• Abstract
  Judicial Review forms an essential aspect of public and administrative law and is considered the primary means by which executive and administrative decisions can be evaluated and tested in terms of constitutionality and legality. It gives courts powers to determine the legality, reasonableness, and fairness of the decisions made by public institutions and individuals acting on behalf of the state. It ensures that the rule of law prevails and that the rights of citizens are protected from any abuse of governmental powers. The power of judicial review in India stems from Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, and through the development of jurisprudence, it has become a powerful tool in ensuring accountability.

Introduction
Public law deals with the relationship between the state and its citizens. It includes constitutional law and administrative law. Judicial review of administrative actions forms an important component of administrative law, which includes checking the legality, compatibility with the principles of natural justice, and lack of arbitrariness of any executive decision-making process.

Unlike the UK’s parliamentary sovereignty system, the Indian constitution introduces judicial supremacy in order to ensure fundamental rights and the basic structure of the constitution. Courts can exercise their powers by issuing five types of writs, including habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari. The reasons for the necessity of judicial review include illegality, irrationality, and unconstitutionality. Such an arrangement helps in avoiding the misuse of discretionary powers without hindering the welfare state in its proper functioning.

Historical Background
The concept of judicial review finds its origin in the common law traditions of England and the Constitution of the USA (Marbury v. Madison). In the UK, it is within the purview of A. V. Dicey that the concept of judicial review as the means for correcting administrative action has
been emphasised, though the development of administrative law was contemporaneous to the rise of the welfare state. The Donoughmore Committee Report of 1932 reviewed ministerial powers and delegated legislation.

Judicial review in colonial India was restricted to the High Courts only. After Independence, the Constitution of India expressly provided for judicial review by incorporating articles 13, 32, 226, and 227. The Supreme Court, at the beginning, had taken a conservative approach
towards judicial review, which later on expanded after the Emergency period. The basic structure doctrine further made judicial review an inalienable part of the Indian legal system, making it a cornerstone of Indian public law. Gradually, the judiciary has evolved concepts of
English tradition like Wednesbury unreasonableness along with the creation of its own principles suitable to Indian conditions, especially through PIL.

Related Case Studies
Several landmark cases that trace the evolution and application of judicial review are as follows:
In the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), established that judicial review is a feature of the basic structure of the Constitution, and any amendment of the Constitution that affects this power is void. This means that the principle of judicial review cannot be amended by an act of parliament, strengthening the constitutional supremacy.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 in stating that any procedure that affects life and liberty must be fair and reasonable. It made an integrated reading of Articles 14, 19, and 21 to subject administrative acts to a higher
standard of judicial scrutiny regarding procedural issues, like fairness and reasonableness. In Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948, UK), the decision was rendered according to English law; it had a considerable impact on India’s law.
Under the Wednesbury rule, a decision of the administration is reviewable if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable body of authority would make the decision. Indian courts have used this rule in many cases related to judicial review of discretionary actions.

In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, 1970, the Supreme Court ruled that the rules of natural justice can be applied where an administrative decision adversely affects the rights of an individual. Moreover, the members of a selection committee who have a personal interest in
such decisions would make them biased and violate the principle of nemo judex in causa sua. 

Critical Analysis
Judicial review has served as an effective means of curbing the misuse of executive power, promoting transparency, and facilitating social justice in India. The courts have taken up public interest litigation to address environmental degradation, human rights violations, and
administrative inaction. The transition from the Wednesbury test to the standard of proportionality for determining fundamental rights has demonstrated a higher level of scrutiny, which is in line with international practices.

However, there exist several problems. Excessive judicial involvement might result in ‘judicial activism’ that interferes with areas where the decisions are usually made by the executive branch and the legislature, hence violating the principle of the separation of powers. Protracted
cases and procedural delays may interfere with proper administration.

The selective public interest litigations and non-uniform application thereof may create confusion among administrators. In contrast, the adoption of a lenient standard of judicial review in some spheres would encourage corruption, ineffectiveness, and arbitrariness. There
exists a long-standing contradiction between the efficiency of administration and accountability. In the era of modern technology and sophisticated regulation, new problems include issues such as algorithmic decision-making and the role of special regulatory agencies.

Conclusion and Suggestions
Judicial review is an indispensable component of public and administrative law, which helps safeguard constitutional values and enables effective governance. The Indian judiciary has been quite successful in using this mechanism to address the challenges of its multi-dimensional and evolving society. In order to remain relevant, it must be done carefully.

• Suggestions for improving judicial review:
• Development of guidelines about when courts need to give way to administrative expertise, especially in regard to economic and technological policy-making.
• Promotion of alternative dispute resolution by creating efficient administrative bodies with expertise in the matter at hand.
• Enabling supervision over delegated legislation and administrative rules to minimise judicial review.
• Strengthening administrative capacity by promoting natural justice and reasonableness in its actions.
• Implementation of evidence-based administration and proactive dissemination of information using the RTI framework to avoid conflict.

With careful use of judicial review combined with institutional reform, competent bureaucracy, and an educated citizenry, democratic accountability can be increased without impacting administrative functioning.

Bibliography
1. A.K. Kraipak and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. [1969] 2 SCC 262
2. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
3. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala [1973] 4 SCC 225
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. [1978] 1SCC 248
5. The Constitution of India 1950