Mandamus in administrative law
Mandamus in Administrative Law
What is Mandamus?
Mandamus is a writ issued by a higher court commanding a public authority, government official, or inferior court to perform a duty that they are legally obligated to perform. It is a key tool in administrative law used to enforce the performance of public duties.
Nature and Scope of Mandamus
Purpose: To compel performance of a public duty which is mandatory and specific.
Discretion: Mandamus cannot be issued to compel the performance of duties that are discretionary or dependent on subjective judgment.
Availability: Usually issued when:
A public official or agency fails or refuses to perform a duty imposed by law.
There is no other adequate remedy.
Limitations:
Cannot control the manner of performance.
Cannot be issued to direct the exercise of discretion.
Not available against private individuals or corporations unless they perform public duties.
Mandamus vs Other Writs
Mandamus vs Prohibition: Mandamus commands action, prohibition prevents unlawful action.
Mandamus vs Certiorari: Mandamus compels action, certiorari quashes illegal actions.
Mandamus vs Habeas Corpus: Habeas corpus protects unlawful detention; mandamus compels performance of duty.
Landmark Cases on Mandamus in Administrative Law
1. R. v. Electrical Commissioners, ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee (1924)
Facts: The London Electricity Joint Committee sought mandamus to compel the Electrical Commissioners to perform statutory duties.
Issue: When can mandamus compel performance of public duties?
Ruling: Mandamus lies where a public authority refuses to perform a clear, specific duty without discretion.
Significance: Established that mandamus is appropriate only for mandatory duties, not discretionary ones.
2. State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1952)
Facts: The state refused to act on a government order.
Issue: Could mandamus be issued to compel the state to perform its duty?
Ruling: The Supreme Court held mandamus could be issued to compel performance of statutory duties.
Significance: Affirmed the writ as a tool to enforce administrative accountability.
3. Union of India v. Mahalakshmi Shipping Corporation (1989)
Facts: Petitioners sought mandamus to compel a government authority to take action under a statute.
Issue: Whether mandamus can be issued when the duty involves discretionary powers.
Ruling: Mandamus cannot be issued to compel exercise of discretion, only performance of mandatory duties.
Significance: Clarified limits on mandamus in relation to discretionary administrative functions.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Mandamus was sought for issuing a passport.
Issue: Whether mandamus can compel the government to perform statutory duties related to personal liberty.
Ruling: The Court held that mandamus can be issued to protect fundamental rights by compelling lawful administrative action.
Significance: Expanded the scope of mandamus as a protector of fundamental rights and administrative justice.
5. A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Facts: The petition challenged an administrative decision where mandamus was sought for fair inquiry.
Issue: Whether mandamus can be used to enforce procedural fairness.
Ruling: Mandamus may be issued to compel administrative authorities to act fairly and follow due process.
Significance: Reinforced mandamus as a remedy to ensure fairness in administrative procedures.
6. Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers (2017)
Facts: Petitioners sought mandamus to compel the Board to provide safety equipment to workers.
Issue: Can mandamus be used to enforce administrative obligations related to welfare?
Ruling: The Court issued mandamus directing the Board to fulfill its statutory duties toward workers.
Significance: Demonstrated mandamus as a tool for enforcing social welfare obligations.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Key Issue | Holding / Significance |
|---|---|---|
| R. v. Electrical Commissioners (1924) | Mandatory vs discretionary duties | Mandamus for clear mandatory duties, not discretion |
| State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1952) | Enforcement of statutory duty | Mandamus can compel performance of public duties |
| Union of India v. Mahalakshmi Shipping (1989) | Discretionary powers | Mandamus not available to direct discretionary acts |
| Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) | Fundamental rights | Mandamus can enforce fundamental rights and lawful action |
| A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) | Procedural fairness | Mandamus to enforce fair procedure in administrative acts |
| Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign (2017) | Welfare obligations | Mandamus to enforce statutory welfare duties |
Conclusion
Mandamus is a vital writ in administrative law, ensuring that public authorities perform their legal duties without delay or evasion. While it cannot command discretion, it effectively compels mandatory actions and protects individuals’ rights against administrative inertia or abuse.
RELATED Blog
0 comments