Constitutional foundations of Administrative Law (Part III & IV)
📘 Constitutional Foundations of Administrative Law in India
(With Emphasis on Part III & IV of the Constitution)
🔹 Introduction
Administrative Law is the branch of public law that governs the activities of administrative authorities. In India, its foundation lies within the Constitution itself, particularly:
Part III – Fundamental Rights, and
Part IV – Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).
These parts form the constitutional bedrock ensuring that executive and administrative actions remain within the limits of legality, fairness, and accountability.
⚖️ Part III – Fundamental Rights as a Limitation on Administrative Power
✅ Key Rights Relevant to Administrative Law:
| Article | Right | Administrative Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 14 | Equality before law | No arbitrary or discriminatory action |
| Art. 19 | Freedoms (speech, movement, trade, etc.) | Restrictions must be reasonable |
| Art. 21 | Right to life and personal liberty | Requires fairness, non-arbitrariness |
| Art. 22 | Rights of arrested persons | Prevents abuse of detention powers |
👉 These rights act as constitutional checks on administrative action, ensuring that executive power does not infringe upon individual liberties without legal justification.
🧭 Part IV – Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
Part IV (Articles 36 to 51) lays down social, economic, and political goals for the state.
Though non-justiciable, they guide administrative authorities in policy-making and welfare schemes.
DPSPs inspire progressive administrative action (like environmental protection, public health, education, etc.).
⚙️ Examples:
Art. 38 – Promote welfare of people.
Art. 39(b) – Distribution of material resources for common good.
Art. 47 – Duty to raise nutrition and public health.
⚖️ Case Laws (More Than 5, Detailed)
Let’s now explore key case laws where courts examined administrative action in the light of Part III and IV.
🏛️ 1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts: Detention under the Preventive Detention Act was challenged under Article 21.
Held: The Supreme Court initially held that procedure established by law under Article 21 didn’t require that the procedure be just or fair.
Significance: Narrow interpretation of Article 21. Later overruled.
Relevance to Admin Law: Early case on limits of administrative detention.
🏛️ 2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Her passport was impounded without a hearing under the Passport Act.
Held: The Court broadened Article 21 – "procedure" must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Also linked Article 14, 19, and 21 together.
Significance: Set the foundation for fair procedure in administrative action.
Admin Law Impact: Natural justice became constitutionally mandated.
🏛️ 3. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
Facts: Challenge to transfer of a Chief Secretary allegedly due to political reasons.
Held: Introduced the "arbitrariness" test under Article 14 — arbitrariness is antithetical to equality.
Significance: Administrative actions must be non-arbitrary and based on relevant reasons.
Admin Law Principle: Discretionary power must be exercised rationally.
🏛️ 4. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Facts: Pavement dwellers were evicted without notice.
Held: Right to livelihood is a part of right to life under Article 21.
Also held: Administrative action (eviction) without notice and hearing is unconstitutional.
Significance: Elevated procedural fairness and socio-economic rights into the domain of administrative law.
🏛️ 5. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts: Concerned custodial violence by police.
Held: Issued guidelines for arrest and detention to prevent administrative abuse.
Significance: Ensured transparency and accountability in executive functioning.
Part III Connection: Upheld Articles 21 & 22.
🏛️ 6. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts: Challenge to constitutional amendments affecting fundamental rights.
Held: Basic Structure Doctrine laid down — certain features like rule of law, judicial review, and fundamental rights can't be taken away.
Significance: Administrative discretion must respect the basic structure.
Admin Law Impact: Restricts legislative and administrative overreach.
🏛️ 7. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan (1980)
Facts: Municipality failed to provide basic sanitation despite statutory duty.
Held: Court compelled the municipality to perform its administrative duties.
Significance: Courts can enforce DPSPs through administrative law obligations.
Part IV Application: Articles 47 and 48A used to hold public authorities accountable.
🏛️ 8. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987 onwards) – Series of Environmental Cases
Facts: PILs filed for environmental protection (e.g., Ganga pollution, vehicular emission).
Held: Environmental protection is part of right to life (Article 21).
Also applied: Article 48A (DPSP – environmental protection).
Significance: DPSPs read with Part III to create enforceable administrative duties.
Admin Law Impact: Environmental regulations subject to judicial monitoring.
🏛️ 9. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
Facts: A special criminal procedure was applied to an accused.
Held: Discriminatory procedure violates Article 14.
Significance: Even procedure prescribed by administrative rules must be uniform and reasonable.
🧾 Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Key Articles Involved | Contribution to Admin Law |
|---|---|---|
| Maneka Gandhi | Art. 14, 19, 21 | Due process & natural justice |
| E.P. Royappa | Art. 14 | Arbitrariness = inequality |
| Olga Tellis | Art. 21 | Livelihood as fundamental right |
| D.K. Basu | Art. 21, 22 | Guidelines against abuse of power |
| Ratlam Municipality | Art. 47 (DPSP) | Compulsory performance of admin duties |
| M.C. Mehta | Art. 21 + 48A | Environment protection = legal duty |
| Kesavananda Bharati | Basic Structure | Rule of law, judicial review protected |
| Anwar Ali Sarkar | Art. 14 | No arbitrary classification |
📚 How Part III & IV Work Together in Admin Law
| Role of Part III | Role of Part IV | Combined Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Protects individuals from arbitrary state action | Provides social welfare goals | Ensures that administration is fair and welfare-oriented |
| Judicially enforceable | Not enforceable in courts | Courts use DPSPs to interpret fundamental rights expansively |
| Checks executive abuse | Guides executive discretion | Promotes accountable governance |
✅ Conclusion
The Constitution is the soul of administrative law in India, and its Part III and IV form the pillars of legitimate, fair, and welfare-driven administration. Through evolving judicial interpretations, Fundamental Rights ensure protection, while Directive Principles shape the duties of administrative authorities.
Together, they create a balance between liberty and governance, where administrative discretion is not unchecked but guided by constitutional morality.
RELATED Blog
0 comments