Principles of Judicial Scrutiny in Administrative Law and the Role of Writ Jurisdiction

Abstract

Judicial scrutiny of administrative actions constitutes a vital mechanism for maintaining the rule of law and ensuring accountability within a constitutional democracy. In India, the expanding role of the State and the growth of administrative discretion have made judicial oversight indispensable to prevent arbitrariness, abuse of power, and procedural unfairness. This paper examines the core principles governing judicial scrutiny in administrative law, including legality, natural justice, reasonableness, proportionality, and the doctrine of mala fides, and analyses how these principles are operationalised through the writ jurisdiction of constitutional courts. Particular emphasis is placed on the role of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, which empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to issue constitutional writs as effective remedies against unlawful administrative actions. The study highlights the distinct yet complementary functions of the two provisions, noting the broader supervisory role of High Courts and the fundamental rights–centric jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. By analysing judicial trends and landmark decisions, the paper demonstrates how writ jurisdiction has evolved from a narrow procedural remedy to a powerful instrument of substantive judicial review. The paper argues that the interaction between principles of judicial scrutiny and writ remedies has strengthened administrative accountability while preserving the functional autonomy of the executive. Ultimately, the study underscores the significance of writ jurisdiction as an essential constitutional safeguard that balances effective governance with the protection of individual rights and constitutional values.