Ouster clauses, also known as finality or conclusive clauses.

Ouster clause re the provisions in statutes that makes the decision which is made or which
will be made by the administrative authority final and limits the courts to interfere here with
the decisions .
The purpose of these clauses is to ensure certain administrative actions or decisions remain
beyond the reach of judicial interference.
However, the judiciary in India, through Articles 32, 226, 227, and 136, maintains the power
of judicial review even for the statutes having ouster clauses when principles of NJ , equality
reasonability is not followed.
Ouster Clauses and Judicial Review
Though ouster clauses restricts judicial oversight, the Constitution of India empowers courts
to review actions even when statutes contain such clauses.
For eg: Article 136 also provides the Supreme Court with the power to grant special leave to
appeal against any judgment. Therefore, regardless of the language of an ouster clause,
judicial review cannot be fully barred, particularly where constitutional rights or the legality
of actions are in question.
Constitutional Provisions with Finality Clauses
Provisions in constitution which is an ouster clause
 Article 217: When there is a dispute regarding the age of a High Court judge, the
President, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, is responsible for resolving
it, and their decision is final.
 Article 311: That a government employee cannot be dismissed or removed by an
authority that is subordinate to the authority that appointed them.
In other words, an employee should only face dismissal or removal only by the
competent authority
Although these provisions specify finality, the judiciary can still review these decisions if they
find that constitutional principles or fundamental rights have been compromised.
Implied Exclusion and Exceptions
Judicial exclusion from certain cases may be implied in some circumstances:
1. Self-Contained Codes: If a statute, such as the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is
comprehensive enough to address disputes and provide solutions within its own
framework, it may imply that civil courts should not intervene.
However, judicial review is not entirely removed; rather, it is limited to prevent
interference in areas where the statute itself is sufficient to manage disputes.
 2. Subjective Satisfaction of Authorities: Sometimes, statutes give administrative
authorities the power to act on their own satisfaction and decision.
In such cases, courts generally do not interefere but courts have the right to review
such decisions if they are arbitrary, unreasonable, or violate natural justice principles.
3. Ultra Vires Acts: An ouster clause cannot be protected from JR
if the decision made by the authority has been made by exceeding its power
meaning decisions that exceed an authority's legal power (ultra vires) or
if the decision violates established procedures (procedural ultra vires).
If an administrative authority takes action beyond its lawful power or fails to follow
proper procedures, courts retain the power to review and potentially nullify the
action.
Ouster clauses do not grant absolute immunity from judicial review. Even where statutes
include finality clauses, courts have the constitutional authority to ensure administrative
decisions are lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. This safeguard is critical to upholding
accountability and the rule of law, ensuring that no administrative action infringes upon
constitutional or fundamental rights.
JUDICIAL REVIEW CAN BE DONE ONLY OF THE DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT AND
NOT BY THE COURTS …FOR COURTS DECISIONS APPEAL CAN BE MADE.
judicial review is used for checking government actions or laws, while court decisions are
addressed through appeals or specific petitions within the court system.

LIMITATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:

1. Locus Standi (Right to Bring Action) JR MATLAB GOVT AUTH NE DECSION DIYA HAIN
USSE JO PARTY AGGRIEVED HAI WO MATTER WO COURT ME LEKAAR JAA SAKTA HAI TO BE
SOLVED BY JUDICIARY
 A person can apply for Judicial review only if he has locus standi which means that
the party which is affected by the decision of the governmental authority only can
bring the case to the court. This is what happened traditionally.
 But abhi jo party affected nahi hai who bhi court ke paas jaa sakte hai through PIL,
PIL file kar sakta hai abhi locus standi hona jaruri nahi hai …now through PIL it must
only be proven that if affects the larger public so PIL can be filed .
 For example:
o A writ of habeas corpus (to challenge illegal detention) can be filed by
anyone, not just the detained person.
o A writ of quo warranto (to question someone’s right to hold a public office)
can be filed by any citizen, regardless of personal interest.
 o However, for mandamus (an order to a public official to do their duty) and
certiorari (to quash an incorrect decision), the person filing usually needs to
show their rights were directly impacted, though common interests shared
with others may also be grounds.
2. Res Judicata (Finality of Decisions)
 The limit of judicial review in this case is that once a competenet court has decided
the matter and given a final decision , then case regarding the same COA cannot be
filed for the same case ,
 However appeal can be done.
 Cases involving habeas corpus (illegal detention) are an exception; these can be
brought again even if they have been previously decided. Here the limit of Judicial
review does not apply.
3. Laches (Unreasonable Delay)
 Courts can refuse to entertain the cases for judicial review as requested by the party
because he was aggrieved by the decision made by the Administrative authority if
unreasonable delay has been caused. Tht is there has been a lot of time gap after the
decision was given the admin auth and before the case was filed in the court for
review
 The principle of laches means that courts won’t help those who “sleep on their
rights.” A person should not wait too long to assert their rights; otherwise, the court
may refuse to hear the case.
 However, if court is satisfied with the reasons for delay by the aggrieved party, then
the court may allow for the review to be done.
4. Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies
 Courts generally expect individuals to pursue any available alternative legal remedies
(such as appeals or internal review processes) before seeking judicial review of an
administrative decision. This allows the administrative authority the opportunity to
correct its own mistakes
 they retain the discretion to accept writs involving significant issues, particularly
concerning fundamental rights or procedural fairness.
 Courts may still accept a writ petition despite available alternatives if:
o The petition enforces a fundamental right.
o The petitioner argues that natural justice principles were ignored.
o The decision being challenged was made without jurisdiction.
o The constitutionality (validity) of a law is being questioned.
Summary
These limits on judicial review are designed to ensure efficiency and finality in legal
processes as provided in the ouster clauses while allowing courts to prioritize cases that
truly require judicial intervention. Courts balance these rules carefully, providing a way to
challenge injustices while preventing repetitive or delayed cases from overwhelming the
judicial system.

 Writ of Mandamus
A writ of mandamus is a court order directing a lower court or government agency to
perform a duty they are required by law to do.
Conditions for Grant:
1. Public Duty: There must be a clear duty mandated by law, and it must be mandatory
(not optional]
2. Specific Demand and Refusal: The applicant needs to show they made a specific
request for the duty to be performed, which was denied.
3. Clear Right to Enforce the Duty: The applicant must have a legal right to ensure the
duty is performed.
EG: Public Service Appointment
Scenario: An individual applies for a government job for which they are qualified, but
the hiring authority fails to act on their application.
1. Public Duty: The hiring authority is mandated by law to consider applications for
public service positions.
2. Specific Demand and Refusal: The applicant formally requests an update on their
application status but receives no response, indicating a refusal to act.
3. Clear Right to Enforce the Duty: The applicant has a legal right to be considered for
the position under the law.
The individual could file for a writ of mandamus to compel the hiring authority to
evaluate their application and make a decision.
 Writ of Certiorari
A writ of certiorari is an order from a higher court to a lower court or authority,
asking for the records of a case for review. It’s often used to cancel decisions made by
lower courts or authorities if they acted outside their authority or unfairly.
Grounds for Grant:
1. Lack of Jurisdiction: The authority acted without having the legal power to do so.
2. Excess of Jurisdiction: The authority overstepped its legal boundaries.
3. Abuse of Jurisdiction: The authority used its power improperly or unfairly.
4. Violation of Natural Justice: The decision was made without fairness or a proper
hearing.
5. Error of Law: There’s a clear legal mistake in the decision.
6. Fraud: The decision was based on deceit or fraud.
In these cases, the higher court can issue certiorari to review and potentially quash
the lower authority's decision.

Example 1: Tribunal Exceeding Authority

Scenario: A labor tribunal orders a company to rehire a worker, but the law only
allows the tribunal to order financial compensation, not rehiring.
 Grounds: The tribunal acted beyond its legal powers (excess of jurisdiction).
 Certiorari: The higher court could issue a writ of certiorari to review and cancel the
tribunal's order.

 Writ of Quo Warranto

Definition: A writ of quo warranto is a legal action that questions a person’s right to
hold a public office and asks them to prove their authority to hold it.
Conditions for Grant:
1. Public Office: The job must be a public position created by law.
2. Permanent Position: The office should be a long-term role, not temporary.
3. Currently Holding Office: The person must be actively doing the job.
4. Breaking the Law: They must be holding the position illegally or against the rules.
 This writ helps to remove people who are not lawfully qualified to be in a public
office.

Example 1: Unqualified Person in Government Position

Scenario: A person is appointed as the head of a public health department, but they
lack the required medical qualifications mandated by law.
 Grounds: The person does not meet the legal requirements for the position.
 Quo Warranto: A court could issue a writ of quo warranto to ask the person to prove
their right to hold the job or be removed.

Suing the Government or Government Officials in India

If you want to file a lawsuit against the government or a government official in India,
there are specific rules you need to follow. These rules, set out in the Code of Civil
Procedure (CPC), 1908, aim to give the government a heads-up and a chance to resolve
the issue before it goes to court.
Steps to File a Lawsuit against administrative authority:
The rules for filing a suit is given in the CPC, the aim of the rules in thye CPC is to provide
with fair chance to the admin authority to resolve the dispute before going to the court
of law
1. Send a Notice First (Section 80):
Before taking the government to court, a written notice is to be sent.
This notice should:
o Explain the problem and state the demands (e.g., compensation, action, or
change).
o Give the government or official two months to respond. The idea here is to
let them know there’s an issue, so they have a chance to fix it without
needing to go to court.
2. What to Include in the Notice: The notice should include :
o Who you are: applicant’s name, address, and some details about you.
o Why you’re planning to sue: a brief summary of the issue.
o What you want from them: whether it’s money, a specific action, or a
solution to a problem.
This notice should be sent to the office of the government department or administrative
authority or directly to the official involved.
3. Wait Two Months: After sending the notice, one needs to wait two months before
one can actually file the lawsuit. This time is meant for the government to consider
and possibly settle the issue without involving the courts.
4. In Urgent Situations (Section 80(2)):
If the matter is urgent, there is no need to wait for two months. One can go straight
to court if waiting would cause serious harm or trouble. This rule helps people get
fast action when they really need it.
In Short
The CPC rules for suing the government ensure that the government has a fair chance to
respond to complaints before facing a lawsuit. However, in urgent cases, you can skip the
waiting period and go directly to court for a quicker solution. This approach encourages
quick problem-solving while still giving people the right to seek justice.

+-