Indian judiciary and enforceable measures against crony capitalism

Abstract

When can the courts review decisions made by the government? The answer is in a simple principle: if the concerned authority has “come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it,” [emphasis added] then the courts shall exercise their power of review.1 Over the years, this dictum has not only formed the basis of several matters seeking review of governmental actions, but has also come to depict certain attributes of “unreasonableness.” Foremost, the question of legitimacy and authority of the decision-maker is crucial in deciding whether the review must be considered and whether the impugned action must be set aside on the grounds of inadequate basis. Furthermore, there is an inherent element of questioning the rationality and logic of the action, and the grounds of irrationality or arbitrariness are most certainly subjected to the power of judicial review. Finally, this principle has also been interpreted to impose on the executive a duty to ensure that all their actions are within accepted moral standards.