Administrative Law

• Sir Ivor Jennings’ Definition:

  Administrative law is "the law relating to the administration. It determines the organization, powers, and duties of administrative authorities.

• Professor Wade:

  The law that governs the control of governmental power, and its purpose is to protect citizens from abuse of that power by keeping it within legal bounds.

• Definition of Administrative Law:

  Administrative law is a branch of public law that regulates the activities of government agencies and authorities. It governs the organization, powers, duties, and functions of administrative authorities, ensuring they act within their legal limits. It also provides mechanisms for controlling and reviewing their decisions, especially to prevent misuse or abuse of power. Administrative law aims to protect citizens' rights by ensuring fair procedures and accountability in government actions.

• Control Over Government Power: Administrative law is a branch of law that controls how the government and its agencies use their powers. It ensures they don't misuse or overstep their authority.
• Focus on Fairness: The core idea is to make sure that actions by the government are fair, just, and based on the rule of law.
• Ensuring Rule of Law: Administrative law makes sure that every decision or action taken by government bodies is within the boundaries set by the law.
• Protects Citizens: It offers protection to citizens against any abuse of power by the government, making sure their rights are not violated.
• Deals with Public Services: Administrative law also handles matters related to government services like public housing, healthcare, and social security.
• Prevents Arbitrary Actions: It prevents government agencies from taking arbitrary actions that might harm individuals or groups without proper reason.
• Promotes Accountability: The law encourages government officials to act responsibly and be accountable for their actions.

• Part of Public Law: Administrative law is a branch of public law that deals with the relationship between citizens and government bodies.
• Focus on Regulation: It regulates the powers, duties, and functions of government authorities to ensure they act within their limits.
• Prevents Abuse of Power: The main aim is to stop the misuse of government power and protect citizens from unfair decisions.
• Ensures Legal Procedures: It makes sure that government bodies follow legal procedures when making decisions or taking actions.
• Deals with Discretionary Powers: Administrative law also manages how government officials use their discretion, ensuring it's done fairly and without bias.
• Dynamic in Nature: The law is flexible and constantly evolving to adapt to new changes in society and government structures.
• Connected to Welfare: Administrative law supports the welfare state by ensuring that the government provides services like healthcare, education, and social security to citizens fairly.

• Regulation of Government Power: It covers how government bodies use their powers, ensuring they act lawfully and within limits.
• Control of Administrative Actions: Administrative law oversees the decisions and actions of government agencies to prevent abuse.
• Dispute Resolution: It provides mechanisms for resolving disputes between citizens and government authorities.
• Protection of Citizens’ Rights: The law ensures that citizens' rights are protected from unfair treatment by government bodies.
• Administrative Tribunals: It includes the creation and functioning of tribunals that handle specific issues like tax disputes, labor issues, etc.
• Judicial Review: Administrative law allows courts to review government actions to check for legality and fairness.
• Rule-Making by Authorities: It covers how government bodies create rules and regulations that affect the public.

• The Rule of Law: Refers to the idea that all individuals, including those in power, are subject to the law, ensuring fairness and justice.
• Origin: The concept originated from Sir Edward Coke and was discussed by ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle.
  • Plato: Believed that when the law governs, the state prospers.
  • Aristotle: Supported the idea that law should be the ultimate authority.
• The phrase “Rule of Law” comes from the French term "la principe de legalite", meaning government by law, not by individuals. It is a key principle in the constitutions of England, the USA, and India.

• The law rules over everyone, including those who enforce it.
• No one can be punished without breaking the law.
• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution reflects this by protecting life and personal liberty, except by legal process.
• Cases:
  • Som Raj v. State of Haryana (1990): Asserted that arbitrariness must be excluded in governance.
  • Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): Justice Bhagwati emphasized that the rule of law prevents arbitrariness.

• Every person, regardless of rank, is subject to the same laws and courts.
• Articles 14, 15, 16 of the Indian Constitution embody this principle of equality.

• Dicey said that in the UK, people’s rights are determined by court rulings, not a written constitution.
• In India, this concept does not apply since the Constitution is the supreme law.

• Articles 14, 15, 16, 23, 32, and 226 reflect the first two principles of Dicey's rule of law.
• Unlike the UK, in India, the Constitution is the supreme authority.
• The Preamble's ideals of justice, liberty, and equality reflect the rule of law.

The Supreme Court declared that the Rule of Law is a basic structure of the Indian Constitution and cannot be amended.

The Supreme Court emphasized that it’s the duty of the state to protect the law and the Constitution, preventing any violent act that disrupts the rule of law.

• The Doctrine of Separation of Powers was first mentioned by Aristotle and Plato.
• Montesquieu (French philosopher) made the doctrine more organized in his book "The Spirit of Laws".
  • One person or body should not exercise more than one power.
• Lord Acton - Every Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
• Aristotle - Developed the Concept.

• The Separation of Powers means that the powers of government are divided into three branches:
  • Legislature: Makes laws.
  • Executive: Implements laws.
  • Judiciary: Interprets laws.
• Trias Politica: Each branch should have separate functions and should not interfere with each other.
• Checks and Balances: Each branch has ways to limit the powers of the others to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.

• The Constitution of India does not strictly follow the doctrine of separation of powers, but it does contain elements of it:
  • Article 53(1): The executive powers are vested in the President at the center and the Governor at the state level (Article 154(1)).
  • Article 50: Ensures the independence of the judiciary.
  • Article 121 and 211: Judicial conduct cannot be discussed in Parliament or State Legislatures.
• While the Constitution includes some elements of separation, it also allows for functional overlap between branches:
  • The President and Governor can make ordinances (laws) under Articles 123 and 213.
  • The President can disqualify MPs (Article 103) and pardon criminals (Article 72).
  • The Supreme Court and High Court judges are appointed by the President, and the Parliament can remove them.

• Ensures that no single branch has too much power.
• Judicial Review (Article 13): Gives courts the power to review and strike down laws that violate fundamental rights.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Supreme Court ruled that amendments changing the basic structure of the Constitution are invalid.
• Delegated Legislation: The executive can create laws in certain areas delegated by the legislature.
• Administrative Tribunals: Perform judicial functions, which shows how the separation is not always strict.

• Prevents Tyranny: No one branch has absolute control, preventing misuse of power.
• Checks and Balances: Keeps each branch in check, ensuring accountability.
• Efficiency: Clear roles allow each branch to focus on its specific function.

• Overlap of Functions: In India, there is overlap between the powers of the branches, which can lead to confusion.
• Slower Decision-Making: Since each branch needs to operate independently, decision-making can sometimes be slow.
• Conflict of Powers: Disagreements between the branches can lead to conflicts that slow down governance.

First case to recognize the separation of powers in India.

Held that separation of powers is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

In summary, the Doctrine of Separation of Powers helps in distributing governmental power across different branches, ensuring no one has absolute control. In India, the doctrine is followed but with many exceptions, which allow for functional overlap between branches, creating a unique system.

• Administrative Law and Droit Administratif both deal with the rules governing government agencies, but they are used in different legal systems.
  • Administrative Law: The term used in English-speaking countries (like the UK, US, and India).
  • Droit Administratif: The term used in France.

• Droit Administratif is the system of law in France that governs:
  • How the government’s administrative agencies are structured.
  • The powers those agencies have.
  • How these agencies interact with citizens.
• Difference from Other Laws: Unlike laws passed by Parliament, Droit Administratif involves rules created by administrative courts.
• Founder: Napoleon Bonaparte established Droit Administratif and created the Conseil d'État (Council of State), which is the highest administrative court in France. It took over administrative legal matters from regular courts.

• Direct Action by Administration: The administration can act independently and impose decisions on individuals without needing approval from other branches.
• Bound by Law: Administrative powers must be exercised within legal limits to protect individual freedoms.
• Independent Review: Specialized administrative courts handle disputes involving government agencies to ensure unbiased review.

• The Conseil d'État is the highest administrative court in France. It is made up of highly qualified civil servants.
• Role: It handles cases like:
  • Claims for damages caused by government employees.
  • Tax disputes, pension issues, and election disputes.
  • Complaints by civil servants against the state.
• The Conseil d'État can intervene in administrative actions if they involve:
  • Errors of law.
  • Lack of jurisdiction.
  • Procedural mistakes.
  • Misuse of power.

• The French system is admired for its flexibility, clear remedies, and specialized procedures.
• Prof. Dicey's Criticism: A British jurist, Dicey criticized it, believing the French system gave the government and its officials special privileges not available to ordinary citizens, which contradicted the rule of law.
  • Dicey thought that in France, the government is not held accountable by regular courts, which could be unfair.
  • Later Views: Dicey eventually softened his criticism, recognizing the strengths of the French system but maintaining that the English system, with its focus on public opinion, Parliament, and civil service discipline, was more balanced.

• Delegated Legislation is the process where the legislature gives some of its powers to the executive or other agencies to create detailed rules and regulations.
• According to Salmond, it is legislation made by an authority other than the sovereign, which depends on the supreme authority for its existence.
• Types of delegated legislation: Orders, bye-laws, regulations, rules, etc., made by authorities like government ministries.

• Pressure on Parliament: Parliament is too busy to handle all the details of every law.
• Technical Expertise: Some laws require technical knowledge that parliament members may not have.
• Flexibility: Delegated legislation allows quick adjustments to laws.
• Experimentation: It allows for testing new ideas and making changes based on experience.
• Emergency Situations: During emergencies, quick decisions are needed, and delegated legislation helps to act swiftly.
• Complex Administration: Modern governments have many functions, so delegated legislation is necessary to handle these complexities.

• It is necessary because it provides flexibility and speed, but it can also lead to misuse of power if not controlled properly.
• In Raj Narain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, the Supreme Court upheld that delegation is necessary, but there must be controls to avoid despotism.

• Parliamentary Control:
  • Parliament remains the supreme authority and can review, modify, or cancel delegated legislation.
  • Stages of control:
    • Initial Stage: Parliament decides how much power to delegate.
    • Second Stage: Parliament reviews the rules and regulations created under delegation.
      • Simple Laying: Rules come into effect when placed before Parliament.
      • Negative Laying: Rules take effect but can be annulled by Parliament.
      • Affirmative Laying: Rules do not take effect until approved by Parliament.
• Procedural Control:
  • The delegated authority must follow the procedures laid out in the parent act (the main law).
  • Key procedures include:
    • Pre-publication of rules to allow feedback.
    • Publication of the final rules for public knowledge.
    • Laying of rules before Parliament.
• Judicial Control:
  • Courts review delegated legislation to ensure it complies with the Constitution and the parent act.
  • Judicial review ensures that the rules are not ultra vires (beyond the legal authority) or violative of fundamental rights.
  • Cases illustrating judicial control:
    • Kruse v. Johnson (1898): A by-law can be invalidated if it is unjust, unreasonable, or made in bad faith.
    • In Re Delhi Laws Act (1951): The legislature cannot delegate essential functions, and excessive delegation can be struck down.
    • Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1951): Delegated legislation should not violate fundamental rights, like the right to freedom of profession.

• In India, delegated legislation is constitutional but subject to limitations:
  • Legislature must set guidelines for delegation, and excessive delegation can be struck down by courts.
  • Article 13 of the Constitution prevents any law from infringing on fundamental rights.
  • Parliamentary control is exercised through review mechanisms, though not always effective.

• This doctrine means “a delegate cannot further delegate.”
• In India, this doctrine is flexible. While Parliament can delegate powers, sub-delegation by rule-making authorities is restricted unless explicitly allowed.

• Saves Time: Parliament can focus on major issues while allowing the executive to handle details.
• Flexibility: Laws can be quickly updated or modified.
• Technical Expertise: Specialized agencies can make informed decisions on complex matters.
• Quick Response: Helps in emergencies when immediate action is needed.

• Misuse of Power: The executive may overstep its boundaries and make rules without sufficient oversight.
• Lack of Debate: Delegated laws often pass without much discussion in Parliament.
• Violation of Separation of Powers: When the executive makes laws, it blurs the line between lawmaking and law enforcement.
• Too Much Power to Executive: This can lead to an imbalance of power in favor of the executive.

• Raj Narain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee: Validated the necessity of delegation.
• Kruse v. Johnson (1898): Established that by-laws must be fair and reasonable.
• In Re Delhi Laws Act (1951): Clarified the scope of legislative duties and delegated legislation.
• Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1951): Held that delegated legislation should not infringe on fundamental rights.

In summary, delegated legislation is essential for modern governance but requires checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. Parliamentary, procedural, and judicial controls ensure that the delegation of power remains constitutional and justified.

What is a Quasi-Judicial Function?

A quasi-judicial function is performed by administrative bodies that resemble judicial functions but aren't fully judicial. It’s common in regulatory fields, resolving disputes like labor issues, licensing, and environmental regulations. These functions aim to ensure a fair process, similar to what happens in a courtroom but without all the formalities of a court.

Key Features of Quasi-Judicial Functions:

• Fact-Finding: Quasi-judicial bodies gather and assess evidence before making a decision.
• Holding Hearings: Sometimes, formal hearings take place where both sides present their case.
• Making Legal Conclusions: The gathered facts are used to make a legally sound decision.
• Exercising Discretion: Like judges, they have the discretion to decide what is fair and just.
• Binding Decisions: The decisions are usually legally binding on all parties involved.

Example from the Case Law: In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the court classified administrative functions into three types:

• Quasi-legislative
• Quasi-judicial
• Purely administrative

Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India:

• National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
• National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
• Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
• State Public Service Commissions
• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
• Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT)
• Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)

• Nature of Authority:
  • Judicial: Performed by courts and judges.
  • Quasi-Judicial: Performed by administrative or regulatory bodies.
• Jurisdiction:
  • Judicial: Courts have broad jurisdiction.
  • Quasi-Judicial: Limited jurisdiction for specific types of cases.
• Legal Expertise:
  • Judicial: Judges are legal experts.
  • Quasi-Judicial: Experts in specific fields (like tax, consumer law).
• Independence:
  • Judicial: Independent of other branches of government.
  • Quasi-Judicial: Often part of the executive branch, raising concerns about impartiality.
• Procedural Rules:
  • Judicial: Strict rules like CPC and CrPC apply.
  • Quasi-Judicial: Rules are flexible and not strictly followed.
• Precedents:
  • Judicial: Follows doctrines like stare decisis (precedent).
  • Quasi-Judicial: Precedents aren’t followed strictly.
• Finality of Decisions:
  • Judicial: Court decisions are usually final unless appealed.
  • Quasi-Judicial: Decisions can be reviewed or modified by the same agency.

• Specialized Bodies: Tribunals are designed to deal with specific disputes, such as labor, tax, or environmental issues.
• Expertise: They are made up of professionals with expertise in the relevant subject area.
• Limited Jurisdiction: Their authority is limited to specific types of disputes as outlined by law.
• Flexible Procedures: Tribunals follow less formal, flexible procedures compared to courts, making the process quicker and easier.
• Decision-Making: Tribunals give legally binding decisions based on their specific field of law.
• Specific Legal Framework: Tribunals operate under special laws that define their powers and procedures.
• Appeal Process: Tribunal decisions can be appealed, often through a judicial review, rather than a full retrial.
• Subject-Matter Expertise: Tribunal members have deep knowledge of the subject they handle, ensuring precise decisions.
• Limited Independence: Tribunals, being part of the administrative branch, are subject to judicial review and may lack the full independence of courts.
• Efficiency: Tribunals aim to resolve disputes efficiently and effectively.

In summary, quasi-judicial functions and administrative tribunals play a vital role in providing quick and specialized dispute resolution, particularly in areas requiring expertise and less formal procedures. These functions and bodies help alleviate the workload on traditional courts and offer an efficient alternative for citizens to seek justice. However, they must operate within legal constraints and remain subject to judicial review to prevent potential misuse of authority and ensure fairness.

• Creation:
  • Tribunals: Created by specific laws for specialized disputes.
  • Courts: Established under the Constitution or civil laws.
• Jurisdiction:
  • Tribunals: Limited to specific subjects (e.g., tax, labor).
  • Courts: Have broad jurisdiction covering various legal matters.
• Legal Expertise:
  • Tribunals: Members are experts in a specific field.
  • Courts: Judges are trained legal professionals.
• Independence:
  • Tribunals: Part of the administrative branch, which may raise concerns about their independence.
  • Courts: Independent of the government and ensure impartiality.
• Procedural Rules:
  • Tribunals: Flexible rules; CPC and CrPC are not strictly followed.
  • Courts: Formal and strict procedures like CPC and CrPC are followed.
• Procedure:
  • Tribunals: Less formal and quicker.
  • Courts: Formal and often more complex.
• Finality of Decisions:
  • Tribunals: Decisions may be reviewed or modified by the same body.
  • Courts: Decisions are final unless appealed.
• Appeals:
  • Tribunals: Limited appeal process, usually through judicial review.
  • Courts: Structured appeal process in a higher court.
• Party:
  • Tribunals: Can be a party to the dispute.
  • Courts: Judges are impartial and not part of the dispute.

• Specialization: Tribunals handle specific types of disputes with expert knowledge.
• Flexible Procedures: Tribunals follow simpler and more flexible rules, making the process faster.
• Cost-Effectiveness: Tribunals are often cheaper than court proceedings.
• Speedy Resolution: Cases are resolved faster than in traditional courts.
• Efficiency: Tribunals provide an effective dispute resolution system.
• Reduction of Court Backlogs: By handling specialized cases, tribunals reduce the workload of regular courts.
• Specific Legal Framework: Operate under laws tailored to their field, allowing more precise rulings.
• Decentralized Locations: Tribunals are often spread across various locations, making them more accessible.

• Lack of Independence: Tribunals are part of the administrative branch, making them less independent than courts.
• Inconsistent Expertise: The knowledge and quality of tribunal members may vary, leading to inconsistent decisions.
• Limited Review: Decisions may have restricted judicial review, limiting checks and balances.
• Legal Safeguards: Tribunal procedures might lack strong legal safeguards, resulting in unfair outcomes.
• Jurisdiction Overlap: Multiple tribunals may have overlapping authority, causing inefficiency.
• Low Public Awareness: Many people are unaware of tribunals, limiting access to justice.
• Delayed Appointments: Slow appointments can lead to case backlogs and delayed justice.
• Resource Limitations: Tribunals may lack necessary resources to function properly.
• Complex System: The tribunal system can be difficult for regular citizens to navigate.
• Conflict of Interest: Tribunal members may face conflicts of interest, affecting their impartiality.
• Limited Accountability: Holding tribunals accountable is challenging due to their administrative affiliation.

• Increasing Complexity: As society becomes more complex, specialized tribunals are needed to handle specific disputes.
• Speed and Efficiency: Tribunals provide quicker and more efficient resolutions compared to overburdened courts.
• Reducing Court Backlog: Tribunals help courts by handling specific areas, reducing the number of cases courts have to deal with.
• Specialization: Tribunals bring in subject matter experts, making the decision-making process more accurate.
• Flexibility: With less formal procedures, tribunals can adapt to specific needs and resolve disputes quickly.

Part XIV-A of the Constitution (Articles 323A & 323B) gives constitutional recognition to tribunals. These tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established to reduce the workload of courts and ensure faster dispute resolution.

• Key Purposes of Tribunals:
  • Reduce Court Workload: Tribunals help in handling cases that would otherwise burden the courts.
  • Speed Up Decisions: They aim for quicker decision-making.
  • Expert-Driven: Tribunals are manned by lawyers and experts specialized in specific fields.
  • Wide Jurisdiction: Tribunals deal with matters like environment, armed forces, taxes, and administrative issues based on natural justice rather than strict legal procedures (CPC and Evidence Act).
  • Quasi-Judicial Powers: Tribunals have some powers similar to civil courts, such as issuing summons and allowing witnesses to give evidence. Their decisions are legally binding, though appeals are allowed.

• Parliament can establish tribunals to resolve disputes regarding inter-state river water disputes.
• The Supreme Court or any other court cannot intervene in such disputes, as per parliamentary law.

• Article 323A: Allows Parliament to set up tribunals for public service matters only.
• Article 323B: Allows Parliament and state legislatures to set up tribunals for a variety of issues such as:
  • Taxation
  • Foreign Exchange (Import and export)
  • Industrial and Labor Disputes
  • Land Reforms
  • Urban Property Ceiling
  • Parliamentary and State Elections
  • Food Items
  • Rent and Tenancy Rights

• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1997): Judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be amended under Article 368.
• Madras Bar Association v. UOI (2021): The Supreme Court struck down parts of the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance, 2021, ensuring a minimum 5-year term for tribunal members.
• Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. UOI (2023): Article 323A does not prevent the Union Government from abolishing a State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

• Article 136: The Supreme Court has the power to grant special leave to appeal against decisions from any tribunal.
• Article 227: High Courts have supervisory authority over tribunals within their jurisdiction.