Comparative analysis of administrative Law approaches in common Law and civil law systems
📘 Comparative Analysis: Administrative Law in Common Law vs Civil Law Systems
🔍 Understanding the Two Systems
| Aspect | Common Law System | Civil Law System |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Developed through judicial precedents | Based on codified statutes (Roman law) |
| Judicial Role | Judges interpret and develop law | Judges apply detailed legal codes |
| Legal Method | Case-based, precedent-driven | Code-based, principle-driven |
| Examples | UK, USA, India, Canada, Australia | France, Germany, Italy, Japan |
⚖️ Administrative Law: Common Law vs Civil Law Approach
| Feature | Common Law System | Civil Law System |
|---|---|---|
| Existence of Administrative Courts | No separate system (uses general courts) | Separate administrative courts (dual system) |
| Judicial Review | Done by regular judiciary (HCs, SC) | Done by special administrative courts |
| Control Mechanisms | Writs (mandamus, certiorari, etc.) | Appeals, hierarchy within administrative courts |
| Legislation vs Case Law | Heavy reliance on precedents | Emphasis on detailed administrative codes |
| Natural Justice | Evolved through judicial principles | Incorporated through codified procedures |
| Discretionary Power | Limited through common law doctrines | Structured by administrative codes |
| Accountability Mechanisms | Judicial review, ombudsman, RTI | Administrative courts, Conseil d'État (France) |
🏛️ Detailed Explanation with Key Case Laws
Let’s now understand how both systems handle administrative law through landmark case laws from both common law (India/UK) and civil law (France/Germany) contexts.
🔹 COMMON LAW SYSTEM CASES (India / UK / USA)
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (India, 1969)
Facts:
A selection committee included a member who was also a candidate. The process was challenged.
Held:
The Supreme Court of India ruled that administrative discretion is subject to natural justice and judicial review.
Significance:
Blended administrative and quasi-judicial functions, reflecting common law's flexible and evolving jurisprudence.
2. Ridge v. Baldwin (UK, 1964)
Facts:
Chief Constable was dismissed without a hearing.
Held:
House of Lords ruled that natural justice must be observed, even in administrative decisions.
Significance:
Revived natural justice in administrative law; common law courts protect procedural fairness.
3. Wednesbury Corporation Case (UK, 1948)
(Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation)
Facts:
A cinema was denied permission to admit children under 15 on Sundays.
Held:
Court ruled that administrative decisions can be struck down if "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it".
Significance:
Laid down the famous Wednesbury unreasonableness test—a standard for judicial review in common law.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (India, 1978)
Facts:
Passport impounded without hearing; violated Article 21.
Held:
Supreme Court held that procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable, even in administrative actions.
Significance:
Common law courts in India strongly safeguard personal liberty and procedural due process.
5. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ case, UK, 1985)
Facts:
Government banned trade unions at a government communication center without consultation.
Held:
Even prerogative powers are subject to judicial review if they affect rights.
Significance:
Broadened the scope of review in UK administrative law—a hallmark of common law evolution.
🔸 CIVIL LAW SYSTEM CASES (France / Germany)
6. Blanco Case (France, Tribunal des conflits, 1873)
(Arrêt Blanco)
Facts:
A child was injured due to negligence of a government-owned factory. Her father sued the state.
Held:
The court ruled that the responsibility of the State must be decided by administrative (not civil) courts under special public law.
Significance:
Foundation of French administrative law—introduced the concept of État de droit (Rule of Law under administrative courts).
7. CE, Dame Veuve Trompier-Gravier (France, 1944)
Facts:
A woman was denied permission to operate a newspaper without being heard.
Held:
Conseil d’État held that right to be heard is a general principle of French administrative law.
Significance:
Codified the idea of “le droit à la défense” (right to defense)—a parallel to natural justice in civil law.
8. CE, Canal, Robin et Godot (France, 1962)
Facts:
De Gaulle’s government created a special military court with no appeal process.
Held:
Conseil d’État annulled the order, holding it violated fundamental rights.
Significance:
Asserted judicial supremacy in protecting fundamental rights in civil law systems.
9. Germany’s Lüth Case (1958, Federal Constitutional Court)
Facts:
A film director sued to stop a boycott of his film organized by a political figure.
Held:
German court applied constitutional principles (freedom of speech) to private law cases as well.
Significance:
Highlighted the horizontal effect of constitutional rights, including in administrative matters.
10. Re Tax Case (Germany, 1954)
Facts:
A tax law gave excessive discretion to the tax office.
Held:
The Federal Administrative Court held that discretion must be limited and guided by law.
Significance:
Established Verhältnismäßigkeit (principle of proportionality) in administrative discretion—core to civil law.
🧾 Key Differences Summarized Through Cases
| Principle | Common Law Approach | Civil Law Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Review | Based on natural justice, reasonableness (Wednesbury) | Based on codified principles, proportionality (Germany) |
| Court System | Unified judiciary (Ridge v. Baldwin, Maneka Gandhi) | Dual system (Blanco case – administrative courts) |
| Discretion Control | Unreasonableness test (GCHQ case) | Codified limits + proportionality (Tax case - Germany) |
| Natural Justice | Evolved through case law (A.K. Kraipak) | Right to defense as codified (Dame Trompier-Gravier) |
| Fundamental Rights | Enforced via writs (Maneka Gandhi) | Enforced through constitutional court (Lüth case) |
🧠 Conclusion: Evaluating the Role of Both Systems
✅ Common Law System (India, UK, USA)
Greater flexibility and judicial creativity
Strong role of precedent and natural justice
Unified judiciary provides wider accessibility
Judicial activism plays a major role in evolving administrative law
✅ Civil Law System (France, Germany, etc.)
Strong institutional structure of administrative courts
Clear codification of procedures and rights
Less discretion due to detailed statutory control
Greater certainty and predictability
📌 Final Takeaway
Both systems aim to uphold the Rule of Law, but they do so differently:
Common law relies on judicial innovation and writ jurisdiction.
Civil law uses specialized administrative courts and detailed codes.
Despite differences, both systems:
Guard against abuse of power
Protect citizens' rights
Ensure administrative accountability
RELATED Blog
0 comments