


































Economics, Law and Policy 
ISSN 2576-2060 (Print) ISSN 2576-2052 (Online) 

Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp 

172 
 

Original Paper 

Analysis of the Review Criteria for Obviously Improper 

Administrative Acts 

Zhenyang Ren
1
 

1
 School of Marine Law and Humanities, Dalian Ocean University, Dalian, China 

 

Received: September 10, 2025  Accepted: September 26, 2025 Online Published: September 28, 2025 

doi:10.22158/elp.v8n2p172               URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elp.v8n2p172 

 

Abstract 

Due to the expansion of the power of administrative organs, their discretionary power has also 

increased. This phenomenon has led to frequent abuse of power by administrative organs and unfair 

handling of cases, and the frequency of such situations is still rising, showing a trend of getting worse 

and worse. This not only seriously infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of the administrative 

counterparts, but also greatly undermines the credibility of administrative organs, bringing extremely 

adverse effects to the entire administrative management system. “Manifestly improper” as a means in 

judicial review, its core goal is to ensure that the administrative acts of administrative organs are both 

reasonable and legal. The current Administrative Litigation Law together with its judicial 

interpretations have not provided a clear definition of what constitutes an “manifestly improper” 

administrative act. This article aims to establish a set of scientific and reasonable judicial review 

standards to accurately identify and effectively regulate.  

Keywords 

Manifestly Improper, Judicial Review Standard, Administrative Discretion 

 

1. Introduction 

In modern rule-of-law society, the power of administrative organs is constantly expanding, and 

discretionary power is also increasing accordingly. However, this expansion of power has brought 

about problems such as abuse of power by administrative organs and unfair handling of cases, which 

seriously infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of administrative counterparts and undermines 

the credibility of administrative organs. To address this issue, “manifestly improper” has been 

introduced as an important means of judicial review, with its core goal being to ensure the rationality 

and legality of administrative acts. However, the current Administrative Litigation Law and its judicial 

interpretations still have an unclear definition of 'manifestly improper’ administrative acts, leading to 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

173 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

many controversies and uncertainties in judicial practice. This affects the quality and efficiency of 

judicial review and also brings difficulties to the protection of the rights and interests of administrative 

counterparts. Therefore, this article focuses on the review standards for “manifestly improper” 

administrative acts, aiming to accurately define its concept and improve the judicial review standards. 

Starting from the concept and legal basis of “manifestly improper” administrative acts, it analyzes its 

review standards, existing problems, and proposes improvement paths. By establishing a scientific and 

reasonable review standard, the article expects to effectively curb unreasonable administrative acts, 

ensure that administrative organs exercise their discretionary power fairly, provide clear guidance for 

judicial organs, improve the quality of judicial review, protect the rights and interests of administrative 

counterparts, and promote the construction of a rule-of-law society. 

 

2. The Concept and Legal Basis of Manifestly Unlawful Administrative Acts 

An obviously improper administrative act refers to an administrative act by an administrative organ that 

clearly exceeds the statutory authority, has unclear factual determination, violates the principle of 

proportionality, and violates the due process. Professor Jiang Ming’an defines “obviously improper” 

administrative acts as administrative acts made by administrative organs that are obviously 

unreasonable and unjust, which can be identified by any person with general legal awareness and moral 

standards. Zhou Youyong believes that the main characteristics of “obviously improper” administrative 

acts are that although the administrative acts implemented by administrative organs and their staff do 

not violate the prohibitive provisions of laws, they are obviously unreasonable or do not meet the 

requirements of justice. Cao Sheng holds that the criteria for determining “obviously improper” should 

be determined with reference to “abuse of power” and “manifest injustice”. It is not only necessary to 

conform to the textual provisions of laws but also to conform to the principles and spirit of laws. It 

should not only have no obvious illegality but also no hidden illegality (Shi, B., & Cao, S., 2016, pp. 

24-28). 

In China’s legal system, the legal basis for the concept of “manifestly improper” mainly comes from 

the following provisions of the Administrative Litigation Law and the Administrative Reconsideration 

Law: Article 70(6) of the Administrative Litigation Law stipulates that when people’s courts review 

administrative acts, if they find that such an act is manifestly improper, they have the authority to 

declare the administrative act invalid or partially invalid, and may require the administrative organ to 

make a new decision. Article 28(1)(3) of the Administrative Reconsideration Law explicitly states that 

during the reconsideration process, if the administrative reconsideration organ determines that a 

specific administrative act is “manifestly improper”, it has the authority to revoke, amend, or declare 

such an act invalid. 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

174 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3. Review Standards for Manifestly Improper Administrative Acts 

3.1 Principle of Proportionality  

The principle of proportionality holds an important position in the constitutions and laws of many 

countries. In China, although the legal provisions do not directly mention the principle of 

proportionality, this principle is reflected in the Administrative Litigation Law and related judicial 

interpretations. It requires courts, when reviewing administrative acts, to assess whether such acts 

comply with the principle of proportionality. Generally speaking, the basis for courts to determine a 

violation of the principle of proportionality is usually that the handling result does not conform to the 

principle of proportionality between offense and penalty, causing excessive damage or adverse effects, 

the penalty amount and degree being disproportionately heavy, and no choice of the most favorable 

way for the party (Liu, Q., 2019, pp. 100-101). 

3.2 Principle of Due Process 

As the cornerstone of a rule-of-law society, the principle of due process originated from the natural 

justice principle in the United Kingdom. With the continuous deepening of China’s rule-of-law 

construction, the principle of due process has been adopted by an increasing number of laws and is 

reflected in practice. This principle requires administrative organs to disclose relevant information 

when making decisions, including the basis, process, and results of the decision. The improvement of 

transparency not only helps to enhance the public’s trust in administrative actions but also effectively 

prevents corruption and improper conduct. Therefore, the design of administrative procedures should 

pursue efficiency while also considering convenience for the people. 

 

4. Problems with the Review Criteria 

4.1 Scope of Application Is Not Clear 

Within the framework of legal regulation, using the standard of manifestly inappropriate as a criterion 

for evaluating administrative actions is a moderate way to restrict the power of administrative agencies. 

This approach is more lenient and tolerant than other stricter and more adversarial standards, which can 

reduce direct conflicts with the administrative department and promote a more friendly relationship 

between the administrative and judicial departments. It encourages more dialogue and cooperation, 

which is beneficial for resolving administrative disputes. Judges adopt the standard of manifestly 

inappropriate to review and modify administrative decisions when resolving disputes in order to respect 

the authority of the administrative department. Compared with standards focusing on insufficient 

evidence, incorrect application of law, or procedural errors, this term is more diplomatic, less 

confrontational, and more acceptable to administrative entities. Judges tend to adopt this standard (Yu, 

L. Y., 2022, pp. 153-154). 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

175 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4.2 Criteria for Judgment Are Not Unified 

So far, the academic and practical circles have not reached a consensus on the definition of obviously 

improper standards. In judicial practice, when judges assess whether an administrative act constitutes 

obvious impropriety, they usually take into account various factors comprehensively. These factors 

include, but are not limited to, the accuracy of factual determination, the correctness of legal 

application, the compliance of procedures, and the rationality of administrative discretion. For example, 

in terms of factual determination, judges will check whether the administrative organ made a decision 

based on sufficient and reliable evidence, and whether such evidence is sufficient to support its 

conclusion. If the administrative organ ignores key evidence or misinterprets the evidence, this may be 

considered as obvious impropriety. In terms of legal application, judges will evaluate whether the 

administrative organ correctly understands and applies the relevant legal provisions. If the 

administrative organ’s legal interpretation is contrary to the legislative spirit or judicial interpretation, 

or if its way of applying the law leads to an unreasonable result, this may also be deemed as obvious 

impropriety (Huang, X. J., 2023, pp. 101-102). 

 

5. Improvement Path of Review Standards 

5.1 Define the Scope of Application 

The most important thing in defining the scope of application is to distinguish between clearly 

improper and mainly insufficient evidence. Define the boundary between manifestly inappropriate and 

insufficient principal evidence. This can be distinguished based on several key points. First, the 

sufficiency of evidence is an important consideration. Insufficient principal evidence refers to the 

situation where the evidence relied upon by the administrative organ when making an administrative 

decision is insufficient to effectively support the facts on which the decision is based. If the factual 

determination is vague or erroneous due to the lack of key evidence, this constitutes insufficient 

principal evidence. The core of this standard lies in ensuring the accuracy of factual determination, 

requiring that the collection, preservation, and adoption of evidence must strictly follow the explicit 

legal provisions to maintain its integrity and legality. In contrast, manifestly inappropriate not only 

involves issues of evidence sufficiency but also extends to broader rationality issues such as whether 

the administrative organ maintains impartiality when performing its duties, whether it has fully 

considered all relevant factors, and whether the means taken are in line with the principle of 

proportionality. Even if the evidence is sufficient, if the administrative act has obvious irrationality or 

unfairness in other aspects, it may still be deemed manifestly inappropriate. 

Secondly, legal basis and judgment criteria are also key to distinguishing between the two. When the 

law’s provisions on legislative intent are not clear, the requirement of insufficient principal evidence 

necessitates that administrative organs conduct a comprehensive assessment based on the original 

intention, background, overall spirit of the law, and the connection between its articles. If there is a 

mistake in this assessment process leading to an error in factual determination, such an error should be 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

176 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

classified as insufficient principal evidence. On the other hand, manifest impropriety involves 

discretion regarding legal requirements, including whether it violates the principle of proportionality, 

the principle of equality, and administrative discretion benchmarks, etc. If the administrative organ’s 

discretionary act violates these principles, even if the factual determination itself is correct, it may still 

be deemed manifestly improper. Through these distinctions, the boundaries between manifest 

impropriety and insufficient principal evidence can be more clearly understood, thereby enabling more 

accurate application of relevant standards in judicial practice. Such clear distinction helps improve the 

accuracy of judicial review and ensures the legality and rationality of administrative acts (He, H. B., 

2016, pp. 76-77). 

5.2 Use Basic Principles as a Unified Standard for Judgment 

When establishing the review standard for whether an administrative act constitutes “manifestly 

improper”, the article argues that a series of basic principles should be used as the core basis, which is 

consistent with the mainstream view in academia. Applying these basic principles to the review process 

requires the following steps: First, we must clarify the basic principles, namely the principle of lawful 

administration and the principle of reasonable administration, which form the cornerstone of the review. 

The principle of lawful administration requires that administrative acts must be based on explicit 

authorization by law and strictly comply with legal requirements. The principle of reasonable 

administration, on the other hand, requires that administrative acts within the scope of discretionary 

power should be reasonable and fair. The principle of reasonable administration can be further 

subdivided into the proportionality principle, the equality principle, and the principle of due process, 

which provide clear operational standards for judging whether an administrative act is “manifestly 

improper”. Second, there is the issue of applying these principles. The proportionality principle is used 

to evaluate the rationality between administrative means and purposes, involving three levels: the 

legitimacy of the purpose, the appropriateness of the means, and the principle of minimizing harm. 

Courts need to assess whether the measures taken by the administrative organ are consistent with the 

legal purpose and legislative spirit, whether they are necessary to achieve the goal, and whether the 

path with the least damage to the parties’ rights and interests has been selected. At the same time, the 

application of the fairness principle ensures the fairness and impartiality of administrative acts, 

requiring courts to check whether the administrative organ has excluded irrelevant factors and 

maintained consistent treatment standards in similar or identical situations. Finally, by combining the 

proportionality principle and the fairness principle, a comprehensive review of the reasonableness of 

administrative acts is conducted. This division of labor and cooperation in the evaluation system not 

only enhances the targeting and operability of the evaluation standards but also improves the accuracy 

and fairness of the evaluation process, thereby ensuring that the legality and reasonableness of 

administrative acts are effectively reviewed and safeguarded (Liu, B. J., 2023, pp. 85-86). 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 8, No. 2, 2025 

177 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

6. Discussion 

Since the revision of the Administrative Litigation Law, the expansion of administrative organ powers 

has become an inevitable trend. Faced with this change, administrative organs must strictly control the 

scale when exercising administrative powers and prudently exercise their discretionary powers. At the 

same time, judicial organs, when applying the legal standard of “manifestly improper” in the 

adjudication process, must conduct sufficient argumentation and reasonable interpretation to ensure 

that the legitimate rights and interests of the administrative counterparts are properly protected. Such 

cautious attitude and rigorous application of law are crucial for maintaining the fairness and authority 

of the law. 

 

References 

He, H. B. (2016). On the Obvious Impropriety of Administrative Acts. Law Studies, 38(03), 76-77. 

Huang, X. J. (2023). Administrative Acts Clearly Improper in Administrative Litigation: Legality 

Review or Rationality Review and How to Conduct the Review. Journal of Suzhou University 

(Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 44(02), 101-102. 

Liu, B. J. (2023). Judicial Review of Administrative Discretionary Acts by Public Security Authorities. 

Learning and Exploration, 2023(01), 85-86. 

Liu, Q. (2019). Application of the Proportionality Principle in Administrative Judgments. China Legal 

Science, 2019(03), 100-101. 

Shi, B., & Cao, S. (2016). Review and Judgment of “Obvious Impropriety” of Administrative Acts in 

the New Administrative Litigation Law. Legal Application, 2016(08), 24-28. 

Yu, L. Y. (2022). On the Review of Rationality in Administrative Litigation. Comparative Law Studies, 

2022(01), 153-154. 

 

 

 


