Growth of administrative law in India
Growth of Administrative Law in India
What is Administrative Law?
Administrative law governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. It deals with the rules, regulations, procedures, and principles governing the functioning and control of administrative authorities.
Historical Context of Administrative Law in India
Pre-Independence Era
During British rule, administrative law began taking shape primarily through British statutes and judicial decisions, but it was limited.
Post-Independence Growth
After India became independent in 1947, the need for administrative law grew due to the expansion of government functions and regulatory agencies.
Constitutional Foundation
The Indian Constitution provided a framework for administrative law by incorporating:
Rule of Law (Article 14)
Right to Equality (Article 14)
Right to Fair Hearing / Natural Justice (Article 21)
Judicial Review (Articles 32 and 226)
Expansion of Government and Welfare State
India adopted a welfare state model, which led to the proliferation of administrative authorities and tribunals to execute socio-economic policies.
Judicial Activism and Review
Indian judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, developed principles to control and regulate administrative powers, ensuring protection of fundamental rights and fair procedures.
Key Principles in Administrative Law in India
Legality: Administrative actions must have legal authority.
Reasonableness: Decisions must be reasonable and not arbitrary.
Natural Justice: The right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua).
Judicial Review: Courts can invalidate administrative actions that are illegal, unreasonable, or violate fundamental rights.
Delegated Legislation: Power given by the legislature to administrative bodies to make rules/regulations.
Accountability and Transparency: Emerging principles especially after Right to Information Act, 2005.
Landmark Cases in Indian Administrative Law
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Facts:
The case involved the selection of candidates for the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests. The selection committee included official members who had a personal interest in the selection process.
Issues:
Whether the principle of natural justice applies to administrative decision-making bodies and whether the selection process was biased.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice apply to administrative authorities and their decisions must be free from bias. The committee was biased because some members had an interest in the outcome.
Significance:
This case expanded the application of natural justice principles beyond courts to administrative agencies.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without providing a reason or hearing.
Issue:
Whether the procedure established by law must be "just, fair, and reasonable" under Article 21.
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that the “procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary.
Significance:
This broadened the interpretation of Article 21 and ensured procedural fairness in administrative actions.
3. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Facts:
The Bombay Municipal Corporation tried to evict pavement dwellers without proper hearing or alternative arrangements.
Issue:
Whether the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life, and eviction without due procedure is unconstitutional.
Significance:
It strengthened the scope of Article 21 and imposed a duty on administrative authorities to act fairly and consider the impact of their decisions.
4. State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010)
Facts:
Police action was challenged for violating fundamental rights during political protests.
Issue:
Scope of judicial review in administrative actions that impact democratic rights.
Decision:
The Court emphasized that administrative authorities must act within the law and respect constitutional freedoms.
Significance:
This case reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in checking administrative overreach in the context of democratic rights.
5. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Facts:
Challenge to the constitutionality of administrative tribunals and their exclusive jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether tribunals can oust the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that tribunals must be subject to judicial review by the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.
Significance:
The judgment reinforced the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over administrative tribunals, ensuring checks and balances.
6. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
Facts:
The case dealt with the dismissal of a government employee without providing an opportunity of hearing.
Issue:
Whether principles of natural justice apply to disciplinary actions by administrative authorities.
Decision:
The Court held that even in disciplinary proceedings, principles of natural justice must be followed.
Significance:
This case strengthened the protection of individual rights against administrative arbitrariness.
Summary of the Growth of Administrative Law in India
| Phase | Key Features | Key Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-Independence | Limited administrative law, British statutes | - |
| Early Post-Independence | Constitutional provisions, Rule of Law | A.K. Kraipak, Maneka Gandhi |
| Expansion Phase | Welfare state, rise of administrative agencies | Olga Tellis, L. Chandra Kumar |
| Judicial Activism | Judicial review, natural justice, accountability | State of West Bengal, Tulsiram Patel |
| Modern Developments | Transparency (RTI), Administrative reforms | - |
RELATED Blog
0 comments