The executive branch and administrative decision-making
1. Executive Branch and Administrative Decision-Making – Concept
The executive branch is primarily responsible for implementing and enforcing laws. However, in modern governance, due to the complexities of administration, the executive is often given delegated powers by the legislature to frame rules, issue regulations, and make administrative decisions.
Administrative decision-making refers to the process by which executive agencies or authorities exercise these powers—whether through rule-making (quasi-legislative), adjudication (quasi-judicial), or enforcement (executive in nature).
The judiciary ensures that such powers are not arbitrary, and they must comply with the Constitution, statutory limits, and principles of natural justice.
2. Case Law Illustrations
(i) A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Facts: Involved the selection of officers for the Indian Forest Service. One of the selection board members was himself a candidate.
Issue: Whether administrative decisions must follow principles of natural justice.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the line between administrative and quasi-judicial functions is thin. Even administrative decisions must be fair, unbiased, and just.
Significance: Established that executive/administrative discretion is subject to judicial review if it violates fairness.
(ii) Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Facts: Related to the election of Indira Gandhi, challenged for misuse of executive power during election campaigns.
Issue: Can administrative/executive decisions be immune from judicial review?
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that even though Parliament can legislate, executive actions cannot override constitutional principles of free and fair elections.
Significance: Reinforced checks on executive overreach in administrative decision-making.
(iii) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without giving her a chance to be heard.
Issue: Whether administrative discretion under the Passport Act could be exercised arbitrarily.
Judgment: The Court held that administrative orders must follow the principles of natural justice. The right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21, which cannot be curtailed without procedure established by law that is fair, just, and reasonable.
Significance: Restricted arbitrary administrative powers of the executive.
(iv) Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. (1987)
Facts: The government fixed prices of bulk drugs under statutory powers. Companies challenged this as arbitrary.
Issue: Whether administrative price fixation is subject to natural justice.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that price fixation is a legislative function, not adjudicatory, so natural justice (like hearing every stakeholder) may not always apply. But it must not be arbitrary or unreasonable.
Significance: Differentiated between legislative and quasi-judicial administrative decisions, but kept the executive accountable.
(v) State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980)
Facts: Land acquisition by the executive was challenged on grounds of mala fides.
Issue: Whether administrative discretion in land acquisition is reviewable.
Judgment: The Court held that eminent domain power (land acquisition) must be exercised for public purpose, not private benefit. If administrative action is mala fide, it can be struck down.
Significance: Brought judicial control over executive land acquisition decisions.
(vi) Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)
Facts: The executive body awarded a contract to a party that did not meet eligibility conditions.
Issue: Whether administrative discretion in awarding contracts must follow fairness.
Judgment: The Court held that government contracts must comply with Article 14 (equality). Executive discretion cannot be arbitrary; it must be transparent, fair, and non-discriminatory.
Significance: Strengthened fair play in executive decision-making.
(vii) Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) – “Jain Hawala Case”
Facts: Concerned executive inaction in investigating high-profile corruption cases.
Issue: Whether judiciary can monitor executive/administrative functioning.
Judgment: The Supreme Court laid down guidelines for ensuring independence of CBI and supervision of investigations.
Significance: Showed how the judiciary can direct executive agencies to function without bias.
3. Key Principles from the Cases
Fairness and Natural Justice – Even administrative orders must not be arbitrary (Kraipak, Maneka Gandhi).
Rule of Law – Executive discretion must comply with constitutional provisions (Indira Gandhi case).
Distinction Between Functions – Legislative, quasi-judicial, and administrative powers differ but remain reviewable (Cynamide).
Judicial Review of Mala Fide Actions – Courts can strike down bad faith administrative actions (Gurdial Singh).
Equality in Executive Action – Government contracts/benefits must be non-discriminatory (Ramana Shetty).
Judicial Oversight of Agencies – Courts can direct functioning of executive investigative agencies (Vineet Narain).
✅ In summary: The executive branch plays a vital role in administrative decision-making, but its powers are not absolute. Courts have consistently held that executive discretion must be exercised within constitutional and legal limits, respecting fairness, equality, and public interest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments