law to control administrative
authorities and their actions.

39. Modes of private law review
• Private Law review can be exercised through
following modes:
• Injunctions
• Declaratory actions
• Suit for damages

40. INJUNCTIONS
• Injunction is a judicial process by which one who has
invaded or is threatening to invade the rights, legal or
equitable of another, is restrained from continuing or
commencing such wrongful act.

41. DECLARATORY ACTIONS
• A declaratory action signifies a judicial remedy, which
conclusively determines the rights of the parties.
• Any person entitled to legal character may institute a suit
against any person denying such character, and the
court may in its discretion make there a declaration that
he is so entitled.

42. SUITS FOR DAMAGES
• An action for damages used to lie against the local
authorities or public corporations.
• A corporation which has the same liability as any
individual has, in all civil matters, can be liable for the
acts of his servant acting within the scope of his
employment.

43. NATURAL JUSTICE

44. NATURAL JUSTICE
• Def:
• Natural justice is also known as “substantial
justice”, ”fundamental justice” and “universal justice”.
 the principals and procedures that govern the
adjudication of the disputes between persons and
organizations, chief among which are that the
adjudication should be unbiased and given in good
faith, and that each party should have equal access to
the tribunal and should be aware of arguments and
documents adduced by the others

45. PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL
JUSTICE:
Rules of natural justice to be read as part and parcel of
every statute.
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE UNDER
TRADITIONAL ENGLISH LAW:
The traditional English law recognizes two principles of
natural justice.
NEMO INDEX IN CAUSA SUA
“No man shall be a judge in his own case”
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM:
“hear to other side”

46. BIAS OR INTEREST OR NO MAN SHALL
BE A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CASE:
The first principle of natural justice based three maximums of common
law.
• No one shall be a judge in his own cause
• Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and
undoubtedly be seen to be done
• Judges, like ceaser‟s wife should be above suspicion
APPLICATION:
This principle applies not only to judicial proceedings but also
to quasi-judicial as well as administrative proceedings

47. BIAS EXPLANATION
• The judge should be impartial & neutral and must be
free from bias
• He is supposed to be indifferent to the parties to
controversy
• He cannot act as a judge of a cause in which he has
some interest
• He must be in a position to act judicially and to decide
the matter objectively
• It is well settled principle that justice should not only be
done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be
done.

48. TYPES OF BIAS
Following are the types of bias:
• Pecuniary bias
• Personal bias
• Preconceived notion bias

49. PECUNIARY BIAS:
As regard to pecuniary interest, the least pecuniary
interest in the subject matter of the litigation will
disqualify any person from acting as a judge.
PERSONAL BIAS:
Personal bias arises from a certain relationship
equation between the deciding authority and the
parties. Here a judge may be a relative, friend or
business associate of a party. He may have some
personal grudge, annuity or grievance or professional
rivalry against him.

50. STATE OF V.P V/S MOHD NOOH
HELD:
the SC quashed the administrative action on the
ground that when the presiding officer himself
becomes a witness, there is certainty of a real
likelihood of bias against the constable.
PRECONCEIVED NOTION BIAS:
Bias arising out of preconceived notion is very delicate
problem of administrative Law. On the one hand no
judge as human being is expected to sit as a blank
sheet of paper. On the other hand preconceived notion
would vitiate a free trial.

51. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM
“Audi Alteram partem” is the basic principle Natural
Justice.it simply means, hear the other side that is no
man should be condemned, punished or deprived of
property in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings
unless has an opportunity of being heard.
ELEMENTS OF MAXIM:
This maxim includes two elements:
• Notice
• Hearing

52. NOTICE:
Before any action is taken, the affected party must be
given a notice to show cause against the proposed
action and seek his explanation. Any order passed
without giving the notice is against the principle of
natural justice.
NOTICE MUST BE PROPERLY SERVED:
A notice to be valid and effective must be properly
served to the concerned person

53. SUFFICIENT TIME BE GIVEN:
A sufficient time must be given to enable the individual
to prepare his case.
NOTICE MUST BE ADEQUATE:
A notice which merely repeats the statutory language
without giving other facts and other particular is
insufficient and inadequate.
CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS:
The grounds given in the notice on which the action is
proposed to be taken should be clear, specific and
unambiguous.

54. MODES OF SERVING
NOTICE:
Following are the modes of serving notice
• Delivering to him by hand
• Sending it to him by registered post
• On failure of both above grounds,
• Affixing it on the outer door of the residence

55. HEARING
The second requirement is that the person concerned
must be given an opportunity of being heard before any
adverse action is taken against him and no one should
be condemned unheard.
CONDITIONS OF HEARING:
A hearing to be fair must fulfill following conditions
• Receiving evidence produced by individual
• Disclosure of material to the party
• Opportunity to cross-examine witness

56. EXEMPTION OF
PRINCIPLE OF
NATURAL JUSTICE:

57. EXEMPTION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL
JUSTICE
• STATUTORY PROVISION:
If a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary
implication excludes the application of any or all the
principles of natural justice. Then the court can not
ignore the mandate of the legislature or the statutory
authority.
• LEGISLATIVE ACTS:
Legislative acts are also not subject to the rules of
natural justice. Thus before enacting law regarding
imposing tax, fixing price etc. it is not necessary to issue
notice and afford hearing.

58. NECESSITY:
The doctrine of necessity applies not only judicial
matters but also to quasi-judicial as well as
administrative matters.
• CONFIDENTIAL INQUIRIES:
The observance of the principals of natural justice may
be dispensed with where the inquiry is of confidential
nature and disclosure of information may defeat the
object of the statute.

59. • PREVENTIVE ACTION:
Principles of natural justice may be excluded if its effects
would vitiate the action sought to be taken or would
defeat or paralyze the administration of the law.
• EMERGENCY:
In exceptional cases of urgency and emergency, where
prompt and preventive action is required to be taken, the
principles of natural justice need not to be compiled with.

60. EFFECTS OF NON OBSERVANCE
OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE:
In England, there are two views on this point.
• in some cases the courts have taken the view that the
non compliance of principles of natural justice would not
vitiate the order and the order cannot be said void but
merely voidable.

61. • In other cases the courts have taken the view that non-
observance of the principles of natural justice renders
the order null and void.
It is clearly stated in the following case:
INAM DIN V/S PROVINCE OF PUNJAB 1992 CLC 529
HELD:
Where petitioners are condemned unheard while
passing orders against their interest, such orders would
be hit by principle of natural justice and the order is null
and void, have no more any effect

62. LIMITS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
• No interference will be made by any court where the
action of administrative authority is within jurisdiction.
• The superior court cannot review where the possible
interpretation has been made by lower court or tribunals.
• that the court does not interfere with an administrative
body‟s determination of facts except when its conclusion
is not supported by any evidence at all.
• Sufficiency of evidence cannot be reviewed

63. • Exceptional cases where evidence can be reviewed
– Where no evidence is recorded till the final
adjudication of case.
– The recorded evidence was inadmissible before any
court of law.
– That the wrong evidence is recorded by the inferior
court or by tribunals.

64. CONCLUSION
• The exercise of governmental power by administrative
authorities is a sacred trust and they are required to act
within their limits and they are subject to judicial control
in case of arbitrary exercise of their powers. This judicial
review may be in the form of constitutional review i.e.
, invoking the jurisdiction of High Court or non-
constitutional review i.e. , invoking the jurisdiction of civil
courts and no statute can curtail the judicial review of
superior court.

65. CASE
FACTS:
 Weeks before leaving office, President John Adams
nominated William Marbury and others to be justices of
the peace in the District of Columbia. Their nominations
were confirmed and commissions signed by the
president, but the secretary of state, John Marshall, had
not delivered them by the time Thomas Jefferson
became president. Jefferson‟s new secretary of
state, James Madison, refused to deliver the
commissions of Marbury and three others. The four men
requested that the Supreme Court issue a writ of
mandamus ordering delivery under its original jurisdiction
authorized in the Judiciary Act of 1789.

66. HELD:
John Marshall declared that although Marbury had
right to receive the commission but the Court could not
issue the writ of mandamus. The Constitution is the
supreme law of the land. The authority given to the
Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus to public
officers, appears not to be warranted by the Constitution;
therefore, the court can not force Madison to deliver the
commissions.

67. THANK YOU
yeah munsif bhi qaidi hain
humain insaf kiaya dengay