Non- state actors and Admnistrative Law
🔹 Non-State Actors and Administrative Law – Detailed Explanation
1. Who are Non-State Actors?
Non-State Actors (NSAs) are entities not formally part of the government or its organs, but who may exercise power or perform functions that impact public rights, services, or interests. These include:
Private corporations
NGOs and charitable trusts
Professional regulatory bodies (e.g., Bar Council)
Private educational institutions
Contracted entities performing public duties (e.g., private hospital in a public health scheme)
2. Why Non-State Actors Are Relevant in Administrative Law
Traditionally, Administrative Law focused on the control of State actions. However, with liberalization, privatization, and outsourcing of public services, many functions that were earlier performed by the State are now being undertaken by private bodies.
Hence, courts have extended administrative law principles (like fairness, reasonableness, and accountability) to non-state actors when they perform public functions or exercise statutory powers.
3. Tests to Determine Applicability of Administrative Law on Non-State Actors
Indian courts use several tests to assess whether a non-state actor is subject to administrative law principles:
| Test | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Public Function Test | Is the non-state actor performing a function of public importance? |
| Statutory Authority Test | Does the actor derive power from a statute or government delegation? |
| Deep and Pervasive Control Test | Is there significant government control over the functioning of the body? |
| Financial Assistance Test | Is the actor significantly funded by the government? |
🔹 Landmark Case Laws on Non-State Actors in Administrative Law
✅ Case 1: Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649
Facts:
The BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India), a private entity, was challenged for excluding a player arbitrarily.
Issue:
Whether BCCI is a "State" under Article 12 and whether administrative law applies.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that BCCI is not "State" under Article 12, but since it performs a public function (cricket governance in India), its actions are subject to judicial review under writ jurisdiction (Article 226).
Significance:
Established the "public function" doctrine as a basis for applying administrative law to non-state actors.
✅ Case 2: Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111
Facts:
The issue was whether the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) was "State" under Article 12.
Held:
Supreme Court applied the "deep and pervasive control" test and held CSIR to be "State" under Article 12, making it subject to administrative law controls.
Significance:
Illustrates that even if an organization is autonomous in form, it can be treated as State if government controls it substantially.
✅ Case 3: Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya, AIR 2010 SC 1042
Facts:
The Ramakrishna Mission (a private religious trust running schools) was held liable for administrative violations.
Held:
Though a private body, since it was running educational institutions with public funding, it was subject to administrative law norms and service rules.
Significance:
Shows that performance of public duty, even by private bodies, invites administrative scrutiny.
✅ Case 4: Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan, AIR 2005 SC 3202
Facts:
A dismissed private employee sought remedy under writ jurisdiction, claiming the company acted arbitrarily.
Held:
Supreme Court ruled that writs may not ordinarily lie against private bodies, except when they perform public duties or the dispute involves public law elements.
Significance:
Drew distinction between private law wrongs and public law wrongs, but kept a door open for administrative review in appropriate cases.
✅ Case 5: Andi Mukta Sadguru Trust v. V.R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607
Facts:
Teachers of an aided private college sought enforcement of their rights under writ jurisdiction.
Held:
The Court held that even private entities can be amenable to writ jurisdiction if they are performing public functions or receiving state aid.
Significance:
This case greatly expanded the reach of administrative law to private actors performing publicly funded duties.
🔹 Administrative Law Principles Applied to Non-State Actors
| Principle | Application to Non-State Actors |
|---|---|
| Natural Justice | Must follow fair procedure and give hearings when affecting rights |
| Reasonableness | Decisions must be rational, not arbitrary or perverse |
| Proportionality | Sanctions or actions must be proportional to the objective |
| Accountability | Actions may be challenged through writs if public duties involved |
🔹 Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Zee Telefilms v. UOI | Public functions by private bodies are reviewable |
| Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. CSIR | Deep and pervasive control brings non-state actors under Article 12 |
| Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya | Private religious bodies performing public duties are accountable |
| Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan | Distinction between public and private law remedies |
| Andi Mukta Trust v. V.R. Rudani | Writs lie against private entities performing public functions |
🔹 Conclusion
Non-State Actors are increasingly performing public functions, especially in sectors like education, health, infrastructure, and sports. Indian courts have responded by extending administrative law principles to these entities when they affect public interest, fundamental rights, or perform governmental roles.
Thus, Administrative Law in India is no longer confined to formal 'State' bodies, but dynamically applies to any entity whose actions have public law consequences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments