Reasons for the Growth of Administrative Law
Reasons for the Growth of Administrative Law
1. Expansion of Government Functions
With modernization and increased complexity in society, governments began taking on more responsibilities, including economic regulation, social welfare, environmental protection, and public health. This expansion required specialized agencies to implement and enforce laws, leading to the growth of administrative law.
2. Delegation of Legislative Powers
As legislatures cannot deal with every technical detail, they delegate powers to administrative agencies to make rules, regulations, and orders. This delegation has resulted in a vast administrative machinery whose actions need legal control.
3. Complexity of Modern Society
Modern society's technological and economic complexity demands expert agencies to administer specialized functions. This creates administrative bodies with quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial, and executive powers, requiring rules and oversight.
4. Need for Efficient Governance
Administrative agencies can act faster and more efficiently than legislatures or courts. To maintain efficiency, laws have evolved to govern administrative procedures, promoting transparency, accountability, and fairness.
5. Protection of Individual Rights
With the growth of government powers, there was a need to protect individuals against arbitrary and unlawful actions by administrative authorities. Administrative law provides remedies like judicial review and principles of natural justice.
6. Judicial Intervention and Development of Judicial Review
Courts began intervening to check the legality of administrative actions, ensuring conformity with constitutional principles, thus encouraging the growth of administrative law.
Landmark Case Laws Illustrating the Growth of Administrative Law
Case 1: Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case) (1985) – UK
Facts: Employees of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) were banned from union membership by a government order without prior consultation.
Significance: The House of Lords recognized that certain prerogative powers exercised by the executive are subject to judicial review.
Relation: This case marked the growth of judicial control over administrative actions, expanding administrative law to cover executive decisions, even those under royal prerogative.
Case 2: Carltona Ltd. v. Commissioners of Works (1943) – UK
Facts: The issue was whether decisions made by officials in government departments could be attributed to ministers themselves.
Significance: Established the Carltona doctrine, stating that acts performed by civil servants are legally acts of the minister.
Relation: Recognizes the practical delegation within administrative bodies, highlighting the growth of administrative law to address delegation and responsibility.
Case 3: R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (2001) – UK
Facts: A prisoner challenged a policy allowing prison officers to search legal correspondence without the prisoner present.
Significance: The House of Lords held that administrative action must comply with constitutional rights, and proportionality must be considered.
Relation: This case represents the growth of administrative law as a protector of fundamental rights against administrative excess.
Case 4: Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture (1968) – UK
Facts: The Minister refused to refer a complaint against a marketing board despite statutory provisions.
Significance: The House of Lords held the Minister’s discretion was not absolute and was subject to judicial review to prevent misuse.
Relation: This case exemplifies how administrative law grew to check discretionary powers and ensure they are exercised properly.
Case 5: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) – UK
Facts: A cinema license was granted with a condition that no children under 15 be admitted on Sundays.
Significance: Introduced the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard, limiting judicial review of administrative decisions unless they are irrational or unreasonable.
Relation: This case helped define the scope and limits of administrative law’s judicial review function, crucial for balancing governmental discretion and legal control.
Summary
| Reason for Growth | Explanation | Case Illustrating It |
|---|---|---|
| Expansion of Gov’t Functions | Modern governments regulate more areas | GCHQ Case |
| Delegation of Legislative Powers | Agencies get law-making powers | Carltona Ltd. |
| Complexity of Modern Society | Requires expert administration | Padfield |
| Need for Efficient Governance | Agencies act quickly but need control | Associated Provincial Picture Houses |
| Protection of Individual Rights | Prevent arbitrary administrative acts | Daly |
| Judicial Intervention | Courts enforce legal limits | GCHQ Case, Padfield |
RELATED Blog
0 comments