The relationship between administration and fundamental rights
I. Introduction
Fundamental rights are the basic human rights guaranteed by the constitution to protect individuals from arbitrary state actions and to ensure dignity, liberty, equality, and justice.
The administration—comprising executive authorities, government agencies, and public officials—is responsible for implementing laws and policies. Since administrative actions directly impact citizens, the exercise of administrative power must be consistent with fundamental rights.
II. How Administration Affects Fundamental Rights
Administrative decisions can restrict or affect rights such as liberty, privacy, property, equality, freedom of speech, and movement.
Administrative discretion must be exercised within constitutional limits.
Administrative procedures must observe due process and principles of natural justice.
Courts review administrative actions to ensure fundamental rights are not violated.
III. Legal Principles Governing Administration and Fundamental Rights
Prohibition of arbitrary or unreasonable administrative actions.
Requirement of legality: Administration can act only within authority granted by law.
Procedural fairness: Right to fair hearing, notice, and unbiased decision-makers.
Proportionality: Administrative measures limiting rights must be proportionate.
Reasoned decision-making: Decisions affecting rights must be supported by reasons.
IV. Key Case Law Illustrating the Relationship
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India)
Facts:
The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without providing reasons or an opportunity to be heard.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that procedure established by law must be “right, just and fair” and not arbitrary.
The right to personal liberty under Article 21 (Indian Constitution) is broad and includes the right to travel abroad.
Administrative action affecting fundamental rights must comply with due process and fairness.
Significance:
Expanded the scope of due process and fairness in administrative decisions.
Established that administrative powers are subject to fundamental rights protections.
2. K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
Facts:
Challenge to government surveillance and data collection in relation to privacy rights.
Holding:
The Supreme Court recognized the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right.
Government and administrative agencies must ensure any interference with privacy is lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
Significance:
Affirmed that administrative actions involving personal data must respect privacy rights.
Reinforces that administrative power is limited by constitutional protections.
3. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643
Facts:
Case concerned the amendment of fundamental rights and property rights.
Holding:
The court ruled that parliament cannot amend fundamental rights, emphasizing their supremacy.
Administration and legislature must respect fundamental rights.
Significance:
Clarifies that fundamental rights are paramount and administrative actions violating them can be struck down.
4. A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710
Facts:
A.K. Roy challenged detention under preventive detention laws.
Holding:
Court held that administrative actions restricting liberty must have valid grounds and follow proper procedure.
Arbitrary detention violates fundamental rights.
Significance:
Judicial check on executive discretion in matters affecting liberty.
Administrative power is not absolute and must be accountable.
5. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180
Facts:
Eviction of pavement dwellers by municipal authorities.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life.
Administrative eviction orders must respect fundamental rights and provide due process.
Significance:
Establishes that administrative actions affecting livelihood and shelter must not violate fundamental rights.
Emphasizes balance between administrative action and rights protection.
6. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523
Facts:
Challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act which allowed arrest for online speech.
Holding:
Court struck down the provision as violative of the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
Significance:
Limits administrative and executive actions interfering with free speech.
Affirms that administration must respect constitutional freedoms.
V. Summary of Key Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Legality | Administration acts only within the scope of law. |
| Due Process | Fair hearing and notice must precede decisions. |
| Non-Arbitrariness | No arbitrary or capricious action affecting rights. |
| Proportionality | Restrictions on rights must be necessary and proportionate. |
| Reasoned Decisions | Administrative actions must be reasoned and transparent. |
VI. Conclusion
The administration exercises vast powers that can impact fundamental rights. The constitutional framework, judicial review, and administrative law principles ensure that these powers are exercised responsibly and lawfully. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that fundamental rights cannot be overridden by arbitrary or unfair administrative action.
RELATED Blog
0 comments