Comparative administrative law: India and Pakistan
I. Introduction
Administrative Law governs the functioning of administrative authorities and ensures legality, fairness, and accountability in their actions. Both India and Pakistan, being former British colonies, inherited the Common Law tradition, and thus share similar foundations in administrative law.
However, over time, their constitutional developments, judicial approaches, and doctrines have evolved differently, especially concerning:
Judicial review
Natural justice
Discretionary powers
Doctrine of legitimate expectation
Writ jurisdiction
II. Constitutional Framework
| Aspect | India | Pakistan |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Basis | Constitution of India, 1950 | Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 |
| Writ Jurisdiction | Articles 32 & 226 (Supreme Court & High Courts) | Article 199 (High Courts), Article 184(3) (Supreme Court) |
| Separation of Powers | Strict and codified | More flexible, especially under military regimes |
| Fundamental Rights | Enforceable against the state | Similar rights, with Islamic principles playing a role |
III. Key Areas of Comparison with Case Law
1. Judicial Review of Administrative Action
India: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Passport impounded without providing reasons or a hearing.
Held: Court expanded Article 21 to include procedural due process.
Significance: Administrative action must be fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary.
Pakistan: Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416)
Facts: Challenge to discriminatory laws and executive decisions.
Held: The Supreme Court held that arbitrary exercise of executive power violates Articles 4 and 25 (equality and due process).
Significance: Judicial review available for malafide, arbitrary, and discriminatory actions.
✅ Similarity: Both countries recognize judicial review as a check on executive and administrative excess.
🛑 Difference: Indian courts have more consistently enforced fundamental rights, while Pakistan's judiciary has sometimes been influenced by executive interference or military rule.
2. Natural Justice and Fair Hearing
India: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970)
Facts: Selection committee member was also a candidate – bias alleged.
Held: Even administrative actions must follow natural justice.
Significance: Merged distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions.
Pakistan: I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1991 SC 1021)
Facts: Disparity in civil servant promotions challenged.
Held: The Supreme Court laid down that deviation from rules must be justified, else violates fair treatment.
Significance: Affirmed principles of natural justice in administrative decisions.
✅ Similarity: Both legal systems uphold audi alteram partem (right to be heard) as fundamental.
🛑 Difference: Indian courts have extended natural justice to almost all administrative actions, while Pakistan's application has been more context-dependent.
3. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
India: Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society v. Union of India (1992)
Facts: Change in land allotment policy without notice.
Held: Government must honour legitimate expectations created through consistent past practices.
Pakistan: Airport Support Services v. A.A.S.P.L. (PLD 1998 SC 329)
Facts: Service provider denied renewal despite assurance of continuation.
Held: The doctrine of legitimate expectation applies if a clear and consistent promise was made.
✅ Similarity: Doctrine recognized and enforced in both countries.
🛑 Difference: Indian courts have used it more broadly in public law, whereas Pakistani courts apply it cautiously, often requiring stronger proof of assurance.
4. Misuse of Discretion and Malafide Exercise of Power
India: S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab (1964)
Facts: Civil servant suspended due to personal animosity of CM.
Held: Malafide intention renders administrative action void.
Pakistan: Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada (PLD 1999 SC 843)
Facts: Termination of a civil servant alleged to be due to political motives.
Held: The Court struck down the order for being malafide and politically motivated.
✅ Similarity: Both courts invalidate administrative decisions based on ulterior motives or malice.
🛑 Difference: Indian courts more often examine subjective satisfaction for abuse of discretion.
5. Writ Jurisdiction and Public Law Remedies
India: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Held: High Courts’ power under Article 226 is part of the basic structure, and judicial review is essential.
Pakistan: Ms. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693)
Held: Writ jurisdiction can be used to protect even environmental rights as part of Article 9 (right to life).
✅ Similarity: Writs available against State and statutory authorities in both jurisdictions.
🛑 Difference: Indian Constitution explicitly grants writ power to both SC and HCs; in Pakistan, only High Courts have writ jurisdiction (SC acts in suo motu under Art. 184(3)).
IV. Summary Table: Comparison at a Glance
| Feature | India | Pakistan |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Review | Strong, extensive; part of basic structure | Available; exercised selectively |
| Natural Justice | Uniformly applied to all actions | Applied based on facts and context |
| Writ Jurisdiction | Articles 32 & 226 | Article 199 (High Courts only) |
| Legitimate Expectation | Broadly interpreted | Narrower scope, stricter requirements |
| Discretionary Powers | Strictly scrutinized | Sometimes deferred to executive justification |
| Public Interest Litigation (PIL) | Widely used and developed | Emerging but less developed |
| Military/Executive Influence | Minimal (post-1977) | Historically significant |
V. Conclusion
While India and Pakistan share a common colonial legacy in administrative law, their judicial interpretations and constitutional evolutions have taken different paths. Indian administrative law has developed a strong rights-based, liberal approach, whereas Pakistani administrative law, while similar in doctrine, is more executively influenced and context-sensitive.
Both jurisdictions, however, affirm natural justice, rule of law, and judicial review as core components of administrative law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments