PUBLIC LAW REVIEW – FULLY EXPLAINED (DEEP PARAGRAPHS) WITH REMEDIES

Public law review refers to the power of courts to examine and supervise the actions of public
authorities—such as government departments, statutory bodies, PSUs, tribunals,
municipalities, and even private bodies performing public duties. The purpose of public law
review is to ensure that all public power is exercised within legal, constitutional, and rational
limits. It is rooted in the principle that “the government cannot act arbitrarily” and that the State
must always act fairly, reasonably, and for lawful purposes. Public law review is not about
re-deciding the merits of an administrative decision; rather, it focuses on checking whether the
decision-making process was lawful, unbiased, rational, and in accordance with constitutional
norms.

Public law review is constitutionally founded on Articles 32 and 226, which empower the
Supreme Court and High Courts to issue writs against State authorities for violation of legal or
fundamental rights. Public law review closely connects with Articles 14, 19, and 21, which
require equality, fairness, reasonableness, and due process in every administrative action.
Through these provisions, the courts ensure that administrative authorities do not misuse their
powers, exceed their jurisdiction, or act for improper motives. Public law review therefore acts
as a constitutional safeguard against arbitrariness, abuse of discretion, delay, bias, and mala
fides.

The scope of public law review extends to all areas where public power affects individual
rights—such as licensing, appointments, tenders, disciplinary proceedings, land acquisition,
taxation, social welfare benefits, and regulatory actions. Even private bodies may come under
review when they perform public functions (for example, universities, cooperative societies,
private institutions exercising statutory duties). Courts intervene primarily when the
administrative action is illegal, irrational, disproportionate, violates natural justice, or is based
on bad faith or irrelevant considerations. The focus is on ensuring that the authority has
adhered to principles such as rule of law, fairness, non-arbitrariness, proportionality, and
legitimate expectation.

Judicial precedents have shaped the doctrine of public law review. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of
India, the Supreme Court held that even administrative decisions must follow natural justice.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India expanded Article 21 and established that fairness and
reasonableness are essential parts of every State action. Ridge v. Baldwin held that violation
of natural justice invalidates administrative decisions. These judgments have transformed
public law review into a powerful instrument for ensuring accountability and good governance
in India.

---

Generated with [Link]

Public law review is mainly enforced through writ remedies, which allow courts to control
administrative actions and protect citizens’ rights. The most important public law remedies are
the five writs—Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto. Each
remedy serves a distinct purpose in keeping administrative and governmental authorities
within legal limits.

Habeas Corpus is the highest safeguard of personal liberty. When a person is illegally
detained by the police or any authority, the court orders the detaining authority to produce the
person and justify the detention. If the detention is unjustified, the person is released
immediately. This remedy protects citizens from unlawful arrest, custodial abuse, and misuse
of preventive detention laws.

Mandamus compels a public authority to perform a legal duty that it has failed or refused to
perform. It is invoked when an authority acts with delay, neglects its duty, denies a hearing, or
ignores statutory requirements. Mandamus cannot order the authority how to decide but can
force it to decide, ensuring that public duties are performed fairly and within time.

Certiorari is a corrective writ used to quash decisions of inferior courts, tribunals, or authorities
when they act without jurisdiction, violate natural justice, rely on irrelevant facts, or commit
errors of law. It ensures that authorities do not exceed their legally assigned powers and that
decisions are made through fair procedures.

Prohibition is a preventive writ used to stop an authority or tribunal from continuing with an
illegal proceeding. While Certiorari quashes an order already passed, Prohibition prevents an
illegal hearing or trial from taking place. It is used when an authority is acting beyond its
jurisdiction.

Quo Warranto allows any person to challenge the legality of a public office held by someone. It
is used when a person occupies a public post without qualifications or legal authority. This
remedy prevents misuse of public offices and ensures transparency in government
appointments.

Apart from writs, courts also grant compensation (public law damages) when State action
violates fundamental rights, especially Article 21. In cases such as Rudul Shah and Nilabati
Behera, the courts awarded monetary compensation for illegal detention and custodial death.
This ensures accountability even when the harm already occurred. Courts also issue
injunctions, declarations, and directions, which restrain unlawful actions and clarify rights of
parties. Through these remedies, public law review ensures that administrative decisions
remain just, lawful, and respectful of constitutional rights.

Generated with [Link]