Comparison with administrative law in India
🇦🇫 Afghan Administrative Law vs 🇮🇳 Indian Administrative Law
I. Legal Framework
Afghanistan
Based on Civil Service Law (2005), Labour Law, and Constitution of Afghanistan (2004).
Heavily influenced by Islamic law, local customs, and international standards.
Oversight by Independent Administrative Reform and Civil Service Commission (IARCSC).
India
Based on Constitution of India (Part XIV, Articles 309–323).
Governed by Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, Administrative Tribunals Act, service rules, and extensive judicial review by constitutional courts.
Oversight by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and State Public Service Commissions.
II. Comparison of Rights & Duties of Civil Servants
| Aspect | Afghanistan | India |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Equality | Constitutional (non-discrimination), rarely enforced uniformly | Strong judicial enforcement under Article 14 |
| Right to Hearing (Natural Justice) | Required before dismissal or disciplinary action | Firmly established via Article 311, rooted in natural justice |
| Protection from Arbitrary Dismissal | Yes, but due process often inconsistent | Well-protected, especially under Article 311(2) |
| Confidentiality | Mandatory duty | Enforced under Conduct Rules and service manuals |
| Corruption | Criminal and disciplinary liability under anti-corruption laws | Punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act and internal proceedings |
| Political Neutrality | Required by law | Mandated by Conduct Rules, enforced through departmental inquiries |
III. Indian Case Law – Detailed Explanation (More than 5 Cases)
1. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
Facts:
Several government employees were dismissed without inquiry on grounds of "security of the state."
Issue:
Can the government bypass inquiry under Article 311(2) in exceptional circumstances?
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that natural justice can be excluded in extreme cases involving state security, emergency, or public interest, as allowed under Article 311(2)(b) & (c).
Principle:
Though natural justice is a fundamental principle, exceptions exist when national security is threatened.
Comparison to Afghanistan:
Afghan law recognizes due process, but the state's security can also override procedural rights — similar to India’s constitutional framework.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
The government impounded Maneka Gandhi’s passport without a hearing.
Issue:
Can the state restrict personal liberty without due process?
Held:
The court expanded the meaning of “procedure established by law” in Article 21 to include fairness, reasonableness, and natural justice.
Principle:
Administrative actions must follow fair procedures, or they violate constitutional rights.
Comparison to Afghanistan:
In Afghan administrative law, fairness is mandated in principle, but judicial enforcement is weaker. This case reflects a higher level of judicial activism in India.
3. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Facts:
Selection board members were also candidates for selection in a forest service recruitment process.
Issue:
Did this violate natural justice and fairness?
Held:
Yes. The Court ruled that bias or conflict of interest invalidates administrative decisions.
Principle:
"Nemo judex in causa sua" (no one should be a judge in their own case) is a foundational principle in administrative law.
Comparison to Afghanistan:
Afghan laws prohibit conflict of interest, but enforcement is often weak. India’s judiciary actively disqualifies biased decisions.
4. State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal (2002)
Facts:
An officer was denied promotion despite eligibility.
Issue:
Was it arbitrary to deny promotion without explanation?
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that promotion must follow transparent criteria; otherwise, it's arbitrary under Article 14.
Principle:
Denial of promotion without reason violates the right to equality and fairness.
Comparison to Afghanistan:
Afghan civil servants face similar challenges. Though promotion criteria exist, tribal, ethnic, or political biases often intervene.
5. D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993)
Facts:
An employee was terminated without notice for unauthorized absence.
Issue:
Is dismissal without hearing legal?
Held:
No. Even if conduct justifies termination, the employee must be given a hearing.
Principle:
Due process is mandatory even in disciplinary cases.
Comparison to Afghanistan:
This reinforces the idea that hearing is essential, which is also required under Afghan Civil Service Law but inconsistently applied.
6. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – Broader Administrative Implication
Facts:
Challenged Section 377 IPC criminalizing homosexuality.
Issue:
Can outdated administrative/criminal rules violate constitutional rights?
Held:
Yes. The Court struck down Section 377 partially, emphasizing constitutional morality over social morality.
Principle:
Administrative laws must evolve with fundamental rights and human dignity.
Comparison to Afghanistan:
Afghan administrative laws still reflect traditional norms. Courts have limited power to override such laws based on evolving rights.
7. State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah (2000)
Facts:
A civil servant was suspended indefinitely without finalizing departmental inquiry.
Issue:
Is prolonged suspension lawful?
Held:
No. Suspension must be temporary and justified, not punitive.
Principle:
An indefinite suspension without conclusion of inquiry is arbitrary and violative of Article 21.
Comparison to Afghanistan:
In Afghanistan, prolonged suspensions without clear reasoning are common. Indian courts offer a stronger check on administrative excess.
IV. Key Doctrines in Indian Administrative Law
Doctrine of Pleasure (Art. 310):
Government can terminate service, but is restricted by Article 311, requiring procedural safeguards.
Natural Justice:
Two principles:
Audi alteram partem – right to be heard
Nemo judex in causa sua – rule against bias
Wednesbury Unreasonableness:
Courts can strike down administrative actions that are irrational or absurd.
V. Conclusion – Comparative Insights
| Dimension | India | Afghanistan |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Oversight | Strong, independent constitutional courts | Developing; judiciary less independent historically |
| Legal Framework | Detailed constitutional and statutory protections | Fragmented enforcement, though laws exist |
| Rights Enforcement | Effective through PILs, writs (mandamus, certiorari, etc.) | Limited access to courts and weak enforcement mechanisms |
| Training & Merit | UPSC-based, meritocratic, with some political interference | Often influenced by connections, political patronage |
RELATED Blog
0 comments