Grounds of review constitute the foundation of judicial review in administrative law and represent the legal principles upon which courts examine, supervise, and control the exercise of powers by public authorities, administrative agencies, tribunals, and governmental bodies. Judicial review is not concerned with the merits of a decision but with the legality of the decision-making process, ensuring that public power is exercised within the limits prescribed by law and in accordance with the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and justice.
The development of judicial review reflects the growth of the administrative state and the corresponding need to ensure accountability, transparency, and adherence to the rule of law. As governments increasingly exercise regulatory, executive, and quasi-judicial functions affecting the lives of citizens, courts have developed various grounds of review to prevent abuse of power, arbitrariness, illegality, and procedural unfairness.
These grounds serve as safeguards against misuse of authority and help maintain the balance between effective governance and the protection of individual rights. The modern framework of judicial review is largely associated with the landmark decision in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, commonly known as the GCHQ case, where Lord Diplock identified three principal grounds of review: illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
Over time, additional grounds such as proportionality, legitimate expectation, mala fides, and abuse of discretion have evolved, expanding the scope of judicial oversight.
The first and most fundamental ground of review is illegality, which arises when a public authority acts beyond the powers conferred upon it by law or misinterprets the law governing its actions. Under the principle of legality, every public authority derives its powers from a statute, constitutional provision, or legal instrument, and such powers must be exercised strictly within the limits prescribed. An authority acts illegally when it exceeds its jurisdiction, fails to exercise jurisdiction when required, misconstrues statutory provisions, delegates powers improperly, acts for unauthorized purposes, or disregards mandatory legal requirements.
The doctrine of ultra vires, meaning “beyond powers,” forms the cornerstone of this ground of review. Courts may intervene when a decision-maker exercises powers not granted by legislation or uses lawful powers for purposes that Parliament did not intend. For example, if a licensing authority revokes a license for reasons unrelated to the objectives of the enabling statute, the decision may be challenged as illegal. Similarly, where an administrative authority bases its decision on an incorrect interpretation of law, courts may review and set aside such decisions.
The principle of legality ensures that public authorities remain accountable to the law and prevents the arbitrary expansion of governmental power. The second major ground of review is irrationality, often referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness, derived from the English case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation. Irrationality exists when a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority, properly directing itself in law and acting within its powers, could have arrived at such a conclusion.
This ground does not permit courts to substitute their own opinions for those of administrative authorities; rather, it allows intervention only when a decision is absurd, arbitrary, perverse, or devoid of logical justification. Courts generally exercise restraint in applying this doctrine because public authorities are often better positioned to make policy and administrative judgments. However, when decisions are manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate to the circumstances, judicial review becomes necessary.
Examples include imposing excessive penalties for minor infractions, refusing licenses without rational justification, or making decisions based on irrelevant considerations while ignoring relevant factors. Irrationality serves as a critical safeguard against arbitrary decision-making and ensures that public authorities exercise discretion responsibly and rationally. The third principal ground of review is procedural impropriety, which concerns the fairness of the procedures followed by public authorities in reaching decisions.
Administrative decisions can significantly affect the rights, interests, and expectations of individuals, making procedural fairness an essential component of lawful governance. Procedural impropriety arises when authorities fail to comply with statutory procedures or violate principles of natural justice. The doctrine of natural justice includes two fundamental rules: nemo judex in causa sua, meaning no person should be a judge in their own cause, and audi alteram partem, meaning no person should be condemned without being heard. The rule against bias requires decision-makers to act impartially and avoid situations that create a reasonable apprehension of prejudice.
The right to a fair hearing ensures that affected individuals receive notice of proceedings, an opportunity to present their case, and a chance to respond to adverse evidence. Failure to observe these principles may render administrative decisions invalid. For instance, if a government employee is dismissed without being given an opportunity to explain allegations against them, the decision may be set aside for procedural impropriety. Similarly, where a tribunal member has a personal interest in the outcome of a dispute, the proceedings may be challenged on grounds of bias.
Procedural fairness promotes confidence in public administration and reinforces the legitimacy of governmental decision-making. Another important ground of review is mala fide exercise of power, commonly referred to as bad faith. Public authorities are expected to exercise their powers honestly, fairly, and for legitimate purposes. When a decision-maker acts with improper motives, personal hostility, political bias, corruption, or ulterior objectives, the exercise of power becomes unlawful. Proving bad faith is often difficult because it requires evidence of dishonest intent or improper purpose. Nevertheless, courts recognize that powers conferred for public purposes must not be used to achieve private or unauthorized objectives.
For example, if a regulatory authority denies approval to a business competitor due to personal animosity rather than legitimate regulatory concerns, the decision may be challenged as mala fide. The doctrine protects individuals from arbitrary and malicious exercises of public power and reinforces the principle that governmental authority must serve the public interest rather than personal interests. Closely related to illegality and bad faith is the ground of improper purpose. Administrative authorities must exercise their powers only for the purposes intended by the legislature.
Even when a decision falls within the scope of statutory authority, it may be invalid if exercised for an unauthorized purpose. Courts often examine legislative intent to determine whether a power has been used appropriately. The landmark case of Padfield v Minister of Agriculture established that discretionary powers cannot be exercised in a manner that frustrates the objectives of legislation. If a public authority uses a statutory power to achieve a goal unrelated to the purpose for which the power was granted, the decision may be quashed. This ground ensures that administrative discretion remains aligned with legislative objectives and prevents misuse of authority. Another significant ground of review involves the consideration of relevant and irrelevant factors.
Decision-makers must consider all factors that the law requires them to consider and disregard matters that are legally irrelevant. Failure to consider relevant considerations or reliance upon irrelevant considerations can render a decision unlawful. For example, when determining eligibility for a welfare benefit, authorities must assess factors specified by legislation rather than personal opinions or unrelated circumstances. Judicial review in such cases ensures that administrative decisions are based on lawful and rational criteria. Courts often scrutinize whether decision-makers have applied their minds properly to the issues before them and whether their conclusions are supported by relevant evidence.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation has emerged as an important modern ground of review. Legitimate expectation arises when a public authority creates an expectation through representations, policies, established practices, or promises that certain procedures will be followed or certain benefits will be granted. Although such expectations may not amount to enforceable legal rights, courts may protect them when fairness requires. Legitimate expectation may be procedural, involving an expectation of consultation or hearing, or substantive, involving an expectation of a particular benefit or outcome.
If a public authority departs from its established practices without justification, affected individuals may challenge the decision through judicial review. This doctrine promotes consistency, predictability, and fairness in public administration. Proportionality has become an increasingly influential ground of review, particularly in cases involving fundamental rights and human rights. The principle requires that governmental measures must be suitable to achieve legitimate objectives, necessary in the sense that no less restrictive alternatives exist, and balanced so that the benefits outweigh the adverse impact on affected individuals.
Courts applying proportionality examine whether state action imposes excessive burdens relative to the objectives pursued. The doctrine has gained prominence in constitutional adjudication and human rights litigation because it enables courts to assess whether restrictions on rights are justified. In many jurisdictions, proportionality has expanded beyond human rights cases and now influences broader administrative law principles. The absence of proportionality may indicate that a decision is excessive, oppressive, or unfair, thereby justifying judicial intervention. Jurisdictional error constitutes another important ground of review. Public authorities and tribunals possess limited powers defined by law, and they must operate within their assigned jurisdiction. Jurisdictional errors occur when authorities exceed their powers, fail to exercise powers vested in them, or decide matters outside their legal competence.
Historically, courts distinguished between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors, but modern jurisprudence increasingly recognizes that significant legal errors may justify review regardless of classification. Judicial review based on jurisdictional error ensures that public authorities respect the boundaries of their lawful authority. Abuse of discretion also serves as a significant ground of review. While discretionary powers are necessary for effective administration, they must be exercised reasonably, fairly, and in accordance with statutory objectives. Abuse of discretion may occur through arbitrariness, inconsistency, rigidity, failure to exercise discretion independently, or reliance on predetermined policies without considering individual circumstances.
Courts may intervene where discretion has been exercised mechanically or in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of legislation. This ground reinforces the principle that discretion does not equate to unlimited power. In contemporary administrative law, the grounds of review collectively reflect a commitment to the rule of law, constitutionalism, and accountable governance. They ensure that public authorities remain subject to legal constraints and that individuals have remedies against unlawful administrative action. Judicial review does not seek to replace administrative expertise or policy-making functions but rather to ensure that decisions are made lawfully, rationally, fairly, and for proper purposes.
Through grounds such as illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, bad faith, improper purpose, legitimate expectation, proportionality, jurisdictional error, and abuse of discretion, courts maintain oversight of public power and protect citizens from arbitrary or unjust treatment. The continued evolution of these grounds demonstrates the adaptability of administrative law in responding to changing governance challenges while preserving the fundamental values of justice, fairness, transparency, and accountability that underpin democratic societies.
Leave a Reply