Impact of Fundamental Rights on administrative action
📘 Impact of Fundamental Rights on Administrative Action in India
🔹 Introduction
Administrative law governs the functioning of government agencies and public authorities. However, their actions must conform to the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution.
If an administrative action violates any of the Fundamental Rights, it becomes unconstitutional, illegal, and is liable to be struck down by courts through judicial review under Articles 32 and 226.
🔹 Key Fundamental Rights That Affect Administrative Action
| Article | Right | Administrative Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Article 14 | Equality before law, non-arbitrariness | No arbitrary, discriminatory action |
| Article 19 | Freedom of speech, assembly, movement, etc. | Any restriction must be reasonable |
| Article 21 | Right to life and personal liberty | Requires fair, just, and non-arbitrary procedures |
| Article 22 | Protection from arbitrary arrest and detention | Procedural safeguards for detainees |
| Article 23 & 24 | Protection from forced labor and child labor | Especially relevant in labour regulations |
| Article 25-28 | Freedom of religion | State action affecting religious institutions must respect these rights |
⚖️ How Fundamental Rights Constrain or Shape Administrative Action
Procedural Fairness: Administrative decisions must follow due process and respect natural justice (notice, hearing, reasoned decisions).
Substantive Reasonableness: Actions must not be arbitrary, irrational, or disproportionate.
Non-discrimination: Must not treat people differently without reasonable justification.
Right to be Heard: Affected individuals must be given an opportunity to present their case before an adverse decision.
Transparency and Justification: Executive decisions must be based on intelligible criteria and not mere discretion.
Judicial Review: Citizens can challenge administrative actions that infringe upon Fundamental Rights.
🧑⚖️ Landmark Case Laws Explaining the Impact of Fundamental Rights on Administrative Action
Let’s now study more than five major cases where courts enforced or interpreted Fundamental Rights to invalidate or control administrative actions.
🔸 1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
📌 Facts:
Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the government under the Passport Act, 1967 without giving her a hearing or any reasons.
⚖️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad.
Administrative action affecting life or liberty must be based on a procedure that is "just, fair, and reasonable", not arbitrary.
Also linked Articles 14, 19, and 21 as interdependent.
🧾 Significance:
Landmark case expanding procedural fairness and judicial scrutiny of administrative action.
Administrative discretion must align with due process and reasonableness.
🔸 2. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Citation: AIR 1950 SC 27
📌 Facts:
Gopalan was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
He challenged his detention under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
⚖️ Judgment:
Initially, the Court upheld the detention, holding that each fundamental right is distinct.
However, this narrow interpretation was overruled in later cases, especially in Maneka Gandhi.
🧾 Significance:
Initially limited judicial intervention in administrative actions.
Later corrected by Maneka Gandhi, making Article 21 subject to reasonableness and interconnected with other rights.
🔸 3. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979)
Citation: AIR 1979 SC 1628
📌 Facts:
The Airport Authority invited tenders for a canteen contract.
The petitioner was denied the contract despite fulfilling all conditions, without any proper justification.
⚖️ Judgment:
Supreme Court held that Article 14 applies to administrative actions, especially those involving public contracts.
State instrumentalities are bound to act fairly, non-arbitrarily, and cannot ignore their own criteria.
🧾 Significance:
Reinforced that administrative decisions must be transparent and objective.
Arbitrary denial of opportunities violates Article 14.
🔸 4. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
Citation: AIR 1974 SC 555
📌 Facts:
Royappa challenged his transfer as Chief Secretary as being politically motivated and arbitrary.
⚖️ Judgment:
Supreme Court held that arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality.
Even administrative transfers and decisions must pass the test of non-arbitrariness under Article 14.
🧾 Significance:
Broadened the scope of Article 14 to cover not just discriminatory laws, but also arbitrary administrative actions.
Administrative discretion must be guided by rational principles.
🔸 5. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Citation: AIR 1986 SC 180
📌 Facts:
Pavement dwellers in Mumbai were evicted by municipal authorities without notice.
They claimed violation of their right to livelihood under Article 21.
⚖️ Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that right to livelihood is a part of the right to life under Article 21.
Evictions without notice and rehabilitation are unconstitutional.
🧾 Significance:
Administrative actions impacting socio-economic rights must consider human dignity and procedural fairness.
State cannot act harshly even in enforcement of laws.
🔸 6. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
Citation: AIR 1985 SC 1416
📌 Facts:
Several government servants were dismissed without inquiry under Article 311(2) citing security concerns.
⚖️ Judgment:
Supreme Court held that natural justice can be excluded in exceptional cases.
However, such exclusion must be justified, and not arbitrary.
🧾 Significance:
Even when rights like a hearing are denied, there must be legitimate justification.
Administrative action must still conform to Article 14 and proportionality.
🔸 7. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 851
📌 Facts:
Election Commission canceled an election without giving reasons.
⚖️ Judgment:
All administrative orders must be reasoned and reasons must be apparent on the face of the record.
Post-facto justification is not allowed.
🧾 Significance:
Reinforced the requirement of transparency and reason-giving in administrative action.
Violating this is a breach of Articles 14 and 21.
🧾 Summary Table of Cases
| Case Name | Article Involved | Administrative Issue | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978) | 14, 19, 21 | Passport impounded without hearing | Violated |
| R.D. Shetty (1979) | 14 | Arbitrary rejection of tender | Violated |
| E.P. Royappa (1974) | 14 | Arbitrary transfer | Violated |
| Olga Tellis (1985) | 21 | Eviction without notice | Violated |
| Mohinder Singh Gill (1978) | 14 | Cancellation of election without reason | Violated |
| Tulsiram Patel (1985) | 14, 311(2) | Dismissal without hearing | Justified if exception proven |
| A.K. Gopalan (1950) | 21 (initial view) | Preventive detention | Upheld (later overruled) |
🔍 Key Doctrines from These Cases
Doctrine of Arbitrariness:
Any arbitrary administrative action violates Article 14, even if not discriminatory.
Doctrine of Proportionality:
Measures taken by the administration must be proportionate to the purpose served.
Reasoned Decision-Making:
All orders must be supported by reasons; else they are vulnerable to judicial review.
Right to Livelihood:
Expanded interpretation of Article 21 includes economic rights, imposing duties on the State.
Interconnectedness of Fundamental Rights:
Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interrelated, and administrative action must satisfy all three.
RELATED Blog
0 comments