Rule of Law and Administrative Law
Rule of Law and Administrative Law
1. Understanding the Rule of Law
Rule of Law is a fundamental legal principle that mandates:
Supremacy of Law: Everyone, including government officials, is subject to the law.
Equality Before the Law: No one is above the law, and laws apply equally to all.
Legal Certainty: Laws must be clear, publicized, and stable.
Accountability: Government power is limited and accountable under the law.
Fairness in Enforcement: Laws must be fairly applied and adjudicated.
The Rule of Law is the backbone of constitutional governance and ensures that administrative agencies do not act arbitrarily or abusively.
2. What is Administrative Law?
Administrative Law governs how public administrative agencies operate, make decisions, and implement laws. It provides checks and balances to prevent abuse of power and ensure fair treatment. It covers:
Delegation of powers to agencies
Rule-making and enforcement procedures
Judicial review of administrative actions
Principles of natural justice and procedural fairness
3. Important Case Laws Illustrating Rule of Law and Administrative Law
Case 1: Marbury v. Madison (1803) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Key Point: Established judicial review.
Details: This landmark case established the principle that courts can review and invalidate executive or legislative actions that violate the Constitution.
Relevance: It anchors the Rule of Law by ensuring that administrative or government actions are subject to legal limits and constitutional checks.
Case 2: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) (UK)
Key Point: Introduced the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" standard.
Details: The court held that a decision by a public authority would be overturned if it was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever make it.
Relevance: This case sets a standard for judicial review of administrative decisions, ensuring agencies act rationally and within their powers, protecting the Rule of Law.
Case 3: Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) (UK)
Key Point: Reinforced the principle of natural justice and procedural fairness.
Details: The police chief was dismissed without a fair hearing. The court held that administrative decisions affecting rights require due process.
Relevance: This case enshrines the Rule of Law’s demand for fairness and accountability in administrative decisions.
Case 4: INS v. Chadha (1983) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Key Point: Invalidated legislative veto as violating separation of powers.
Details: The Supreme Court struck down a congressional provision allowing one house to overturn executive actions without bicameral approval.
Relevance: Emphasizes that administrative and legislative powers must adhere to constitutional processes, reinforcing Rule of Law limits on agency and legislature power.
Case 5: Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) (UK) (GCHQ Case)
Key Point: Confirmed that executive decisions are subject to judicial review.
Details: The government banned union activities at GCHQ for national security, but the court held the decision was reviewable, although justified here.
Relevance: Demonstrates that even government executive decisions are subject to law and review, reinforcing administrative accountability.
Case 6: Carltona Ltd. v. Commissioners of Works (1943) (UK)
Key Point: Introduced the Carltona doctrine (delegation principle).
Details: The court held that powers given to ministers can be exercised by responsible officials within their department.
Relevance: Balances administrative efficiency with Rule of Law by ensuring delegation is lawful and accountable.
Case 7: Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture (1968) (UK)
Key Point: Courts can intervene if administrative discretion is exercised improperly.
Details: The Minister refused to investigate complaints about milk marketing, and the court held this refusal was unlawful.
Relevance: Shows that administrative discretion must be exercised to promote the purpose of the statute, not arbitrarily, supporting Rule of Law principles.
4. Summary of Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Review | Courts can review and invalidate unlawful acts | Marbury v. Madison; GCHQ Case |
| Rationality & Reasonableness | Decisions must be reasonable | Wednesbury Case |
| Procedural Fairness | Fair hearing before adverse decisions | Ridge v. Baldwin |
| Separation of Powers | Agencies must not exceed constitutional limits | INS v. Chadha |
| Accountability & Delegation | Proper exercise of delegated authority | Carltona; Padfield |
Why These Cases Matter:
Together, these cases shape how administrative agencies must act lawfully, fairly, and within their delegated powers, embodying the Rule of Law in practice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments