Constitutional debates on fundamental rights in administrative processes
Administrative processes involve the exercise of governmental power in the form of rules, orders, decisions, and actions by various public bodies. The fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India act as limitations on arbitrary administrative actions and protect individual liberties. Over the years, the Supreme Court and High Courts have interpreted and expanded the scope of these rights, particularly in the context of administrative law, ensuring that governance remains accountable, transparent, and just.
⚖️ KEY THEMES:
Article 14 – Equality before law and non-arbitrariness
Article 19 – Protection of freedoms
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty
Article 32 & 226 – Constitutional remedies against administrative action
Natural justice and procedural fairness
🔍 DETAILED CASE LAW EXPLANATIONS
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Topic: Procedural Fairness in Administrative Actions
Fundamental Right Involved: Article 21 (Right to Life & Liberty), Article 14, Article 19
Background:
Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the government without giving her a chance to be heard. The justification was "in the interest of the general public."
Issues:
Can administrative decisions curtail fundamental rights without following due process?
Does Article 21 include a right to a fair hearing?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held:
“The procedure established by law must be fair, just and reasonable—not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.”
Significance:
Expanded Article 21 beyond mere “procedure established by law.”
Introduced the "due process of law" doctrine in Indian jurisprudence.
Stated that administrative actions must follow the principles of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule (right to be heard).
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262
Topic: Blurring Line Between Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Functions
Fundamental Right: Article 14 (Equality), Principles of Natural Justice
Background:
A member of a selection board for forest officers was himself a candidate. This raised questions about bias in administrative selection.
Issues:
Are administrative actions bound by principles of natural justice?
Is fairness required even when the function is not strictly judicial?
Judgment:
The Court observed:
“The distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions is getting blurred. Wherever a statutory authority has power to decide, it must act fairly.”
Significance:
Asserted that fairness and impartiality are inherent in all administrative actions.
Established that administrative discretion is not absolute; it must be exercised within constitutional limits.
3. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3
Topic: Arbitrariness as Violation of Equality
Fundamental Right: Article 14 (Equality before law)
Background:
Royappa challenged his transfer as Chief Secretary, alleging it was arbitrary and politically motivated.
Issues:
Does arbitrariness violate Article 14 even if there's no discrimination?
Judgment:
“Equality is antithetical to arbitrariness. Where an act is arbitrary, it is necessarily unequal.”
Significance:
Revolutionized the understanding of Article 14.
Arbitrariness in administrative action amounts to a violation of equality.
Public officials must act based on objective criteria and not whims.
4. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405
Topic: Reasons in Administrative Orders
Fundamental Right: Article 14, Article 19
Background:
The Election Commission canceled an election without recording proper reasons.
Issues:
Are administrative orders invalid if reasons are not provided?
Is transparency a constitutional requirement?
Judgment:
“When an order is made in exercise of a statutory power, the reasons forming the basis must be disclosed.”
Significance:
Mandated that administrative authorities provide reasoned orders.
Helped prevent abuse of power and ensured judicial review of administrative decisions.
Protected freedom of political participation (Article 19).
5. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
Topic: Exceptions to Natural Justice
Fundamental Right: Article 311 (Protection of civil servants), Article 21
Background:
Several government employees were dismissed without a hearing on grounds of national security.
Issues:
Can natural justice be bypassed in administrative action?
Does this violate Article 21?
Judgment:
“Though principles of natural justice are essential, they are not inflexible. In extreme cases, such as threat to national security, pre-decisional hearing may be excluded.”
Significance:
Explained exceptions to the rule of audi alteram partem.
Highlighted the balance between state interest and individual rights.
Reinforced the idea that administrative expediency must be justified.
6. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Topic: Administrative Policing and Human Rights
Fundamental Right: Article 21 (Right to Life), Article 22 (Protection against arbitrary arrest)
Background:
Custodial violence by police was rampant; no formal guidelines existed for arrest and detention procedures.
Issues:
Are police (an administrative authority) bound by constitutional safeguards?
Does custodial treatment come under Article 21?
Judgment:
“No person shall be deprived of liberty except by fair, just, and reasonable procedure.”
Directions Issued:
Arrest memo must be prepared.
Relatives must be informed.
Medical check-ups are mandatory.
Significance:
Made administrative policing accountable to constitutional rights.
Laid down binding procedural guidelines.
Strengthened rule of law against administrative abuse.
7. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) SCR 284
Topic: Classification in Administrative Actions
Fundamental Right: Article 14
Background:
Special courts were established to try specific cases under an act passed by the West Bengal government, leading to unequal treatment.
Issues:
Can the state create special administrative procedures for different citizens?
Judgment:
“The law must apply equally to all persons similarly situated. Unequal treatment without rational basis violates Article 14.”
Significance:
Struck down arbitrary classifications in administrative law.
Reaffirmed the equality principle.
Ensured that administrative laws must have a reasonable classification.
🧠 CONCLUSION
🔑 Constitutional Principles Emerged:
| Principle | Related Case |
|---|---|
| Fairness in procedure | Maneka Gandhi, A.K. Kraipak |
| Reasoned decision-making | Mohinder Singh Gill |
| Protection against arbitrariness | E.P. Royappa, Anwar Ali Sarkar |
| Natural justice in administration | A.K. Kraipak, Tulsiram Patel |
| Transparency and accountability | Mohinder Singh Gill, D.K. Basu |
| Right to dignity and liberty | Maneka Gandhi, D.K. Basu |
📌 Final Thoughts:
The debates on fundamental rights in administrative processes are not abstract legal discussions—they determine how power is used in everyday governance. Through these landmark judgments, the Indian judiciary has constitutionally disciplined administrative authorities, ensuring that they serve public interest, respect individual freedoms, and operate within the boundaries of the Constitution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments