Expanding the Scope of Judicial Review using Constitutional Interpretation in Sri Lanka: A Comparative Study of the Development of Judicial Review in UK

Abstract

In the context of administrative law,
public authorities are given powers either explicitly or
implicitly by parliamentary Acts. Therefore public
authorities should exercise their powers within the four
corners of the Act. The grounds of judicial review are
important in this context and up to date judicial review
of administrative action has acquired many
developments in its application. Though the doctrine of
Ultra Vires was considered as ‘the central principle of
administrative law’ it has moved from Ultra Vires rule
to concern for the protection of individuals and for the
control of power rather than powers or
vires”.1Therefore the present tendency is to uphold the
principles of good administration .Achieving this
purpose, the ‘requirement of “fairness” is used in its
various guises ,and it prohibits the fettering or
delegation of discretion, abuse of power, arbitrariness,
capriciousness, unreasonableness, bad faith, breach of
accepted moral standards and so on’.2In addition a
practice has developed where the principle of legitimate
expectations is used as a ground for questioning the
actions of administrative authorities.3
On the other hand, the administrative law in Sri Lanka
relating to judicial control has developed several
principles such as proportionality, legitimate
expectation, public trust doctrine and right to equality.
There are two ways of challenging the discretionary
power of public authorities: writs and fundamental
rights. Unlike UK, judicial review in Sri Lanka is based
on the constitution.4In this context, it is clear that