Highlight The Various Limitations Of Judicial Control Over the Administration
In India, judicial control over administration refers to the power of the courts to review and interpret the actions and decisions of the executive branch of government. This power is exercised through the process of judicial review, which allows the courts to declare the actions of the executive to be unlawful if they are found to be in violation of the Constitution or other laws.
However, judicial control over administration in India is subject to certain limitations, which are imposed in order to ensure the proper functioning of the government and the separation of powers between the different branches of government. Some of the limitations of judicial control over administration in India are as follows:
Separation of powers: The principle of separation of powers requires that each branch of government performs its own distinct functions and that these functions not be encroached upon by the other branches. This means that the courts are not authorized to interfere in the day-to-day operations of the executive, and must confine their review to the legality of the executive’s actions.
Mootness: The courts will not hear cases that have become moot, or which are no longer capable of being resolved by the courts. This means that if the executive action being challenged has already been completed, or if it is no longer possible to reverse the action, the courts will not consider the case.
Political questions: The courts will not hear cases that raise political questions, which are matters that are outside their jurisdiction or which are best left to the political branches of government to resolve. Examples of political questions include issues related to foreign policy, national security, and the conduct of elections.
Standing: In order to bring a case before the courts, the plaintiff must have standing or a sufficient stake in the outcome of the case. This means that the plaintiff must have suffered an injury or harm as a result of the executive action being challenged, and must be able to show that the courts are the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute.
Deference to the executive: The courts will generally show deference to the executive in matters of policy and discretion, recognizing that the executive is better equipped to make decisions on these matters. This means that the courts will not interfere with the executive’s decision-making unless it is found to be unlawful or arbitrary.
Limited resources: The courts have limited resources and must prioritize the cases that they hear. This means that they may not have the time or capacity to consider all the cases that are brought before them, and may have to prioritize cases that raise important legal issues or that have significant implications for the public.
Public interest litigation: In India, the courts have the power to entertain public interest litigation, which is a type of litigation that is filed in the public interest rather than on behalf of a specific individual or group. This means that the courts can hear cases that challenge executive actions that affect the public at large, even if the plaintiff does not have a personal stake in the case. However, the courts have placed certain limits on public interest litigation in order to prevent it from being abused or misused.
In summary, judicial control over administration in India is subject to a number of limitations, which are imposed in order to ensure the proper functioning of the government and the separation of powers between the different branches of government. These limitations include the separation of powers, mootness, political questions, standing, deference to the executive, limited resources, and public interest litigation.
Read the related articles…
- Discuss The Powers And Functions Of Panchayati Raj Institutions
- Describe The Role Of the Chief Minister
- Discuss The Functions Of The UPSC