Judicial Review is the power of the higher judiciary to test the legality of administrative actions. It is crucial to understand that judicial review is not an appeal. The court does not check whether the decision was correct on merits; it only reviews the *decision-making process* to ensure it was lawful, fair, and reasonable.
1. Preliminary Hurdles (Pre-conditions) for Judicial Review
Before a High Court or the Supreme Court will hear a writ petition, the petitioner must clear several legal hurdles:
- Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: If the parent Act provides an internal appeal mechanism (e.g., an appellate tax commissioner), the petitioner must exhaust that remedy first. Courts will bypass this rule only if the action was taken under a void law, violated natural justice, or suffered from total lack of jurisdiction.
- Locus Standi (Standing): Traditionally, only the personally injured person could file a case. However, the Indian judiciary pioneered Public Interest Litigation (PIL) (or *Social Action Litigation*), allowing public-spirited citizens to file writs to protect poor, illiterate, or marginalized groups who cannot access courts (Justice P.N. Bhagwati in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India).
- Laches (Delay): If a party sleeps over their rights and files a petition after an unreasonable delay without a valid excuse, the court will dismiss it to preserve commercial stability.
- Res Judicata: A matter already decided by a competent court on merits cannot be re-litigated under a writ petition.
2. Primary Grounds of Judicial Review
- Jurisdictional Error (Ultra Vires): The authority acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or refused to exercise its mandatory jurisdiction.
- Abuse of Jurisdiction: The power was exercised for improper purposes or irrelevant considerations.
- Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: The administrative order contains a clear, obvious error of law that does not require deep investigation to discover.
- Violation of Principles of Natural Justice.