Constitutional remedies and administrative action
🏛️ Part I: Constitutional Remedies
1. Meaning of Constitutional Remedies
Constitutional remedies refer to legal measures provided by the Constitution to protect the fundamental rights of individuals. These are guaranteed under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 32: Provides the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Article 226: Empowers the High Courts to issue writs not only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for any other purpose (includes legal rights).
2. Types of Writs (Remedies)
| Writ | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Habeas Corpus | To release a person who is illegally detained. |
| Mandamus | To direct a public official or body to perform a duty. |
| Certiorari | To quash an order passed by a lower court/tribunal acting beyond its power. |
| Prohibition | To stop a lower court/tribunal from proceeding with a matter beyond its jurisdiction. |
| Quo Warranto | To challenge a person's right to hold a public office. |
⚖️ Part II: Administrative Action
1. Meaning of Administrative Action
Administrative action refers to decisions or steps taken by administrative authorities (government departments, public officials, agencies) in the course of governance. These actions can be:
Quasi-judicial
Discretionary
Ministerial
The principles of natural justice (like audi alteram partem – hear the other side) are often invoked in administrative matters.
🔍 Part III: Case Law on Constitutional Remedies & Administrative Action
Case 1: A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Facts:
A.K. Gopalan, a communist leader, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He filed a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 32.
Issue:
Was the preventive detention violative of his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that each fundamental right is distinct and must be considered separately.
Detention under a "procedure established by law" (Article 21) was held to be valid.
Importance:
Early case interpreting the scope of Habeas Corpus.
Later overruled by Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government "in the public interest" without providing her a chance to be heard.
Issue:
Whether the action violated Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom of movement), and 21 (life and personal liberty)?
Judgment:
The court held that the procedure under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Government action must meet the principles of natural justice.
Importance:
Expanded the interpretation of Article 21.
Reinforced due process and natural justice in administrative action.
Case 3: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Facts:
The President dismissed state governments by invoking Article 356, claiming breakdown of constitutional machinery.
Issue:
Whether such presidential action is subject to judicial review?
Judgment:
The court held that administrative action under Article 356 is reviewable by courts.
President's satisfaction is not absolute or beyond challenge.
Importance:
Emphasized checks on arbitrary administrative power.
Reinforced the concept of federalism and constitutional balance.
Case 4: Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997) – (Hawala Case)
Facts:
PIL filed seeking investigation into the Hawala scam where politicians were allegedly involved in illegal transactions.
Issue:
Whether the CBI and other agencies were acting independently, and whether administrative inaction could be challenged?
Judgment:
Supreme Court issued mandamus to enforce proper investigation.
Laid down guidelines for CBI’s autonomy from political interference.
Importance:
Illustrates the use of Mandamus to control inaction by administrative agencies.
Judicial activism in ensuring accountability.
Case 5: R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979)
Facts:
A contract was denied to a lowest bidder based on an arbitrary change in tender eligibility.
Issue:
Can a government body be held accountable for arbitrary administrative action?
Judgment:
The Court held that every public authority must act fairly, even in contractual matters.
Arbitrary actions violate Article 14.
Importance:
Recognized the importance of reasonableness and fairness in administrative actions.
Applied constitutional principles to administrative contracts.
Case 6: Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
Facts:
Government dismissed civil servants without a departmental inquiry under Article 311, citing security concerns.
Issue:
Was the denial of natural justice justified?
Judgment:
The court upheld the action but clarified that natural justice can only be excluded in exceptional cases.
Emphasized proportionality and public interest.
Importance:
Limits to administrative discretion.
Ensures that natural justice remains a central principle unless justifiably excluded.
✅ Conclusion
Key Takeaways
Constitutional remedies are safeguards against violations of fundamental rights.
Administrative action must be:
Legal
Fair
Reasonable
In compliance with natural justice
Judicial review acts as a check against arbitrary administrative power.
The writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 is an essential tool for accountability.
Most Common Violations Challenged
Illegal detention (Habeas Corpus)
Failure of public officials to perform duties (Mandamus)
Abuse of power by tribunals (Certiorari & Prohibition)
Unauthorized occupation of office (Quo Warranto)
RELATED Blog
0 comments