Administrative law and SHRC’s role
Administrative Law: Overview
Administrative law governs the activities of government agencies. It ensures that these agencies act fairly, follow procedures, and do not abuse their power. It bridges the gap between law and administration by regulating government actions and protecting citizens from arbitrary or unfair administrative decisions.
Key principles of administrative law include:
Legality: Government agencies must act within the powers granted by law.
Reasonableness: Administrative decisions should be rational and reasonable.
Fairness/Natural Justice: Individuals affected by decisions have the right to be heard (audi alteram partem) and must be given fair treatment.
Transparency and Accountability: Agencies should be transparent and accountable for their actions.
Role of State Human Rights Commissions (SHRC)
State Human Rights Commissions are statutory bodies established under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (India), to promote and protect human rights at the state level. Their key functions include:
Investigating complaints of human rights violations.
Inspecting institutions like jails or mental hospitals.
Promoting human rights awareness through education and campaigns.
Recommending remedial actions and policy changes to the government.
Advising on the protection and promotion of human rights.
SHRCs act as watchdogs for human rights violations, especially those involving state agencies or officials.
Important Case Laws Explaining Administrative Law & SHRC’s Role
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Significance: Expanded the scope of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and emphasized the principle of reasonableness in administrative actions.
Facts: The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without providing reasons.
Issue: Whether the government’s action violated the principles of natural justice and reasonableness.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that any procedure depriving a person of liberty must be “just, fair, and reasonable.” The Court expanded the right to personal liberty to include the right to be heard and ruled against arbitrary administrative action.
Impact: This case reinforced fairness and reasonableness as pillars of administrative law and stressed that administrative decisions cannot be arbitrary or unfair.
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Significance: Reinforced the doctrine of natural justice in administrative decisions.
Facts: Members of a selection committee appointed by the government were found to have a vested interest in the outcome of the selection process.
Issue: Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the appointment process.
Judgment: The Supreme Court declared the selection process invalid as the committee members were biased and did not provide a fair hearing to the candidates.
Impact: The case established that even administrative bodies must adhere to natural justice, especially in quasi-judicial matters.
3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Significance: Protection of human rights in cases of custodial arrests and detention.
Facts: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of custodial torture and deaths in police custody.
Judgment: The Court laid down guidelines to be followed during arrest and detention to prevent human rights violations, including the right to inform a relative, medical examination, and police accountability.
Impact: This judgment reinforced the role of courts and commissions like SHRCs in protecting human rights and curbing abuse by administrative agencies.
4. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
Significance: Compensation for human rights violations by state authorities.
Facts: The petitioner’s son died in police custody due to alleged custodial torture.
Issue: Whether the state is liable to compensate for human rights violations.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the state is liable to pay compensation for violation of fundamental rights and treated compensation as a remedy for such violations.
Impact: This case emphasized the responsibility of the state and underscored the preventive and remedial role of SHRCs in addressing human rights violations.
5. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997)
Significance: Reinforced the judiciary’s role in protecting human rights and administrative fairness.
Facts: The PUCL challenged the detention of persons without trial under preventive detention laws.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that administrative detention must be subject to judicial review and that detentions must follow due process.
Impact: Strengthened the doctrine that administrative powers are subject to constitutional safeguards and judicial scrutiny, a principle that SHRCs uphold in their monitoring and intervention.
6. Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981)
Significance: Role of SHRC and NHRC in preventing custodial torture.
Facts: The petitioner alleged custodial torture by police officials.
Judgment: The Court recognized the importance of SHRC and NHRC in investigating and recommending action against custodial abuse.
Impact: Affirmed the statutory role of human rights commissions as watchdogs for human rights violations by administrative authorities.
Summary
Administrative law ensures that government actions are lawful, reasonable, and fair.
SHRCs are key institutions to protect citizens against violations by administrative agencies and to promote human rights.
Case laws like Maneka Gandhi, A.K. Kraipak, D.K. Basu, Nilabati Behera, and PUCL form the backbone of judicial enforcement of administrative fairness and human rights.
These cases highlight the judiciary's and SHRCs' role in safeguarding fundamental rights against arbitrary administrative action and abuse of power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments