Origin and development of Administrative law
Origin and Development of Administrative Law
What is Administrative Law?
Administrative law governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. It deals with the rules, regulations, and decisions made by administrative bodies, ensuring they act within their authority and follow principles of fairness and justice.
Origin:
Administrative law originated to regulate the exercise of power by the executive branch and its agencies. It emerged as a distinct legal discipline in the 19th century in response to the growing complexity of government functions.
Pre-Industrial Era: Traditional law focused on judicial and legislative powers. Courts maintained control over administration by writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari.
Industrial Revolution: Rapid industrialization and urbanization led to expansion of government roles — regulating labor, health, commerce — requiring specialized administrative bodies.
Administrative Agencies: New agencies with legislative, executive, and quasi-judicial functions were created, which traditional law could not fully regulate.
Growth of Administrative Law: To control arbitrary power of agencies, principles of natural justice and judicial review developed to ensure accountability.
Development:
Early Common Law Control:
Courts used prerogative writs (mandamus, prohibition, certiorari) to control administrative actions.
Judicial review allowed courts to examine legality but not the merits of administrative decisions.
Judicial Recognition of Administrative Law:
Courts acknowledged the necessity of administrative agencies.
Recognized limits on agency powers.
Codification and Expansion:
Many countries codified administrative procedures.
Development of principles like natural justice, due process, fairness, reasonableness.
Modern Administrative Law:
Emphasizes transparency, accountability.
Judicial review expanded to include proportionality, legitimate expectation.
Landmark Cases Explaining the Development of Administrative Law
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803) (U.S.)
Significance: Established the principle of judicial review — courts can invalidate laws or executive actions inconsistent with the Constitution.
Facts: Marbury sued for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to deliver his commission.
Holding: The Supreme Court held the law granting jurisdiction to issue such a writ was unconstitutional.
Importance: This case established the judiciary’s authority to review administrative and legislative acts, a foundation for administrative law.
2. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody (1994) (UK)
Significance: Clarified principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative decision-making.
Facts: Prisoners challenged the Home Secretary’s refusal to disclose reasons for tariff decisions on their sentences.
Holding: Court ruled that fairness requires decision-makers to give reasons where it affects rights.
Importance: Established that fairness and the right to a hearing depend on the context, emphasizing procedural fairness in administrative decisions.
3. Carltona Ltd. v. Commissioner of Works (1943) (UK)
Significance: Introduced the Carltona principle — ministers can delegate their statutory powers to responsible officials without individual approval.
Facts: Carltona challenged government requisition of property without ministerial approval.
Holding: The court held that the minister’s powers could be exercised by officials of the department.
Importance: This case acknowledged practical delegation in administrative functioning, while maintaining ministerial responsibility.
4. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) (UK)
Significance: Developed the test of reasonableness or “Wednesbury unreasonableness” in judicial review.
Facts: The Corporation imposed conditions on cinema operation; the company challenged them as unreasonable.
Holding: The court ruled that a decision is unreasonable if it is so absurd that no reasonable authority would ever impose it.
Importance: This remains a cornerstone in assessing administrative decisions for reasonableness.
5. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) (UK)
Significance: Reinforced the importance of natural justice (right to a fair hearing) in administrative decisions.
Facts: Police chief dismissed without a hearing; challenged on grounds of unfair procedure.
Holding: House of Lords held dismissal invalid due to lack of hearing.
Importance: Established that even administrative decisions affecting employment must adhere to principles of natural justice.
6. Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick (2008) (Canada)
Significance: Clarified standards of judicial review in administrative law — reasonableness and correctness.
Facts: Dunsmuir challenged his dismissal from a government position.
Holding: Supreme Court of Canada articulated a two-step standard for reviewing administrative decisions: either correctness or reasonableness.
Importance: Balanced deference to administrative expertise with the need for legality and fairness.
7. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) (India)
Significance: Expanded the scope of due process under Indian constitutional law to administrative actions.
Facts: Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded without adequate reasons.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that the procedure must be “right, just and fair” and not arbitrary.
Importance: This case significantly strengthened procedural fairness in administrative law in India.
Summary of Key Principles from Cases:
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison | Judicial Review |
| Doody | Right to reasons, fairness in procedure |
| Carltona Ltd. | Delegation of ministerial powers |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses | Wednesbury unreasonableness test |
| Ridge v. Baldwin | Right to fair hearing (natural justice) |
| Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick | Standards of review: reasonableness & correctness |
| Maneka Gandhi | Due process, fairness in administrative action |
Conclusion:
Administrative law has evolved to balance the growing power and complexity of government agencies with protections for individuals' rights and fairness in decision-making. Landmark cases have developed foundational principles like judicial review, natural justice, reasonableness, delegation, and procedural fairness. Together, they ensure that administrative authorities act within the law and respect individual rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments