Relationship between administrative law and the rule of law
⚖️ Relationship between Administrative Law and the Rule of Law
1. What is the Rule of Law?
The rule of law is a foundational constitutional principle meaning that:
Everyone, including the government, is subject to and accountable under the law.
Laws must be clear, stable, and applied equally.
Government power must be exercised according to law.
There must be legal remedies when power is abused.
Key thinkers like A.V. Dicey emphasized that rule of law ensures:
No one is punished except for a breach of law,
Equality before the law,
The law is supreme over arbitrary power.
2. What is Administrative Law?
Administrative law governs the activities of government agencies and public officials. It ensures:
Powers are exercised within legal limits (legality),
Decisions are made fairly and transparently (procedural fairness),
There are remedies to challenge unlawful or unreasonable decisions (judicial review).
3. Relationship Between the Two
| Rule of Law | Administrative Law |
|---|---|
| Government must act according to law | Ensures that administrative actions comply with legal authority |
| Prevents arbitrary power | Provides checks and balances on executive power |
| Guarantees rights and fairness | Enforces procedural fairness in decision-making |
| Provides access to justice | Enables judicial review to hold administrators accountable |
Thus, administrative law is the practical tool that enforces the rule of law in the administrative state by scrutinizing government decisions and protecting citizens from abuse of power.
4. Key Case Laws Demonstrating the Relationship
🔹 Case 1: Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (HL)
📌 Facts:
Anisminic challenged a decision by a commission under a statutory scheme that had a clause attempting to exclude judicial review.
The company argued the decision was unlawful and should be reviewed by the courts.
⚖️ Held:
The House of Lords ruled the exclusion clause did not prevent judicial review if the decision was legally flawed.
Any error of law by a public body renders the decision a nullity.
✅ Significance:
Established the principle that government decisions must comply with law.
Reinforced the rule of law by ensuring judicial oversight even when statutes try to exclude it.
Affirmed administrative law’s role as a safeguard against unlawful exercise of power.
🔹 Case 2: Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (the GCHQ case) [1985] AC 374
📌 Facts:
The UK government banned trade union membership at GCHQ without consulting workers.
The unions challenged the decision on grounds of procedural fairness.
⚖️ Held:
The House of Lords confirmed that judicial review applies to government decisions.
Introduced the concept that procedural fairness (natural justice) is part of administrative law enforcing rule of law principles.
However, decisions made for national security might be exempt.
✅ Significance:
Established that even government policy decisions must respect procedural fairness, unless exceptional.
Showed the balance between rule of law and executive discretion.
🔹 Case 3: Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 (High Court of Australia)
📌 Facts:
An immigrant was deported without being given a chance to respond to adverse information.
He challenged the decision for breach of natural justice.
⚖️ Held:
The High Court held that the decision-maker must observe procedural fairness (right to be heard).
Administrative decisions must comply with rule of law principles.
✅ Significance:
Landmark Australian case enforcing fair hearing rights in administrative decisions.
Links rule of law to fair procedures in government decisions affecting rights.
🔹 Case 4: Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
📌 Facts:
Plaintiff challenged a privative clause (which limited judicial review) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
Claimed that the clause was invalid as it violated constitutional limits.
⚖️ Held:
The High Court ruled that the constitutional principle of judicial review (as part of rule of law) cannot be overridden by statute.
Privative clauses cannot completely oust judicial review for jurisdictional errors.
✅ Significance:
Reaffirmed judicial review as a constitutional safeguard.
Demonstrated the rule of law limits Parliament’s ability to exclude courts’ supervisory jurisdiction.
🔹 Case 5: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
📌 Facts:
A visa refusal was challenged as unreasonable and made without proper consideration.
⚖️ Held:
The High Court stressed that administrative decisions must be rational and made according to law.
Confirmed that unreasonableness can ground judicial review.
Procedural fairness is an essential part of rule of law.
✅ Significance:
Emphasized that reasonableness is a core administrative law ground supporting rule of law.
Administrative power is not arbitrary.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Principle Demonstrated | Relationship to Rule of Law |
|---|---|---|
| Anisminic Ltd | Judicial review overrides privative clauses | Enforces legality and oversight |
| GCHQ case | Procedural fairness in executive decisions | Ensures fair processes |
| Kioa v West | Right to be heard in decisions | Protects individual rights |
| Plaintiff S157/2002 | Limits on privative clauses | Judicial review is constitutionally protected |
| Minister v Li | Reasonableness as review ground | Prevents arbitrary decisions |
6. Conclusion
The rule of law requires that all government action must be authorized by law, fair, reasonable, and accountable.
Administrative law is the mechanism that enforces the rule of law in public administration.
It ensures legal limits on government power, fair decision-making, and access to remedies.
Courts, through judicial review, act as the final safeguard ensuring that administrative bodies comply with the rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments