The role of the Constitution in shaping administrative law
š¹ The Role of the Constitution in Shaping Administrative Law
1. Defines Administrative Structures and Functions
The Constitution establishes:
Union and State Executives (Articles 52ā78 and 153ā167)
Legislative powers (Articles 245ā255)
Judicial review powers (Articles 32 and 226)
Administrative bodies function under the executive, and their powers flow from constitutional or legislative frameworks.
2. Limits on Administrative Power
Rule of Law (Preamble & Basic Structure) requires all administrative actions to be lawful.
Fundamental Rights (Part III) act as a check on administrative excesses.
Article 14 (Equality before law) ensures that administrative decisions are non-arbitrary and reasonable.
Articles 19 & 21 guarantee liberties, often affected by administrative actions.
3. Judicial Review Mechanism
Articles 32 and 226 empower courts to review administrative actions.
They ensure that executive/administrative authorities remain accountable and act within their jurisdiction.
4. Doctrine of Separation of Powers
While India doesn't follow strict separation, the Constitution assigns roles to the legislature, executive, and judiciary, creating checks and balances.
5. Principles of Natural Justice
Though not explicitly mentioned, they are read into Article 14 and 21, and are thus constitutionalised in Indian law.
š¹ Landmark Case Laws: Constitutionās Role in Administrative Law
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150
Facts:
A selection board for forest officers included a member who was also a candidate.
This raised concerns about bias and fairness.
Issue:
Did this administrative action violate principles of natural justice?
Judgment:
The Court held that administrative actions are subject to principles of natural justice.
Even if not quasi-judicial, administrative functions must not be biased.
Significance:
Marked the blurring of lines between administrative and quasi-judicial functions.
Constitution (Article 14) was interpreted to mandate fairness in all actions of the state.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts:
Maneka Gandhiās passport was impounded by the government without giving reasons or hearing her.
Issue:
Did this violate Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)?
Judgment:
The Court held that any law or action affecting personal liberty must be "just, fair, and reasonable."
Introduced substantive due process into Indian law.
Significance:
Extended Article 21 to cover administrative actions.
Administrative law henceforth had to conform to constitutional guarantees of fairness.
3. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, AIR 1975 SC 1331
Facts:
Employees of statutory corporations (ONGC, LIC, etc.) were dismissed.
They argued that their employment had a public law character.
Issue:
Are such statutory bodies "State" under Article 12?
Judgment:
Court ruled that statutory corporations discharging public functions are "State" under Article 12.
Their actions must conform to constitutional standards, including fundamental rights.
Significance:
Expanded the definition of āStateā in administrative law.
Brought governmental and quasi-governmental bodies under constitutional scrutiny.
4. State of Punjab v. Khan Chand, AIR 1974 SC 543
Facts:
Administrative officer passed an order affecting the civil rights of an individual without providing an opportunity to be heard.
Issue:
Did this administrative action violate principles of natural justice?
Judgment:
Yes. The Court held that even administrative orders affecting rights require adherence to natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem (hear the other side) principle.
Significance:
Reinforced that Article 14 ensures fairness, making natural justice a constitutional requirement in administrative actions.
5. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416
Facts:
Government employees were dismissed without inquiry under Article 311(2) due to national security concerns.
Issue:
Could constitutional rights be overridden in the name of administrative necessity?
Judgment:
The Court upheld the dismissals but made it clear that exceptions to natural justice must be justified strictly.
Significance:
Balanced administrative efficiency with constitutional rights.
Recognized that in exceptional circumstances, procedural fairness can be limitedābut only under strict constitutional limits.
6. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Facts:
Challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC criminalizing same-sex relations.
Issue:
Does criminalizing private consensual behavior violate constitutional rights?
Judgment:
Court decriminalized consensual same-sex relations.
Emphasized that constitutional morality prevails over societal morality.
Significance:
Though not a classic administrative law case, it showed how state action (or inaction) must comply with constitutional values, even when dealing with individual liberties.
7. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1
Facts:
The Constitution was amended to validate Indira Gandhi's election.
Issue:
Could the Parliament amend the Constitution to override judicial decisions?
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that such amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
Significance:
Reinforced that even administrative and legislative actions must not breach constitutional fundamentals.
š¹ Conclusion
The Constitution is the backbone of administrative law in India. It sets the boundaries, provides standards of legality and fairness, and ensures that administrative authorities are accountable and just in exercising their powers.
Through the doctrines of judicial review, natural justice, fundamental rights, and rule of law, the Constitution ensures that administrative power is not absolute, but controlled, guided, and limited.
RELATED Blog
0 comments