Comparative administrative law: India and UK
⚖️ Comparative Administrative Law: India and the UK
🔹 Administrative Law: An Overview
Administrative law is the branch of public law that governs the organization, powers, and procedures of administrative authorities and provides remedies for those affected by their actions.
🎯 Objectives of Administrative Law:
Ensure fairness, accountability, and transparency in public administration.
Prevent abuse of power.
Provide legal remedies against unlawful administrative actions.
🔍 Key Areas of Comparison: India vs UK
| Topic | India | United Kingdom |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Written Constitution (esp. Part III – Fundamental Rights) | Unwritten Constitution, conventions, common law |
| Judicial Review | Based on Constitution (esp. Article 32 & 226) | Common law-based judicial review |
| Writ Jurisdiction | Constitutional writs (Article 32 by SC, 226 by HC) | Prerogative writs evolved through common law |
| Doctrine of Ultra Vires | Fully recognized and applied | Originated in the UK – a foundational principle |
| Natural Justice | Recognized as part of Article 14 and 21 | Applied through common law (e.g., "fair hearing") |
| Ombudsman | Lokpal, Lokayuktas | Parliamentary Ombudsman |
| Tribunals | Part of administrative adjudication (e.g., NCLT, CAT) | Tribunal system well-developed (e.g., Employment Tribunal) |
📚 Important Case Laws: India and UK (Explained in Detail)
🇮🇳 INDIA
⚖️ 1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150)
Facts:
A selection committee included a person who was also a candidate for the post being filled. The selection was challenged.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the presence of a biased member violated the principle of natural justice.
Principle:
The line between administrative and quasi-judicial functions is thin.
Natural justice applies to both.
Impact:
Introduced fairness into administrative decision-making in India. This principle aligns with UK’s long-standing common law on bias and fair hearing.
⚖️ 2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
The government impounded Maneka Gandhi's passport without giving her an opportunity to be heard.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that fair procedure is part of Article 21 (right to life and liberty), and any administrative action affecting liberty must follow due process.
Principle:
Expanded the meaning of natural justice.
Linked procedure and fairness with constitutional rights.
Comparison:
In the UK, such procedural fairness comes from common law, not a codified constitution.
⚖️ 3. State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471
Facts:
Land acquisition by the State was challenged on the ground of malafide intention.
Held:
The Supreme Court quashed the acquisition, stating that malice in law or fact by the administration makes the action void.
Principle:
Abuse of administrative power is reviewable.
Purpose of power must align with public interest.
Parallel in UK:
Closely reflects the Wednesbury principle of irrationality and improper purpose.
🇬🇧 UNITED KINGDOM
⚖️ 4. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223
Facts:
A cinema license was granted with the condition that children under 15 could not attend Sunday shows. The condition was challenged as unreasonable.
Held:
The Court held that judicial review can interfere only if the administrative decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have ever come to it.
Principle:
Known as the Wednesbury unreasonableness test.
Foundation of UK administrative review on irrationality.
Influence on India:
Adopted and adapted in India in various cases (e.g., Om Kumar v. Union of India).
⚖️ 5. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) AC 374 (GCHQ Case)
Facts:
The UK Prime Minister, using prerogative powers, banned trade union membership for GCHQ employees without consulting them.
Held:
The House of Lords held that even prerogative powers are subject to judicial review if they affect rights.
Principle:
Judicial review applies to all executive actions — even prerogative powers.
Established three grounds of review:
Illegality
Irrationality
Procedural Impropriety
Comparison with India:
These three grounds are also followed in Indian administrative law through constitutional writs.
🔄 Key Comparative Themes
| Theme | India | United Kingdom |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Review Scope | Constitutionally guaranteed; broad | Common law-based; limited but evolving |
| Natural Justice | Tied to fundamental rights | Common law doctrine |
| Writs | Constitutional (Art. 32, 226) | Prerogative writs |
| Review of Discretion | Courts review misuse of discretion | Wednesbury test limits review |
| Control on Delegated Legislation | Substantial control by courts | Parliament retains supremacy |
| Public Accountability Mechanism | PIL, RTI, Lokpal | Ombudsman, Judicial Review |
✅ Conclusion
Both India and the UK have strong traditions of administrative law, though their constitutional setups differ.
India's system is rights-based and relies on constitutional mandates, while the UK's system is common law-based and Parliament-centric.
Courts in both countries have played a proactive role in expanding procedural fairness, controlling administrative discretion, and ensuring rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments