Definition and Nature of Administrative Law

Administrative Law is a branch of public law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. It is concerned with the structure, powers, functions, and control of administrative authorities. In essence, it is the law relating to the administration.

Definition:

There is no single, universally accepted definition of Administrative Law. However, it can be broadly defined as:

• The law relating to the powers and procedures of administrative agencies.

• The law relating to the control of administrative action.

It deals with how the executive branch of government, which exercises administrative functions, operates and how its actions are regulated and controlled to prevent abuse of power and protect individual rights.

Nature:

• Public Law: It is a part of public law, governing the relationship between the State (administrative agencies) and individuals.

• Focus on Executive Action: It deals with the functions of the executive organ of the State that are administrative in nature.

• Regulatory: It regulates the organisation, powers, and duties of administrative authorities.

• Control Mechanism: It provides mechanisms for the control of administrative powers, primarily through judicial review, but also legislative and other means.

Growth and Development

The growth of Administrative Law in India and globally is a phenomenon of the modern welfare state. The reasons for its rapid development include:

• Increase in Governmental Functions: The transition from a 'laissez-faire' state to a 'welfare state' has led to a vast increase in the functions of the government, which now undertakes activities related to social welfare, economic regulation, industrial development, public services, etc.

• Complexity of Modern Administration: Modern administration requires flexibility and expertise, which cannot always be provided by rigid legislative processes or traditional courts.

• Need for Speedy Justice: Traditional courts are often overburdened and slow. Administrative tribunals and other mechanisms provide faster resolution of disputes in specific areas.

• Preventive Action: Administrative agencies can take preventive measures to address problems (e.g., licensing, inspections) rather than merely punishing violations after they occur.

• Adequacy of Judicial System: The traditional judicial system may not be equipped to handle all types of disputes arising from complex administrative actions or technical regulatory matters.

In India, the growth of Administrative Law is evident in the proliferation of administrative agencies, delegated legislation, and tribunals, making it a vital field of study and practice.

Sources of Administrative Law

Administrative Law in India is not codified in a single enactment. Its principles and rules are derived from various sources.

Sources:

1. The Constitution of India: The Constitution is the primary source. It lays down the framework for the governmental structure, distribution of powers, Fundamental Rights (providing basis for judicial review of administrative action), Directive Principles, and provisions relating to the Union, States, Union Territories, Services, etc. Articles 12, 14, 19, 21, 32, 136, 226, 227, 300A, 311, 323A, 323B, etc., are particularly relevant.

2. Statutes and Acts of Parliament and State Legislatures: Laws enacted by the legislatures establish administrative agencies, define their powers and functions, and lay down procedures. Examples include the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Companies Act, various Service Laws, etc.

3. Delegated Legislation (Rules, Regulations, Bye-laws): Administrative agencies make rules and regulations under the powers delegated to them by statutes. This is a significant source of administrative law, although its validity depends on the parent statute and the Constitution.

4. Administrative Instructions and Circulars: These are directives, guidelines, or circulars issued by administrative authorities for the guidance of their subordinates or the public. While not strictly laws, they govern administrative action and may sometimes create rights or obligations.

5. Judicial Decisions (Case Law): Decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts interpreting constitutional provisions, statutes, and principles of administrative law (like natural justice, rule of law, judicial review) form a crucial body of administrative law.

6. Conventions and Customs: Certain administrative practices and conventions, if consistently followed, may also contribute to the development of administrative law, although they are less authoritative than legal sources.

The interplay of these sources makes Administrative Law a dynamic and constantly evolving field.

Classification of Administrative Actions

Administrative actions can be classified based on the nature of the function performed by the administrative authority. This classification is important for determining the standard of judicial review and the principles of natural justice applicable.

Classification:

Administrative actions are typically classified into three main categories, though the lines between them are often blurred:

1. Legislative Action (Delegated Legislation): This involves the making of rules, regulations, bye-laws, orders, or notifications by administrative authorities under powers delegated to them by the legislature. It is general in nature, applies to the public at large, and is prospective. Examples: Regulations issued by RBI, SEBI, rules made by government departments for various purposes.

2. Executive Action (Pure Administrative Action): This is the day-to-day administration of laws and government policies. It includes routine actions, policy decisions, discretionary acts, etc. It is often particular in its application and may or may not involve a formal procedure. Examples: Granting licenses, entering into contracts, issuing government notifications, implementing policies.

3. Judicial/Quasi-Judicial Action: This involves resolving disputes, determining rights and obligations of parties, or taking decisions affecting individual rights after following a procedure that resembles judicial proceedings. These authorities are required to act judicially. Examples: Adjudication by tribunals (like CAT, NCLT), disciplinary proceedings against employees, determination of claims, assessments by tax authorities.

Some classifications also include Quasi-Legislative and Pure Administrative actions separately. The distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative action is particularly important for applying the principles of natural justice (which are more strictly applicable to quasi-judicial actions) and the grounds for judicial review.

Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts and Supreme Court

Judicial review is the most effective method of controlling administrative action and preventing the abuse of administrative power. The Supreme Court and High Courts play a vital role in this through their writ jurisdiction and other powers.

Control through Writs:

As discussed under Constitutional Remedies, Article 32 and Article 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts, respectively, to issue various writs for the enforcement of rights and for other purposes.

• Article 32 (Supreme Court): Can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights against actions of the 'State' (which includes administrative authorities falling under the definition of State under Article 12).

• Article 226 (High Courts): Can issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and any other legal right against administrative authorities within their territorial jurisdiction. This makes High Courts the primary forum for challenging administrative actions.

Review of Administrative Decisions

Administrative decisions can be challenged in courts through writ petitions or other proceedings. Courts review these decisions not on their merits (i.e., whether the decision was correct or wrong from an administrative standpoint) but primarily on their legality.

The grounds for judicial review of administrative action include:

• Illegality (lack of legal authority).

• Irrationality (unreasonableness).

• Procedural Impropriety (failure to follow required procedure or principles of natural justice).

• Proportionality (increasingly applied to assess the balance between the administrative action and its impact).

• Error of Law (including misinterpretation of a statute).

The courts ensure that administrative authorities act within the bounds of their powers, follow fair procedure, and base their decisions on relevant considerations.

Besides writ jurisdiction, courts also exercise control through ordinary suits (e.g., for injunction, declaration), appeals from tribunals (where permitted by statute), and inherent powers.

Grounds for Judicial Review

The grounds upon which courts will review administrative actions have been developed largely through common law and judicial pronouncements, primarily based on the principles of rule of law and natural justice.

Illegality, Irrationality, Procedural Impropriety

These three grounds, often referred to as the GCHQ grounds (derived from the English case Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, 1985, related to GCHQ trade union ban), are widely accepted as the basis for judicial review:

• Illegality: The administrator must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. This includes acting without legal authority, exceeding legal authority (ultra vires), failing to exercise discretion when required, or exercising it for an improper purpose.

• Irrationality (Unreasonableness): This refers to a decision that is so unreasonable that no reasonable administrative body could have reached it (often referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness). It applies when the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or based on irrelevant considerations, or fails to take into account relevant considerations.

• Procedural Impropriety: Failure to observe rules of procedure laid down by statute or rules of natural justice (audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua).

Violation of Natural Justice

Violation of the principles of natural justice is a key ground for judicial review under the head of 'Procedural Impropriety'. Natural justice is a fundamental concept ensuring fairness in decision-making.

Abuse of Power, Error of Law

Other specific grounds for judicial review include:

• Abuse of Power: Includes acting with improper purpose, taking irrelevant considerations into account, failing to take relevant considerations into account, acting in bad faith (malafide), exercising power for collateral purposes, or acting unreasonably.

• Error of Law: A decision based on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the law is subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court has held that an error of law is always amenable to judicial review, even if it is not apparent on the face of the record.

• Proportionality: As discussed earlier, courts increasingly apply the doctrine of proportionality, especially when Fundamental Rights are affected. This requires assessing whether the administrative action is excessive or disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

These grounds collectively ensure that administrative authorities act within their legal limits, follow fair procedures, and take rational decisions.

Concept of Natural Justice

Natural justice refers to the principles of fairness that must be followed by any authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and increasingly, administrative functions when they affect individual rights. It is based on the idea that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing.

The two primary pillars of natural justice are:

Audi Alteram Partem (Rule of Hearing)

Literal meaning: 'Hear the other side'.

This principle requires that no person shall be condemned unheard. Before an adverse decision is taken against an individual, they must be given an opportunity to be heard. This includes:

• Notice: The person must be given adequate notice of the charges, allegations, or proposed action.

• Opportunity to be Heard: The person must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, produce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and respond to the evidence against them.

• Disclosure of Material: All relevant material considered against the person should be disclosed to them.

The extent and form of hearing depend on the context and the nature of the decision being made (e.g., oral hearing, written representation).

Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (Rule Against Bias)

Literal meaning: 'No one should be a judge in his own cause'.

This principle states that the decision-maker must be impartial and objective. There should be no bias on the part of the authority deciding the matter. Bias can be of various types:

• Pecuniary Bias: The decision-maker has a financial interest in the outcome of the case.

• Personal Bias: The decision-maker has a personal relationship (friendly or hostile) with one of the parties.

• Official/Subject Matter Bias: The decision-maker is involved in the subject matter or has a preconceived view on the issue.

The test for bias is often not whether there was actual bias, but whether there was a real likelihood of bias or if a reasonable person would have apprehended bias.

Reasoned Decisions

While traditionally not considered a strict rule of natural justice, courts increasingly emphasize the requirement for administrative authorities (especially when exercising quasi-judicial functions) to give reasons for their decisions.

Giving reasons ensures transparency, accountability, and enables the affected party to understand why the decision was taken and facilitates judicial review.

Violation of natural justice renders an administrative action procedurally improper and liable to be quashed by the courts.

Meaning, Necessity, and Types

Delegated Legislation refers to the process where the Legislature (Parliament or State Legislature) confers power upon the Executive (administrative authorities) to make rules, regulations, bye-laws, or orders. It is also known as subsidiary legislation, executive legislation, or subordinate legislation.

Meaning:

Instead of enacting detailed laws covering all aspects of a subject, the Legislature passes a skeletal law (parent Act) laying down the broad principles and delegates the power to fill in the details to the executive branch. The rules etc. made by the executive under this delegated power constitute delegated legislation.

Necessity:

The necessity for delegated legislation arises due to several factors in modern governance:

• Lack of Time: Parliament/Legislatures have limited time and cannot enact detailed laws on every subject.

• Technicality: Many subjects require technical expertise which legislators may not possess (e.g., environmental regulations, financial rules). Administrative experts can better formulate detailed rules.

• Flexibility: Detailed rules need to be changed frequently to adapt to changing circumstances. Amending a statute every time is cumbersome. Delegated legislation allows for easier amendment of rules.

• Emergency Situations: In emergencies, quick action is required, which is facilitated by the executive's power to make rules.

• Experimentation: Delegated legislation allows for experimentation in implementing laws and making necessary adjustments.

Types:

Delegated legislation can take various forms based on the nature of delegation and the authority issuing it:

• Rules: Made by government departments.

• Regulations: Made by statutory bodies or corporations.

• Bye-laws: Made by local authorities or corporations.

• Orders: May be general or specific directions.

• Notifications: Public announcements regarding laws or rules.

Delegated legislation is a significant part of the law in modern states, but it is subject to controls to prevent arbitrary exercise of power.

Judicial Control over Delegated Legislation

Courts exercise control over delegated legislation to ensure that the administrative authorities making rules stay within the bounds of the power conferred upon them and the Constitution. This is a crucial check against arbitrary rule-making.

Grounds for Judicial Review:

Delegated legislation can be challenged in courts on the following grounds:

• Ultra Vires: If the delegated legislation goes beyond the scope of the power conferred by the parent Act. This can be substantive ultra vires (exceeding the power itself) or procedural ultra vires (failing to follow the procedure prescribed by the parent Act for making rules, e.g., consultation, publication).

• Unconstitutionality: If the delegated legislation violates any provision of the Constitution, particularly Fundamental Rights (e.g., rules that are discriminatory or unreasonable). This includes violating principles of natural justice.

Excessive Delegation

The principle is that the Legislature cannot abdicate its essential legislative function. It can delegate the power to make rules to the executive, but it must lay down the policy and guidelines in the parent Act. If the Legislature delegates too much power without providing adequate standards or principles, it is considered excessive delegation and the parent Act itself (or the delegation clause) may be struck down as unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has held that while the Legislature can delegate rule-making power, the power to repeal or modify a statute, the power to impose taxes (except fixing rates within limits), and the power to create offences and prescribe punishments are generally considered essential legislative functions that cannot be delegated completely.

Unconstitutionality

Delegated legislation, even if within the scope of the parent Act, must conform to the Constitution. If a rule or regulation violates any provision of the Constitution (e.g., Articles 14, 19, 21), it will be declared unconstitutional and void by the courts.

Judicial review of delegated legislation ensures that it serves its intended purpose of supplementing the law while remaining subservient to the Constitution and the legislative intent expressed in the parent Act.

Role and Function of Administrative Tribunals

Administrative Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established to resolve disputes in specific areas of administrative law. They are part of the system for controlling administrative action, providing an alternative or preliminary forum for dispute resolution compared to regular courts.

Role and Function:

• Specialization: Tribunals specialise in particular areas of law (e.g., service matters, tax, environment), allowing for expert and efficient adjudication.

• Speedy Justice: They are intended to provide faster resolution of disputes compared to often overburdened courts.

• Reduced Cost: Proceedings before tribunals are often less formal and less expensive than court litigation.

• Accessibility: They are often more accessible to the common person.

As discussed under Constitutional Bodies and Judiciary, tribunals are established under Articles 323A and 323B or specific statutes. They have powers to summon witnesses, take evidence, and pass orders that are binding on the parties. However, their decisions are subject to judicial review by the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Administrative Law vs. Judicial Law

Tribunals represent a distinction between administrative adjudication (often based on principles of administrative law and fairness) and purely judicial adjudication by regular courts (strictly following civil/criminal procedure codes and evidence law).

• Administrative Adjudication: By administrative agencies or tribunals. Often uses flexible procedures, based on expertise in a specific field, and aims for policy-oriented or efficient resolution.

• Judicial Adjudication: By traditional courts. Follows strict legal procedures and evidence rules, focuses on determining legal rights and obligations, and aims for certainty and consistency in application of law.

Tribunals embody the increasing shift towards administrative adjudication in modern governance, complementing the role of traditional courts in the system of justice delivery.

Other Remedies

Apart from judicial review through writs and approaching tribunals, individuals can seek other remedies against illegal or arbitrary administrative actions through ordinary civil courts.

Other Judicial Remedies:

• Ordinary Suits: An individual can file a regular civil suit against the government or its officials for damages, injunction, or declaration if their rights are violated by administrative action. The procedure is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure.

Declaratory Relief

A declaratory suit can be filed in a civil court to obtain a declaration from the court regarding the legality of an administrative action or the rights of the petitioner. The court declares the rights of the parties but does not necessarily order the administrative authority to perform a specific act or refrain from doing something.

Example: A declaration that an order of dismissal from service is illegal, or that a certain rule is ultra vires the parent Act.

Injunction

An injunction is an order issued by a court directing a party to do or refrain from doing a particular act. In administrative law, injunctions can be sought against administrative authorities:

• Prohibitory Injunction: To restrain an authority from taking an illegal or unconstitutional action.

• Mandatory Injunction: To compel an authority to perform a specific legal duty (similar to Mandamus, but sought in civil courts).

Injunctions are often granted to prevent irreparable harm to the petitioner's rights. However, injunctions against government actions are often granted with caution, considering public interest.

These remedies, available through ordinary civil courts, provide alternative avenues for controlling administrative action, supplementing the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the higher courts and the specialised jurisdiction of tribunals.