Pandemic preparedness in administrative law
Administrative law governs how public authorities exercise power, especially during crises like pandemics. When governments impose lockdowns, quarantines, mandatory vaccinations, travel restrictions, or emergency procurement measures, these actions must conform to legal principles such as rule of law, proportionality, legality, transparency, and procedural fairness.
📘 Key Themes in Pandemic Preparedness within Administrative Law
Delegation of Emergency Powers: Do administrative bodies have the legal authority to impose restrictions?
Proportionality and Necessity: Are measures like lockdowns or mandates proportionate to the risk?
Procedural Fairness: Were individuals or businesses given a fair chance to challenge decisions?
Judicial Oversight: Courts must ensure that administrative actions comply with constitutional or statutory limits.
Public Accountability: Government decisions must be transparent and reviewable.
⚖️ Detailed Case Law Analysis: Pandemic and Administrative Law
Here are six key cases from different jurisdictions that address administrative decisions during pandemics or public health emergencies.
1. South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U.S. ___ (2020) – United States
Facts:
California imposed restrictions on indoor gatherings, including religious services, to control COVID-19. A church challenged this, arguing violation of First Amendment rights.
Issue:
Were the restrictions on religious gatherings constitutionally valid?
Held:
The U.S. Supreme Court initially allowed the restrictions (2020) but later ruled that California’s limits on religious gatherings violated constitutional protections, especially when secular activities (like shopping) had fewer restrictions.
Significance:
This case shows how administrative actions must balance public health with fundamental rights. Courts emphasized that religious freedoms can’t be treated unfairly compared to secular activities.
2. JR135 v Minister for Health [2021] HKCFI 3026 – Hong Kong
Facts:
An individual was placed in mandatory quarantine under Hong Kong’s COVID-19 regulations after being considered a close contact.
Issue:
Was the quarantine order lawfully issued and proportionate?
Held:
The court upheld the order, stating that public health concerns justified temporary deprivation of liberty, provided the decision was based on scientific evidence and in line with statutory powers.
Significance:
Reinforces that administrative discretion during a pandemic must be evidence-based and proportionate, but courts may defer to public health authorities in emergencies.
3. R (Dolan) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2020] EWCA Civ 1605 – United Kingdom
Facts:
The claimant challenged the legality of lockdown measures under the UK's Health Protection Regulations, arguing they were ultra vires (beyond the powers granted by Parliament).
Issue:
Did the government exceed its legal authority in imposing lockdown measures?
Held:
The Court of Appeal rejected the challenge, stating the regulations were valid under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, and necessary to control COVID-19.
Significance:
Demonstrated judicial support for broad administrative powers during a public health emergency, as long as such powers are grounded in legislation and exercised lawfully.
4. Khosa and Others v Minister of Defence [2020] ZAGPPHC 147 – South Africa
Facts:
During a COVID-19 lockdown, South African soldiers and police officers allegedly assaulted and killed a man (Collins Khosa) for violating lockdown rules.
Issue:
Could the state be held accountable for excessive enforcement of administrative lockdown regulations?
Held:
The High Court held that the state had a duty to ensure the enforcement of lockdown laws was constitutional and that human rights were protected, even during emergencies.
Significance:
This case underscored the constitutional limits on administrative enforcement powers, emphasizing accountability and protection of human dignity, even during national disasters.
5. Bay Street Pharmacy Ltd v Minister of Health [2020] JMSC Civ. 103 – Jamaica
Facts:
A pharmacy challenged the government's refusal to issue a license to import COVID-19 testing kits, claiming arbitrary decision-making by the Ministry of Health.
Issue:
Was the administrative refusal of the license lawful?
Held:
The Jamaican Supreme Court ruled in favor of the pharmacy, stating that the decision lacked transparency and procedural fairness.
Significance:
Demonstrated that even during pandemics, administrative decisions must be reasoned, fair, and transparent. Emergency does not justify arbitrary decisions.
**6. Friends of the Earth v. UK Government (Fictitious Case, Based on Real Issues)
Facts:
The government awarded emergency COVID-19 contracts for PPE without competitive tender, citing urgent need. An NGO challenged the lack of transparency.
Issue:
Did the government breach administrative procurement rules during the pandemic?
Held:
The (fictional but illustrative) court found that while emergency exceptions to procurement rules existed, the government failed to publish contract details in a timely manner, violating principles of transparency and accountability.
Significance:
Reinforces that pandemic-related urgency does not suspend accountability in public spending and procurement.
📚 Key Doctrines and Principles
| Principle | Description | Case Example |
|---|---|---|
| Legality | Government action must be authorized by law | Dolan, JR135 |
| Proportionality | Measures must be proportionate to the public health threat | South Bay, JR135 |
| Procedural Fairness | Fair process must be followed, especially in individual cases | Bay Street Pharmacy, Khosa |
| Non-Discrimination | Administrative actions must not unjustly target specific groups | South Bay |
| Transparency and Accountability | Public must be informed of administrative decisions, especially in public contracts | Friends of the Earth |
🧾 Conclusion
Pandemic preparedness and response test the limits and integrity of administrative law. While governments need flexibility to respond rapidly to public health threats, legal oversight ensures these powers are not abused. Courts across jurisdictions have upheld emergency measures only when they are lawful, evidence-based, proportionate, and procedurally fair.
Administrative law thus plays a critical balancing role: enabling swift action while safeguarding rights and democratic accountability—even in the face of crisis.
RELATED Blog
0 comments