The Judges’ Gaze: Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion in India, United Kingdom, and United States of America
- NLR Journal
- Aug 12
- 1 min read
By Nandini Srivastava, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law.
Abstract
In modern welfare states, administrative authorities are entrusted with expansive discretionary powers to meet the complexities of governance. However, such delegation necessitates robust judicial oversight to prevent arbitrariness and ensure legality. This paper critically examines the judicial review of administrative discretion in India, the United Kingdom, and the United States, emphasizing how each jurisdiction has evolved mechanisms to strike a balance between effective administration and protection of individual rights. Drawing from constitutional frameworks, landmark judgments, and institutional practices, the study explores the grounds of judicial review—such as abuse of power, non-application of mind, malice, irrelevant considerations, and improper purpose—and how courts navigate the fine line between judicial activism and overreach. While India exhibits a blend of judicial activism tempered with restraint, the UK demonstrates increasing judicial assertiveness post-reforms, and the US maintains a cautious, principle-agent approach. The comparative analysis ultimately argues for India’s continued commitment to a middle path, resisting both excessive intervention and undue deference, thereby preserving the integrity of administrative law and democratic governance.
Â
