Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
Ouster clauses (statutory provisions attempting to exclude judicial review of administrative decisions) are generally subject to judicial scrutiny. Which statement correctly reflects Indian law on ouster clauses?
- Ouster clauses are always valid and binding on courts
- Courts can review decisions if ouster clause violates Constitution or basic structure, or if decision suffers from jurisdictional error, mala fides, or violation of natural justice
- Ouster clauses apply only to economic policy decisions
- Parliament can completely exclude judicial review by simple majority
Answer: Courts can review decisions if ouster clause violates Constitution or basic structure, or if decision suffers from jurisdictional error, mala fides, or violation of natural justice
Ouster clauses jurisprudence in India: (a) L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): Tribunals' decisions subject to HC/SC judicial review; ouster clauses cannot exclude constitutional courts' jurisdiction, (b) Judicial review grounds despite ouster clause: (i) Jurisdictional error (decision-maker acted beyond authority), (ii) Mala fides (bad faith, improper purpose), (iii) Violation of natural justice (no hearing, bias), (iv) Constitutional violation (Fundamental Rights, basic structure), (c) Rationale: Constitutional supremacy — Parliament cannot by ordinary law exclude judicial review of constitutional matters; basic structure doctrine limits amendment power too, (d) Balance: Respect for legislative intent vs protection of constitutional rights. Illustrates calibrated judicial oversight: ouster clauses not absolute bar to review.