Nature and scope of Administrative Law
Nature and Scope of Administrative Law
Nature of Administrative Law
Administrative Law is the branch of law that deals with the organization, powers, functions, and duties of administrative authorities.
It governs the actions of government agencies and public officials in executing laws, ensuring their actions comply with the law.
It acts as a bridge between the executive and the citizens, ensuring administrative decisions are lawful, fair, and reasonable.
It is sometimes called the “law of administration” or the “law of delegated legislation” because it governs how administration exercises the powers delegated by the legislature.
Scope of Administrative Law
It covers all actions taken by administrative authorities (both central and local governments, public corporations, regulatory bodies, tribunals).
Includes the principles governing rule-making (delegated legislation), rule application (administrative decisions), and rule enforcement.
Provides mechanisms for judicial review of administrative actions to prevent abuse of power or arbitrariness.
Encompasses natural justice (fair hearing, no bias), reasonableness, proportionality, legality, and procedural fairness.
Covers areas like licensing, permits, public services, taxation, welfare administration, and regulatory enforcement.
Detailed Case Law Illustrations
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Facts:
Kraipak and others were candidates for recruitment in a public service. The Selection Committee included a government officer who also acted as an appointing authority, raising concerns about bias.
Issues:
Whether the rule of natural justice applies to administrative authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions.
Does administrative discretion fall outside the scope of judicial review if natural justice is violated?
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that whenever administrative authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers, they are bound by the principles of natural justice.
The presence of bias or failure to give a fair hearing can invalidate decisions.
The court expanded the scope of administrative law by emphasizing procedural fairness in administrative actions.
Significance:
This case firmly established that natural justice applies beyond courts to administrative bodies when they decide individual rights or obligations.
It broadened the scope of administrative law to include fairness in decision-making.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without providing reasons. She challenged the order on grounds of violation of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Issues:
Does administrative action affecting fundamental rights require due process?
Is the “procedure established by law” under Article 21 enough, or must it be “fair, just and reasonable”?
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable.
It held that fundamental rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily and due process principles apply to administrative actions affecting such rights.
Significance:
This case widened the scope of administrative law by importing the principle of reasonableness and fairness into administrative procedures.
It emphasized the protection of fundamental rights against arbitrary administrative action.
3. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Facts:
The Constitution (42nd Amendment) allowed the creation of administrative tribunals for service matters, excluding the jurisdiction of High Courts. Petitioners challenged the ouster of High Court jurisdiction.
Issues:
Whether administrative tribunals can oust the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.
What is the scope of judicial review over administrative decisions?
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that High Courts’ power of judicial review cannot be ousted by administrative tribunals.
Administrative tribunals are subject to judicial review under Articles 226 and 227.
The decision reaffirmed the High Courts’ role in supervising administrative actions.
Significance:
This case highlighted the importance of judicial review as a safeguard against administrative excesses.
It confirmed that administrative law is under the supervision of constitutional courts to prevent misuse of power.
4. K.C. Gajendragadkar v. State of Mysore (1957)
Facts:
The government made an order delegating its legislative power to a subordinate authority without proper guidelines.
Issues:
Whether such delegated legislation without proper principles or policies is valid.
The limits on delegated legislative powers under administrative law.
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that delegated legislation must be within the limits set by the parent statute.
The delegation should not be uncontrolled or arbitrary; there must be guiding principles or policies.
Significance:
Established the principle that delegated legislation must have clear boundaries and controls.
Reinforced that administrative law governs the exercise of delegated legislative power.
5. Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955)
Facts:
The petitioner was convicted under a law where the standard of proof for a particular element was on the accused, shifting the burden of proof.
Issues:
Whether the administrative action (conviction based on reverse burden) violated the principles of natural justice and fairness.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that administrative or quasi-judicial authorities cannot impose burdens that violate fair trial rights.
Burden of proof must be just and reasonable.
Significance:
Emphasized the application of natural justice and procedural fairness in administrative proceedings.
Expanded the scope of administrative law to cover fairness in evidentiary standards.
6. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Facts:
The Bombay Municipal Corporation attempted to evict pavement dwellers without providing alternative shelter or a proper hearing.
Issues:
Whether the eviction without hearing violated the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Whether administrative action can be challenged on grounds of reasonableness and fairness.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life.
Administrative authorities must act reasonably and give adequate opportunity before eviction.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of administrative law to include protection of livelihood and due process in administrative decisions affecting life and liberty.
Summary: Key Features of Administrative Law Illustrated Through Cases
| Feature | Explanation | Relevant Case(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Natural Justice | Fair hearing and no bias apply to administrative quasi-judicial decisions. | Kraipak, Ram Jawaya Kapur |
| Judicial Review | Courts can supervise administrative actions for legality and fairness. | L. Chandra Kumar |
| Delegated Legislation | Subordinate legislation must be within statutory bounds and not arbitrary. | K.C. Gajendragadkar |
| Due Process & Reasonableness | Administrative actions affecting fundamental rights must be fair and reasonable. | Maneka Gandhi, Olga Tellis |
| Protection of Fundamental Rights | Administrative decisions must respect rights to life, liberty, livelihood. | Maneka Gandhi, Olga Tellis |
Conclusion
Administrative law acts as a check on the powers of the executive and administrative authorities. It ensures that administrative discretion is exercised within legal limits and with fairness, transparency, and accountability.
The cases above illustrate the expanding scope of administrative law to encompass fundamental rights, natural justice, and judicial review — making it an essential tool in balancing state power and citizen rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments