Pragati Dwivedi, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies
ABSTRACT
This article explores the concept of judicial review of administrative silence in India. It examines how courts can compel government bodies to make decisions on pending matters when they remain silent for an unreasonable period. The article highlights the importance of judicial review in safeguarding individual rights and preventing arbitrary inaction by the administration.
It discusses the constitutional framework established by Articles 32 and 226, empowering courts to issue writs like mandamus. The concept of legitimate expectation is explored as a bridge between administrative discretion and individual fair treatment. The article outlines the circumstances that can trigger judicial intervention, including unreasonable delay, prejudice, violation of statutory time limits, erosion of natural justice principles, and public interest at stake.
Challenges associated with judicial review, such as defining "reasonable delay" and balancing efficiency with individual rights, are acknowledged. The article explores potential solutions including legislative guidance on timeframes, standardized administrative practices, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
In conclusion, the article emphasizes the importance of judicial review in ensuring a responsive and accountable administrative system in India. It highlights the need for ongoing efforts to refine the legal framework and administrative practices to create a more streamlined and predictable system.
Keywords: Administrative silence, judicial review, mandamus, legitimate expectation.
Comments