Features of a welfare state and growth of administrative law
🔹 Part I: Features of a Welfare State
✅ What is a Welfare State?
A Welfare State is a system of governance in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It seeks to:
Reduce inequality
Provide equal opportunities
Guarantee a minimum standard of living
Protect fundamental human rights
India, after independence, adopted the welfare state model, reflected in the Preamble, Fundamental Rights, and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) of the Constitution.
✅ Core Features of a Welfare State
| Feature | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Social Justice | Equal access to resources and opportunities for all citizens |
| Economic Equality | Bridging the gap between rich and poor through redistributive measures |
| Protection of Fundamental Rights | State is bound to protect rights like education, life, equality, etc. |
| Directive Principles of State Policy | State is expected to provide free education, public health, social security |
| Regulation of Economy | Planning, regulation, and control over key industries and services |
| Empowerment of the Weak | Special provisions for SCs, STs, women, children, disabled, etc. |
🔹 Part II: Growth of Administrative Law in a Welfare State
✅ Relationship Between Welfare State and Administrative Law
The growth of administrative law is a direct consequence of the evolution of the welfare state. As the government's responsibilities grew beyond policing and defense to include education, healthcare, labor rights, environmental regulation, and poverty alleviation, new institutions, powers, and procedures had to be created.
This led to:
Increased rule-making powers delegated to the executive
Growth of tribunals and regulatory bodies
Expansion of judicial review and natural justice
Accountability mechanisms like Lokayuktas, CAG, PILs, etc.
🔹 Key Case Laws Supporting Welfare State and Administrative Law Growth
✅ 1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461
Context:
Challenge to constitutional amendments affecting property rights and equality.
Held:
The Court upheld the Basic Structure Doctrine and stated that social and economic justice, as enshrined in the Directive Principles, form part of the basic structure.
Significance:
Reinforced the concept of a welfare state and guided the administrative machinery to function in line with constitutional morality.
✅ 2. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789
Context:
Balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles challenged.
Held:
Held that the Directive Principles of State Policy are not subservient to Fundamental Rights. Both must be harmonized.
Significance:
This ruling strengthened administrative action aimed at fulfilling welfare goals like social and economic justice.
✅ 3. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Citation: AIR 1986 SC 180
Context:
Pavement dwellers were to be evicted under city laws.
Held:
Supreme Court held that the Right to Livelihood is part of the Right to Life under Article 21.
Significance:
Directed the administration to act with compassion, fairness, and responsibility, reflecting welfare state values in executive action.
✅ 4. Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)
Citation: AIR 1993 SC 2178
Context:
Questioned if the Right to Education is a fundamental right.
Held:
Recognized education up to age 14 as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Significance:
Resulted in expansion of administrative responsibilities in providing public education.
✅ 5. D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983)
Citation: AIR 1983 SC 130
Context:
Challenged discriminatory pension policy for government employees.
Held:
The Court struck down the policy, holding that social welfare must be inclusive and not arbitrary.
Significance:
Strongly emphasized the obligation of the state to ensure social security, reflecting a mature welfare state and activist administrative law.
✅ 6. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992)
Citation: AIR 1992 SC 1858
Context:
Capitation fees in private medical colleges.
Held:
Held that the Right to Education is a fundamental right, and charging capitation fee violates Article 14 and 21.
Significance:
Established the need for state regulation of private education, indicating growth in administrative oversight.
🔹 How These Cases Demonstrate the Growth of Administrative Law in a Welfare State
| Case | Welfare State Principle Upheld | Impact on Administrative Law |
|---|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati | Social justice, economic equality | Policy-making power constrained by basic structure |
| Minerva Mills | Balance of rights and directive principles | Admin action aligned with constitutional morality |
| Olga Tellis | Right to shelter and livelihood | Admin bodies required to act humanely |
| Unni Krishnan | Right to education | Admin required to provide infrastructure |
| D.S. Nakara | Social security for elderly | Rational, inclusive administrative decision-making |
| Mohini Jain | Regulation of education for equity | Admin regulation of private institutions |
🔹 Conclusion
India’s transformation into a welfare state post-independence led to the significant expansion of administrative law. The courts have consistently upheld this growth by:
Enforcing welfare-based constitutional mandates
Ensuring accountability of administrative actions
Requiring fairness and inclusivity in policy implementation
Empowering citizens through Public Interest Litigation
Thus, the growth of administrative law in India is both a necessity and a consequence of the state’s commitment to social and economic justice, as reflected in its Constitution and jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments