Cassation Court upholds judicial oversight over admin decisions
KUWAIT CITY, April 25: In a significant judicial verdict, the Administrative Court of Cassation has affirmed that administrative decisions issued by government agencies cannot be immunized from judicial oversight, nor can the decision to refrain from appealing them be justified, as such actions raise suspicions about the constitutionality of laws establishing such immunization or exemption from judicial review, reports AlJarida daily.
In a ruling issued by Counselor Mohamed Al-Rifai, the court addressed the government’s defense concerning the finality of decisions made by medical committees responsible for assessing individuals with special needs, stating that these decisions are subject to judicial oversight and are appealable.
The court clarified that the term “persons with disabilities” as mentioned in the law encompasses individuals with long-term disabilities, whether physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory, which may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.
Specifically, the court determined that the visually impaired are considered persons with special needs. It emphasized that individuals with permanent, complete, or partial impairments that affect their physical, mental, or sensory abilities, thereby hindering their full participation in society, are considered disabled.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the inadequacy of delegating authority solely to specialized medical committees to determine disability status without any opportunity for judicial review. It argued that such an approach undermines the constitutional right to litigation guaranteed by Article 166, depriving individuals of the opportunity to challenge administrative decisions that may affect their rights.
The court underscored the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 29 of the Constitution, emphasizing that depriving certain groups of their right to litigation violates this principle. It reiterated that the judiciary’s role in adjudicating disputes is essential for upholding justice and ensuring equal protection of rights for all individuals.
Moreover, the court rejected the notion of absolute authority vested in medical committees, emphasizing the need for judicial oversight to prevent abuses of power and ensure adherence to legal principles. It stressed that the establishment of an administrative judiciary specialized in adjudicating administrative disputes, as outlined in Article 169 of the Constitution, is crucial for upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights.