Judicial Review of Discretion & the Writs — KSLU Administrative Law Notes
Judicial Review of Discretion & the Writs
Judicial review controls both the existence and the exercise of administrative discretion. Discretion is bad if it is not exercised at all (sub-delegation, acting under dictation, non-application of mind, acting on a fixed/self-imposed policy) or abused (mala fides, irrelevant considerations, improper purpose, unreasonableness — Wednesbury — and proportionality). The Constitution provides the remedies through the writs under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts — wider, available against any person/authority and for any legal right).
| Writ | Lies to… |
|---|---|
| Habeas Corpus | Produce a detained person; test the legality of detention |
| Mandamus | Command a public authority to perform a public/statutory duty owed to the petitioner |
| Certiorari | Quash a decision already made without/in excess of jurisdiction or against natural justice |
| Prohibition | Forbid an inferior tribunal from proceeding beyond its jurisdiction (issued before decision) |
| Quo Warranto | Question a person’s title to hold a public office |
Mandamus requires a legal right in the petitioner, a corresponding public/statutory duty, and (usually) a demand and refusal. It will not lie to enforce a private/contractual duty, to compel a discretionary act, or to direct how discretion is exercised (Praga Tools v. C.V. Imanual; Comptroller & Auditor General v. K.S. Jagannathan).