Investigations into maladministration
🔷 What is Maladministration?
Maladministration refers to improper, inefficient, or unfair administration by public authorities. It does not always involve corruption, but includes any form of abuse, delay, negligence, bias, dishonesty, or injustice in public administration.
Common Examples:
Excessive delay in decision-making
Bias or favoritism in appointments or promotions
Ignoring rules or statutory procedures
Failure to provide reasons for decisions
Misuse of discretionary powers
Harassment by public servants
Denial of rightful entitlements without justification
🔷 Mechanisms to Investigate Maladministration
Vigilance Commissions – e.g., Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Ombudsman Institutions – e.g., Lokayukta and Lokpal
Departmental Inquiries – internal investigations by administrative bodies
Judicial Review – courts may quash administrative actions or order inquiries
Right to Information (RTI) Act – exposes irregularities in administration
Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) – audits misuse of public funds
🔷 Legal Principles Underlying Investigations:
Rule of Law – administration must comply with laws and procedures
Natural Justice – no one should be condemned unheard
Proportionality – actions must be appropriate to the issue
Public Accountability – authorities are answerable to the people
🔷 Key Case Laws on Maladministration (with Detailed Explanation)
1. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Citation: (2017) 10 SCC 1
⚖️ Facts:
The Aadhaar project was challenged partly on grounds of administrative overreach, including misuse of personal data without safeguards.
🧾 Issue:
Whether administrative systems collecting and using personal data without safeguards amount to maladministration?
👨⚖️ Judgment:
The Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right.
Held that failure to have oversight mechanisms and safeguards in administrative processes constitutes maladministration.
✅ Significance:
Systemic maladministration, even in the absence of individual corruption, is legally challengeable.
Introduced constitutional dimensions to administrative accountability.
2. Common Cause v. Union of India (1996)
Citation: AIR 1996 SC 3081
⚖️ Facts:
The case involved irregular allotment of petrol pumps to political affiliates.
🧾 Issue:
Was the arbitrary allocation of public resources a case of maladministration?
👨⚖️ Judgment:
Supreme Court quashed the allotments and held the entire action to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Ordered CVC and CBI to investigate.
✅ Significance:
Clear example of maladministration through favoritism.
Reaffirmed judicial authority to order investigations into executive abuse.
3. Centre for PIL v. Union of India (2011) – The 2G Spectrum Case
Citation: (2012) 3 SCC 1
⚖️ Facts:
Challenge to the 2G spectrum allocations which were done without auctions, allegedly causing huge financial loss to the exchequer.
🧾 Issue:
Whether lack of transparency and fairness in spectrum allocation amounted to maladministration?
👨⚖️ Judgment:
Supreme Court cancelled the spectrum licenses.
Held that the process was arbitrary, non-transparent, and violated public trust.
✅ Significance:
Landmark ruling on maladministration in high-level policy decisions.
Demonstrated the court’s readiness to quash large-scale decisions if they undermine fairness.
4. Rajasthan Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967)
Citation: AIR 1967 SC 1857
⚖️ Facts:
A lineman was suspended and dismissed without a proper inquiry under service rules.
🧾 Issue:
Was denial of procedural rights to an employee maladministration?
👨⚖️ Judgment:
The Court held that failure to follow disciplinary procedures was a form of maladministration, as it led to injustice.
✅ Significance:
Established that even individual service-related injustices may qualify as maladministration.
Reinforces the need for procedural compliance in administrative acts.
5. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) – Judges' Transfer Case
Citation: AIR 1982 SC 149
⚖️ Facts:
The government transferred several judges without transparency or consultation.
🧾 Issue:
Whether lack of transparency and consultation in administrative decisions amounts to maladministration?
👨⚖️ Judgment:
The Court held that lack of transparency in transfers affected the independence of the judiciary.
Emphasized the need for procedural safeguards in administrative discretion.
✅ Significance:
Administrative discretion must be guided by fairness and consultation.
Lays down standards to prevent arbitrary transfers and appointments.
6. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case)
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 734
⚖️ Facts:
The government failed to regulate pollution from industries around the Taj Mahal.
🧾 Issue:
Was the failure to enforce environmental standards maladministration?
👨⚖️ Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that administrative inaction in controlling pollution endangered public interest and heritage.
Directed closure or relocation of polluting industries.
✅ Significance:
Inaction by regulatory authorities can be deemed maladministration.
Courts can compel authorities to act to protect public interest.
🔷 Summary Table of Case Law Principles
| Case | Issue | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) | Overreach in data handling | Lack of safeguards = systemic maladministration |
| Common Cause (1996) | Arbitrary resource allotment | Favoritism is administrative misconduct |
| 2G Spectrum Case (2011) | Policy corruption | Non-transparency amounts to maladministration |
| Rajasthan Electricity Board (1967) | Unfair dismissal | Procedural violations are maladministration |
| S.P. Gupta (1981) | Judicial transfers | Lack of consultation = arbitrary governance |
| M.C. Mehta (1997) | Environmental negligence | Regulatory inaction = maladministration |
🔚 Conclusion
Investigations into maladministration are essential for upholding the rule of law, transparency, and public trust in governance. Whether it is:
Delay, inaction, or bias by public officials
Abuse of discretion in resource allocation
Disregard for procedures or statutory norms
…the courts and investigative bodies have developed robust mechanisms to identify and correct such administrative wrongs.
These landmark cases show that maladministration is not just about corruption, but also about failure to perform administrative duties properly, and it is legally actionable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments