Historical review of administrative Law’s role in ensuring government accountability
Historical Review of Administrative Law’s Role in Ensuring Government Accountability
What is Administrative Law?
Administrative law is the body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government.
It regulates the exercise of power by these agencies to ensure that government actions are lawful, fair, reasonable, and accountable.
It provides mechanisms like judicial review, natural justice, and procedural safeguards to keep government authorities in check.
Historical Evolution of Administrative Law and Accountability
British Roots and Common Law Development:
Administrative law in India largely derives from the English legal tradition.
Historically, courts used writ jurisdiction under the Habeas Corpus Act and developed judicial review to hold executive accountable.
The maxim “The King can do no wrong” evolved, limiting direct suits against the Crown but accountability was enforced indirectly.
Growth Post-Independence:
The Indian Constitution incorporated judicial review and fundamental rights, making administrative accountability constitutional.
Articles 14 (equality before law), 19 (freedom), and 21 (life and personal liberty) impose limits on administrative powers.
The advent of quasi-judicial bodies and tribunals necessitated clear administrative law principles like natural justice to prevent abuse.
Role of Writ Jurisdiction:
The Supreme Court and High Courts have expansively used writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo Warranto) to enforce government accountability.
This became a powerful tool to control unlawful administrative actions.
Principles of Natural Justice:
The principles of “Audi Alteram Partem” (hear the other side) and “Nemo judex in causa sua” (no one should be a judge in their own cause) are central to administrative accountability.
These principles ensure fairness in government decision-making.
Judicial Review and Ultra Vires Doctrine:
Courts have power to invalidate administrative acts that are ultra vires (beyond the authority granted by law).
This limits arbitrary, excessive, or illegal actions by the government.
Landmark Indian Case Laws on Administrative Law and Government Accountability
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Facts: Selection committee members for a public service commission were alleged to have a conflict of interest.
Held: The Supreme Court held that principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and unbiased decision-making, apply to administrative authorities.
Significance: Reinforced administrative accountability by ensuring that decision-makers are impartial and follow fair procedures.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without notice or hearing.
Held: The Court held that the procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable, expanding Article 21 protections.
Significance: Marked a paradigm shift by emphasizing procedural fairness and government accountability under the Constitution.
3. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) (Judges Transfer Case)
Facts: Alleged arbitrary transfer of judges without clear procedure.
Held: The Supreme Court stressed transparency and accountability in administrative actions affecting constitutional offices.
Significance: Introduced principles ensuring administrative decisions affecting important public offices must follow fair procedures.
4. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
Facts: Public interest litigation about corruption in government agencies.
Held: The Court directed the setting up of independent investigative bodies and monitoring mechanisms.
Significance: Strengthened government accountability by ensuring independence in law enforcement agencies.
5. R. D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)
Facts: A contract was terminated without fair opportunity.
Held: The Supreme Court held administrative authorities must act fairly and cannot terminate contracts arbitrarily.
Significance: Enforced accountability in administrative contract management.
6. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
Facts: Slum dwellers were evicted without adequate notice or rehabilitation.
Held: The Court ruled that evictions violating fundamental rights require reasonable notice and procedure.
Significance: Affirmed government accountability toward vulnerable populations.
7. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Facts: Challenged the ouster clauses limiting judicial review of administrative tribunals.
Held: The Court upheld the power of judicial review as an essential check on administrative authority.
Significance: Confirmed the judiciary’s role as a guarantor of administrative accountability.
Mechanisms of Accountability in Administrative Law
Judicial Review: Courts check legality and reasonableness of government actions.
Writ Jurisdiction: Enforces fundamental rights and curbs abuse.
Principles of Natural Justice: Guarantee fairness in decision-making.
Doctrine of Ultra Vires: Limits government to the powers granted by law.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Citizens can seek judicial intervention against government wrongs.
Transparency and Information Acts: Encourage openness and prevent corruption.
Conclusion
Administrative law has evolved to be a critical instrument for ensuring government accountability in India. From enforcing natural justice, to empowering citizens through judicial review and writs, it keeps the government within constitutional and legal limits. Landmark judgments have shaped a robust system that demands fairness, transparency, and responsibility from administrative authorities, thereby strengthening democracy and the rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments