Write a short note on what are the limitations of judicial control over administration ?

Judicial control over administration refers to the authority of the judiciary to review and scrutinize administrative actions, decisions, and policies to ensure their legality, fairness, and adherence to constitutional principles. While judicial control serves as a crucial mechanism for upholding the rule of law and protecting citizens' rights, it also has certain limitations that can affect its effectiveness and impact. Some of the key limitations of judicial control over administration are as follows:

1. Limited Institutional Capacity:
   The judiciary may face challenges in terms of limited resources, expertise, and institutional capacity to effectively review and adjudicate complex administrative matters. The sheer volume of cases, coupled with the technical nature of administrative law, can strain the capacity of courts to provide timely and thorough scrutiny of administrative actions.

2. Lack of Access to Information:
   Judicial control may be hindered by the lack of access to relevant information and evidence necessary to evaluate the legality and rationality of administrative decisions. Administrative agencies often possess specialized knowledge and expertise, making it challenging for courts to fully grasp the intricacies of administrative processes and decision-making.

3. Judicial Restraint in Policy Matters:
   Courts generally exercise restraint when it comes to reviewing administrative policies and policy choices made by elected representatives. While courts may intervene to ensure that policies comply with constitutional principles and fundamental rights, they are hesitant to substitute their judgment for that of the executive or legislative branches in matters of policy formulation.

4. Doctrine of Separation of Powers:
   Judicial control must navigate the delicate balance of power between the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches of government. The doctrine of separation of powers mandates that each branch exercises distinct functions, and courts must be cautious not to overstep their constitutional mandate by encroaching upon the domain of the executive or legislative branches.

5. Limited Remedies:
   Even when courts find administrative actions to be unlawful or unconstitutional, their ability to provide effective remedies may be constrained. In some cases, courts may only have the power to declare administrative actions null and void, without the authority to provide comprehensive relief or enforce compliance with their decisions.

6. Delay in Adjudication:
   Legal proceedings involving judicial review of administrative actions can be time-consuming, resulting in delays in the resolution of disputes and redressal of grievances. Lengthy litigation processes may undermine the efficacy of judicial control, especially in cases where urgent intervention is required to prevent irreparable harm or injustice.

Despite these limitations, judicial control over administration remains an essential aspect of constitutional governance, providing a check on executive power, safeguarding individual rights, and ensuring accountability and transparency in administrative decision-making. Efforts to address these limitations, such as enhancing judicial capacity, promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and fostering cooperation between the judiciary and administrative agencies, can contribute to a more effective system of checks and balances in governance.