Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India , AIR 1996 SC 11 ( vide paragraph

113) the Supreme Court observed:

(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over administrative decisions but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct an administrative decision.

If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible. In the same decision the Supreme Court observed that judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision but the decision making process (the Wednesbury principle). See also Pramod Kumar Misra v. Indian Oil Corporation , 2002 (4) AWC 3221, State of Kerala v. Joseph Antony , 1994 (1) SCC 301, etc.

In our opinion judges must maintain judicial self-restraint while exercising the powers of judicial review of administrative or legislative decisions."

10. On the aspect as to whether, who would be the competent authority to decide on matters relating to public order, the Hon'ble Division Bench, at paragraph Nos.28 to 34 has held as follows;

"28. The question arises, who is to determine the matter relating to Public Order?

The answer is given in Entry 1 to List II (State List) of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution, which states that public order is a matter within the jurisdiction of the State. Article 162 of the Constitution states:

30. Before parting with this case we would like to briefly comment on the subject of judicial restraint while reviewing statutes or administrative decisions. We feel justified in making these comments because the times which this country is passing through requires clarification of the role of the judiciary vis-a-vis the executive and the legislature.

31. Under our Constitution the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive have their own broad spheres of operation. It is important that these organs do not encroach on each others proper spheres and confine themselves to their own, otherwise there will always be danger of a reaction. Of the three organs of the State, it is only the judiciary which has the right to determine the limits of jurisdiction of all these three organs. This great power must therefore be exercised by the judiciary with the utmost humility and self- restraint.

34. Judicial restraint is consistent with and complementary to the balance of power among the three independent branches of the State. It accomplishes this in two ways. First, judicial restraint not only recognizes the equality of the other two branches with the judiciary, it also fosters that equality by minimizing interbranch interference by the judiciary. In this analysis, judicial restraint may also be called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary for the other coequal branches. In contrast, judicial activisms unpredictable results make the judiciary a moving target and thus decreases the ability to maintain equality with the co-branches. Restraint stabilizes the judiciary so that it may better function in a system of interbranch equality."