Comparative administrative law: India and EU
✅ Comparative Administrative Law: India and European Union
I. Introduction
Administrative Law governs the actions of public authorities and ensures they act within the bounds of law, respect fundamental rights, and provide mechanisms for redress.
Both India and the EU have evolved robust systems of administrative law, but their foundations and structures differ due to:
India's common law tradition and written Constitution
EU's supranational legal framework involving multiple member states
II. Common Principles in India and EU
| Principle | India | EU |
|---|---|---|
| Rule of Law | Constitutionally guaranteed (Art. 14, 21) | A general principle of EU law |
| Natural Justice | Audi alteram partem, Nemo judex in causa sua | Codified under EU Charter (Art. 41) |
| Judicial Review | Under Articles 32 and 226 | Under Article 263 (TFEU) in CJEU |
| Proportionality | Implied through case law | Core principle in all EU administrative actions |
| Reasoned Decisions | Required in quasi-judicial orders | Codified under Article 296 TFEU |
| Fundamental Rights | Part III of Constitution | EU Charter of Fundamental Rights |
III. Key Case Laws – Explained
🇮🇳 1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969 AIR 150)
Facts:
Selection for Indian Forest Service was made by a board where one member was also a candidate.
Held:
The Court held that even administrative actions must be fair and unbiased.
Natural justice principles apply to all decision-making authorities.
Significance (India):
Narrowed the gap between administrative and quasi-judicial functions.
Introduced judicial review over administrative discretion.
Comparative Relevance (EU):
Similar to the right to impartiality under Article 41 of EU Charter.
🇮🇳 2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597)
Facts:
Her passport was impounded without giving her a hearing.
Held:
The procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable under Article 21.
Natural justice is implicit in every administrative action that affects rights.
Significance (India):
Expanded due process in administrative decisions.
Comparative Relevance (EU):
Reflects the EU requirement of prior hearing and reasoned decisions under Article 41 and 296 TFEU.
🇪🇺 3. Transocean Marine Paint v. Commission (Case 17/74, ECJ)
Facts:
The European Commission refused to grant an exemption to a company without proper explanation or opportunity to be heard.
Held:
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that even in administrative decisions, the right to be heard and a reasoned decision is mandatory.
Significance (EU):
Reinforced Article 41 – right to good administration, including:
Right to be heard
Right to access one's file
Obligation to give reasons
Comparative Relevance (India):
Similar to Maneka Gandhi where administrative actions require procedural fairness.
🇪🇺 4. Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights – 2011)
Facts:
Al-Jedda was detained in Iraq by British forces without charge, allegedly based on UN Security Council resolutions.
Held:
The ECtHR held that administrative detention violated Article 5 (Right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Significance (EU/Europe):
Emphasized that executive power, even in complex international settings, must comply with fundamental rights.
Comparative Relevance (India):
Closely related to Indian cases on preventive detention like A.K. Gopalan and ADM Jabalpur (both diluted later).
🇪🇺 5. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v. European Parliament and Council (Case T-18/10, GC)
Facts:
NGOs challenged an EU regulation banning seal products, claiming lack of standing and violation of procedural rights.
Held:
The General Court (EU) ruled that procedural safeguards apply to regulations affecting private parties.
Judicial review is available even for legislative-type administrative acts when fundamental rights are at stake.
Significance (EU):
Reiterated access to justice and procedural fairness in EU administrative law.
Comparative Relevance (India):
India recognizes standing and public interest litigation (PIL), allowing broader judicial review.
✅ Key Differences between India and EU
| Aspect | India | European Union |
|---|---|---|
| Legal System | Common law + Constitution | Supranational civil law + treaties |
| Source of Administrative Law | Constitution + Judicial precedents + Statutes | Treaties (TFEU), EU Charter, ECJ jurisprudence |
| Right to be Heard | Implied in Art. 14 and 21 | Explicit under Article 41 of EU Charter |
| Proportionality | Implied via judicial interpretation | Explicit and fundamental principle |
| Access to Judicial Review | Articles 32 & 226 | Article 263 (CJEU) + National courts |
| Transparency Requirements | Limited statutory obligations | Strong under Article 42 (right of access to documents) |
✅ Conclusion
India and the European Union both uphold key principles of administrative law such as:
Rule of law
Natural justice
Judicial review
Proportionality and transparency
However, the EU has codified many of these rights explicitly, especially in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and TFEU, while India relies more on constitutional interpretation and judicial activism.
Despite different frameworks, both systems aim to ensure that administrative authorities:
Act fairly
Do not abuse power
Are accountable to courts
RELATED Blog
0 comments