Comparative administrative law: India and USA
📘 Comparative Administrative Law: India vs USA
Administrative law in both India and the USA deals with regulation and control of administrative action—ensuring that public authorities act within their lawful powers, follow due process, and do not violate constitutional rights. However, there are notable differences in their frameworks, approaches, and institutional mechanisms.
📊 Comparison Table: India vs USA in Administrative Law
| Aspect | India | United States |
|---|---|---|
| Source of Administrative Law | Constitution of India, statutes (like Administrative Tribunals Act), judicial decisions | U.S. Constitution (esp. Due Process Clause), Administrative Procedure Act (APA), judicial precedents |
| Key Legislation | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; RTI Act, 2005; various sectoral laws | Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 (APA) – the central statute |
| Tribunals | Numerous statutory tribunals (e.g., NCLT, CAT, CCI) under Article 323A & 323B | Agencies like FCC, SEC, EPA function both as regulators and adjudicators |
| Judicial Review | Permitted under Articles 32, 136, 226, 227 | Review available under APA, and through constitutional challenges |
| Due Process | Substantive and procedural due process inferred under Article 21 | Strong emphasis on Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments |
| Separation of Powers | Flexible; executive can have adjudicatory powers via tribunals | Strict separation; administrative agencies often scrutinized for combining powers |
| Natural Justice | Strongly enforced through judicial precedent (audi alteram partem, nemo judex in causa sua) | Due process covers similar grounds; statutory hearing rights under APA |
🧑⚖️ Key Case Laws – Detailed Explanation
🇮🇳 1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262
Facts:
A selection committee for Indian Forest Service included a member who was himself a candidate. The appointment was challenged on grounds of bias.
Issue:
Could administrative action be challenged for violation of natural justice?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions was fading, and all actions affecting rights must follow principles of natural justice.
Significance:
Established that even administrative decisions are subject to fairness and bias tests.
Introduced judicial control over administrative discretion in India.
🇺🇸 2. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)
Facts:
A New York welfare recipient (Kelly) had his benefits terminated without a prior hearing. He sued, arguing it violated due process.
Issue:
Does the termination of welfare benefits require a prior hearing under the Due Process Clause?
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that entitlements like welfare benefits cannot be taken away without a fair hearing, including right to notice, legal representation, and cross-examination.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of procedural due process in U.S. administrative law.
Reinforced that state action affecting life or property must be preceded by fair procedures.
🇮🇳 3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded under the Passport Act without giving her reasons or a hearing.
Issue:
Did the administrative action of impounding the passport violate Article 21 (right to life and liberty)?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that Article 21 includes procedural due process, and any action affecting liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. Audi alteram partem (right to be heard) was held to be essential.
Significance:
Integrated due process into Indian constitutional law.
Blurred the distinction between administrative and judicial functions.
🇺🇸 4. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
Facts:
EPA issued regulations interpreting the Clean Air Act. The question was whether the Court should defer to EPA’s interpretation of the statute.
Held:
The U.S. Supreme Court laid down the "Chevron Deference" rule:
If the statute is clear, courts must enforce it as written.
If it is ambiguous, courts should defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation.
Significance:
Major decision on judicial deference to administrative agencies.
Showed agencies' power to interpret statutes in the U.S. system.
🇮🇳 5. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261
Facts:
Challenge was made to Articles 323A and 323B, which excluded the jurisdiction of High Courts over administrative tribunal decisions.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that tribunals are subject to judicial review under Articles 226 and 227. Parliament cannot exclude constitutional courts' power.
Significance:
Ensured judicial supremacy over administrative tribunals in India.
Balanced administrative convenience with constitutional accountability.
🔍 Key Doctrines in Comparison
| Doctrine | India | USA |
|---|---|---|
| Natural Justice | Central to all administrative actions (Kraipak, Maneka Gandhi) | Part of procedural due process (Goldberg v. Kelly) |
| Judicial Review | Always available under Articles 32, 226 | Statutory review under APA + constitutional review |
| Delegated Legislation | Permissible but not for essential functions | Permissible, but checked by non-delegation doctrine |
| Deference to Agencies | Limited (courts review legality and reasonableness) | Chevron Deference—courts defer to agency interpretations |
| Bias/Conflict of Interest | Strictly prohibited (Kraipak) | Also prohibited under due process protections |
📌 Conclusion
Both India and the USA have developed robust administrative law frameworks, though rooted in different constitutional traditions:
India follows a rights-based, constitutionally grounded approach, with strong influence from natural justice and judicial review.
The USA emphasizes statutory procedures, agency autonomy, and due process, with key doctrines like Chevron Deference guiding the balance of power.
Despite differences, both systems uphold fairness, accountability, and legal limits on administrative action.
RELATED Blog
0 comments