ANSWER 1.

Administrative law is that branch of law which regulates the administrative actions of the main
organs of the state, the Judiciary, executive and legislature. However, this law is in turn regulated
by some fundamental principles such as rule of law, principles of natural justice, delegated
legislation, administrative action, etc.
A. The principle of administrative law. though acting as the source of power for the
lawmakers, propounds the principle of rule of law or the ultimate authority of law. this
principle says that law is supreme and ever-binding, under which the three organs of the
state works in order to ensure and establish a sustainable balance in the society.
The executives are required to give reasons while making and drafting a law. Rule of law
ensures the absence of executive arbitrariness, such as article 21 that ensures every law
shall be in consonance with the right to life and liberty of a person.
The constitution also vests the law making powers of the legislature on the executive, at
times, and such exercise of legislative powers by the executive is called delegated
legislation. This power is kept in check by parliamentary control over the executive. The
case of AK Roy vs State of Punjab laid down that the executive cannot act beyond the
powers conferred upon it by delegated legislation, and if it does, such exercise of power
shall be deemed ultra vires.

B. The legislature delegates powers on the executive for resolving various issues on a day to
day basis. This is also given under schedule 7 of the Constitution. This power is kept in
check by the parliamentary and judicial control. Moreover, the legislature can only
delegate secondary powers on the executive and not primary powers, as held in the case
of Avinder Singh vs State of Punjab. Moreover, the case of Narendra Kumar v.
Union of India laid down that it shall be ensured by the legislature that the statute by
which such powers are delegated is valid and constitutional.

C. Ouster clause are the clauses which strip the judiciary of it’s revisionary powers over
certain decisions of the executive. The ouster clauses lays down some very significant
principles of rule of law. Supremacy of law- which states that the law is supreme and
every government shall function under it. Equality before the law- states that the laws
ought to be just and ensure equal treatment to all the persons accordingly, avoiding
discrimination.
The case of Chandra Kumar states that the ouster provisions should be such as to not
completely deprive the courts of their jurisdictionary power. Any such provision would
hold it void. Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan held that the judiciary should not have
unlimited powers over all the cases, upholds ouster clause.

D. Principles for achieving rule of law in India are-

Supremacy of Law
Equality before the Law
Judiciary as the enforcing and supervisory authority- Administrative bodies have to
make decisions in line with the rule of law and in case there is a violation, they are
subject to judicial review.
 Separation of powers- The functions of the three organs of a state are separated in such
a way so as to not overlap each other and ensure their autonomous function.
Administrative bodies have to make decisions in line with the rule of law and in case
there is a violation, they are subject to judicial review.
Priniciple of natural justice
Transparency and Accountability
The basic principles of rule of law and the supremacy of the constitution was laid down
in the case of Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerela, which held that the constitution
was supreme and its basic structure can not be amended by the legislature. The landmark
case of IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu stated that the principles of natural law
formed the basic structure of the constitution and all these principles would fail if there is
not a provision of Judcial Review.

E. Article 142 of the constitution holds that the Supreme Court can pass any decree for the
pursuance of natural justice. This article lays down the principle that it is a Judge made
law and it is for the judiciary to interpret and apply laws and provide justice. This
provision lays down the provision of judicial activism. However, this aspect of the
judiciary has its own limitations and can come under scanner for being violative in its
power and hence being ultra-vires.
The case of Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf v. Chandra Has and Ors. (2007), where
the judiciary extended its powers and transgressed into the matters of creation of posts
and executive appointments, the court held that it was a violation of the principle of
Separation of Powers and that the judiciary cannot appoint people on executive posts on a
permanent basis, and cannot act as a recruiting agency.
ANSWER 2.
The administration has the power to exercise it’s executive, or legislative power for the
pursuance of some state function. However, there may be cases where the administration is
required to act either with or without a requisite legislation.
A) Only with Requisite Legislation

1. Elections- In the matters related to central and state election, the administration can
make provisions but is bound to act only upon the guidelines given by the Election
Commission, in consonance with article 324 of the constitution.
2. Appointments- In the matters related to appointment of the judicial and executive
officials, the administration, or the parliament, is bound to act only upon certain
requisite legislation, such as article 124 of the constitution, and cannot make
appointments on its own.
3. Exercising of Judicial powers- In the exercise of various judicial powers by the
administrative officials, it is binding upon them to act under the provisions of the
constitution and not go ultra vires.
4. Implementation of Reservation Policy- In the situation where the administration is
required to lay down policies for reservation in various institutions, government
offices, and legislatures, are required to act only upon the specific provisions of the
acts concerned. For example, in the case of reservation in Panchayats, the reservation
is implemented in accordance with the 73rd Amendment Act, 1992.
5. Implementation of statutory laws- For the implementation of statutory laws, they
need to be passed by the parliament, and in some cases they need the assent of the
president before they can be implemented.

B) Without any legislation

1. Pandemic Situations- In extreme situations such as the current situation of covid-19,

the respective state administration can make discretionary guidelines in order to
control and contain the situation.
2. Natural Calamities- In cases of floods, draught, earthquakes, the administration is
required to quickly act upon its discretion and no formal legislation is required for the
same.
3. Law and Order or Emergency situations- In situations of Emergency,
compromising the law and order of a state, the executives of the state have complete
discretionary authority to make provisions to control the situation, such as in case of
national emergency under article 352 of the constitution.
4. Prohibition of Liquor at some places- In places where liquor needs to be prohibited
in furtherance of a state objective or to contain social order, the administration of a
state can form its own laws in this behalf. For example- Gujarat being a dry state.
5. Diversion of Traffic under requisite situations- In situation of a religious march,
Route during VIP movement or to control stampede, the administration, in particular
the state executive and the Police, has the authority to act upon its own decision.
ANSWER 3.
a) The principles of natural justice has no specific definition, but essentially means to ensure
fairness and un-biasness in the process of justice. These are uncodified principles applied
by the judges on the cases at hand. The application of these principles are essential for
upholding the fundamental character of the constitution.
Two main PNJs are- No one shall be a judge in his own cause, and that each party must
get a chance to be heard before giving the judgment.
This also includes bias, such as personal, and pecuniary bias when the judges potentially
have an interest in deciding the case one particular way.

The case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India held that the principle of Natural Justice
should necessary be observed in all the cases, whether the purpose may be solved or not.
The case of AK Kripak v. Union of India clarified that the principles of natural justice
is an uncodified set of crucial rules that should be applied in all the cases without any
specific provision mentioning the same.

PNJ is an instrument for the control of abuse and must be followed in the cases of
disciplinary actions including expulsion of a student from university, or the termination
of employment.

b) In some cases, the principles of natural justice have to omitted to ensure a smooth flow of
the judgement, or under extreme circumstances, where, but for the violation of PNJ, the
administration collapse. This is the doctrine of necessity, which has been apply in several
occasions.
In cases of contempt of court, there is a violation of the principle of justice that says that
no one shall be a judge in his own cause, as otherwise, the sanctity of the court would be
compromised.
In cases of statutory exclusion, in the interpretation of a particular article, PNJ cannot be
applied. For examply, in the case of DTC v. DTC Mazdoor Congress- Land
acquisition Laws.
In cases of Emergency, where the prior hearing would defeat justice, as where the
offendor is absoconding (Maneka Gandhi case), PNJ cannot be applied.
In legislative functions and delegated legislations, in policy matters, PNJ need not be
applied.- Madras City Wise Merchants Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The case of
KT Plantation v. State of Karnataka held that delegated legislations cannot be
questioned on grounds of PNJ.
For the furtherance of larger public interest. In the case of Hira Nath Mishra v.
Prinicipal Rajendra Medical College, Patna, cross examination of men entering the
women’s hostel was not done for the pursuance of justice as then it would deter the
women from coming forward and registering the complaints.
Impracticality can also deter the application of PNJ, as in the case of Bihar
Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra, as it would be impractical to punish only
some particular students for the mass leak of examination papers.
ANSWER 4.
1. Article 299 of the constitution talks about a government contract and states that all contacts
entered into by the government shall be in the name of the president or the governor, and neither
the governor or the president can be held personally liable for any breach of the contract.
In this case, the agent of the government refused payment and breached the contract. In the case
of Lilawati Behra v. Odisha, it was held that the state can be held liable for the non-sovereign
functions. MK Gupta v. Lucknow Development Authority, held that public servants can be
held liable for any wrongful act personally and the public’s money shall not go wasted. N.
Nagendra Rao v. AP, held that the state can be held liable for any negligent act which caused
damage to a citizen and the principle of sovereign immunity cannot be applied.
Hence, in this case, the department shall be held liable for the breach and be ordered to make
appropriate payment along with the compensation.
2. In the case of Superintendent & Legal Remebrance, State of West Bengal v. Corporation of
Calcutta, under similar facts, on the contention that whether the state was bound by its own acts.
The court held that the state was not exempted from its own statute, unless it expressly absolves
it’s liability under the statute.
Hence, in the case at hand, the state shall be bound by its own laws.
3. The concept of delegated legislation comes into play from the interpretation of article 312
which mentions formation of an All India Services. This article gives power to the Upper House
of the parliament to open branches of All India Services, under the All India Services Act, 1951,
laid down in the case of DS Grewal v. State of Punjab. This shows the intention of the
parliament to delegate powers to the union government to make such acts.
The Union government has authority over the union list, and the state has the authority over state
list. This is characteristic of the federal nature of the Indian state.
4. Article 365 of the constitution states that if a state does not carry out the orders given by the
central, the president may hold that the state can no longer carry out its functions in accordance
with the constitution. Hence, it is necessary for the state to carry out the orders given by the
union government. The Sarkaria commission reports lays down the provisions in consonance
with article 365. However, it is shall be the discretion of the president to view this non-
compliance as the incapability of the state to function. SR Bommai v. Union of India carries
this substantaial provision related to article 365.
5. State are given some sovereign immunities under article 300 of the constitution. The case of
Kasturilal Raila Ram Jain v. State of UP, under the same set of facts, the court held that the
state, or any body of the state shall not be held liable for anything done during the discharge of a
sovereign function. Hence, the officials shall not be held liable.
ANSWER 5.
The special courts act, 1979 was formulates with a view to establishing a court for the speedy
remedy and redressal of some special kind of cases which needs immediate resolution, a delay in
which can compromise justice. Section 5 (1) of the act empowered the states to establish special
courts and decide the offences or class of offences to be tried before this court.
In the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Al, which questioned the validity of section 5(1)
of the act, on the contention that it violated article 14 of the constitution which ensures equal
protection to all under the law and no special treatment to any person. The court in this case
decided in the favour of the appellants, striking down the act of the west Bengal government as
void. It held that while laws made by the government will not be violative of article 14, if proper
procedure and guidelines are laid down, however, in this case the west Bengal government
irrationally and arbitrary authorized the government to classify offences under no reasonable or
valid basis and hence it shall be struck down as being violative of article 14 of the constitution.
Hence, the west Bengal government has erred in giving arbitrary powers to the government to
classify offences to be tried by the trial court.
However, the Special Courts Act is still a valid authority for the government to legislate upon
and establish special courts, if proper reasons for the same are mentioned. In the case of Kathi
Raning Rawat v. West Bengal, the Supreme Court held that the establishment is not violative
of article 14 as it laid down the principles which guided the same, such as providing for public
safety, maintenance of public order, and preservation of peace and tranquility in state, so the
ordinance was not vague. The discretion of the government was also controlled, and
classification was made on the basis of public safety, public order, peace or tranquility.
In another case of Kedar Nath vs. State of West Bengal, the court was to decide if the act of the
government to establish special courts was with reasonable classification of the offences, the
supreme said that the offences identified were prevalent offences of the war time, and were
rational in being identified as special offences. On the question if it was completely upto the
discretion of the government to select cases for trial by the special court, it was held that the
cases were selected that the standard, policy and purpose of the act was clearly laid down by the
administration.
ANSWER 6.
‘Tribunals’ were originally not defined in the Constitution and has been added by the 42nd
amendment act of 1976 as a new Part XIV-a,which includes article 323A and article 323B. The
various tribunals thus formed under it are The administrative tribunals, The Central and State
administrative tribunals,The National Green tribunal, Securities appellate Tribunal and
Competition appellate Tribunal. Bharat Bank limited v Employees of Bharat Bank 1950 : has
termed ‘tribunal’ to be a body that is conferred with certain court functions and have certain
trappings of the court.
In India, the main aim behind the formation of these tribunals was to ease the burden on various
other state courts and High courts, provide speedy delivery of justice with a less expensive route
and also a decentralized negotiation of the disputes in the matters concerned. These tribunals
were setup to deal with matters like taxes, industry , labor, land, administration, food, foreign
exchange etc in a successive manner. Article 323A provided the establishment of administrative
tribunals where The administrative Tribunals act, 1985 applies to all the central government
officials except – the members belonging to the naval, air or military forces or the armed forces
of the union, person selected to the secretariat staff of any of the legislatures, any officer of the
Supreme court or High court. The civil employees employed by the armed forces may be
covered under the administrative tribunal as decided in the Navratan Das v Union of India
case.
As mentioned above,the tribunals were established to reduce the burden of cases on courts there
are still certain segments of the constitution that provide no amount of relief on the burden of
courts for instance article 131 i.e. original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, article 139 and 226
which provide power to Supreme court and high court respectively to issue writs. The matter in
these articles cannot be supervised by any of the tribunals.In the Chandra Kumar case, the
Supreme court gave the judgement that the appeals from the tribunals will come under the
jurisdiction of the courts thus defeating the entire purpose of establishing the tribunals for
decreasing the burden of the judiciary.
Despite having better disposal rates than other courts, the tribunals are still loaded with
numerous pending cases. The authorized data does not illustrate an adequate picture of the
tribunals in respect of its working because of inadequate service conditions and delays by parties
and lawyers. The tribunals are resolving and disposing the cases in such a high number that
there can be delays in the actual case hearings. Lack of infrastructure has also become an
obstacle in the efficient working of the tribunals.
The tribunals does not work under public funding, which may be a drawback and unjust for one
party if the other one is able to pay for a lawyer to stand for its case. Hence, the tribunals should
continue to function based on their actual saying of being an affordable and cheaper platform to
provide justice.
Generally the appointments to the tribunal is made by the government, which itself may be the
litigant before the former thus hampering the independency of the tribunals. In order to solve this
problem, recently the Supreme Court has directed the Centre to form an independent National
Tribunals Commission(NTC) to administer the appointment of members in different tribunals.
The search-cum-selection committee will now comprise of the Chief Justice of India or his
nominee, outgoing Chairman of the tribunal in case of the appointment of the Chairman of the
tribunal, Secretary to Ministry of Law and Justice and some other members. This step would
ensure that the tribunals may fulfill their judicial processes without the intervention from the
executive department of the government.
Although the tribunals looks onto a vast range of matters of importance, they still have limited
jurisdiction powers of contempt in the majority of cases. They also do not have the power to
impose their decisions and thus lack in exercising as a sole authority in the implementation
process. They have lesser jurisdiction powers as compared to the other courts. Also their
decisions are subjected to appeal and approach under the supervisory control of the regular court
of law under article 32(remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights including writs), article
136(special leave to appeal by the Supreme court), article 226 and article 227(power of
superintendence over all courts by the High court).Unlike the other civil and criminal courts
these tribunals do not follow any particular uniform code of procedure as followed by the other
courts.
Another serious problem that is faced by the tribunals is the huge number of vacancies that are
not filled for long durations and the top positions are generally held by the judges of various
other courts, which should rather be headed by the people who are expertise in their fields
concerned. More number of judges should be appointed and given vacant positions so that the
pending cases can be disposed at a higher rate. Wherever the judges and the advocates are
involved for settling the disputes, the entire process becomes too formal and technical and drifts
away from its actual nature of following simpler procedures for natural justice.
Presently, the tribunals in India suffer from a lot of limitations and lack of independence, which
hampers their growth and create barriers in their working. They continue to get dominated by the
various other courts. In conclusion, the government should come up with various reforms and
suggestions so that these tribunals can work in their full capacity and provide justice in a speedy
way to the aggrieved citizens of our country.
ANSWER 7.

In a democratic country like India, a relationship of trust between general public and
administration (government) plays a vital role. Absence of system of checks and balances on
powers of administration may create a disaster. So it is necessary that government machinery
should be held accountable to general public so that they valuate their leaders more conveniently.

Doctrine of Public Accountability

This means the need for a constant check on misuse of powers by government servants The
fundament of this doctrine is that government machineries have such powers that are placed by
general public as a trust in their hands so such powers should be exercised with utmost care and
to the full trust of general public.

Objectives of Public Accountability :

Main objective is to prevent corruption by public servants because corruption as old as public
administration itself. In its 14th report, the Law Commission expressed its worriedness on
administrative actions of bureaucracy which are going unchecked in using its powers without
public accountability.

Role of Judiciary regarding control on Administrative Actions and their accountability for
good governance and transparency

Introduction of RTI Act as a tool to enforce Public Acocuntability –

This act enabled monitoring of use/abuse of powers by government machineries and fixing their
accountability towards every citizen as a right. R.T.I. Act makes it statutory for government
servants to disclose all unclassified information as may be required by general citizen of india.

In 1975, in case of Raj Narain v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court established the
doctrine of Right to Know for the general public which further led to enactment &
implementation of Right to Information Act in 2005 which opened a new window for a new
administrative culture in democracy.

In 1981 & 1982, Supreme Court while giving opinion, in the case of SP Gupta v President of
India, emphasized the importance of an open government for the public enabling them to
properly exercise their right to vote and choose their leaders for the next five years and thus
moving towards an open government.

In case of Dinesh Trivedi v Union of India (1997), Court held that to secure participation of the
general public in the democratic process, vital decisions taken by the government should be
conveyed to them. 
Issue of Administration Accountability was further strengthen by Supreme Court in the case of
Attorney General of India v Amritlal Prajivandas (1994). 

Further in famous case of DDA v Skipper Construction Corporation (1996). the general
public was prioritized and said to be defrauded even if there was involvement of a public officer
or not. The Supreme Court said that Indian courts are not simply courts of law but also courts of
equity. 

Through another judgment, Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa (1993), courts awarded
compensation and exemplary costs on violation of fundamental rights because of power abuse by
a public officer.

Supreme Court on role of CBI :-

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the most important body that ensures public
accountability by government servants, Earlier, it existed under the Executives but that failed its
purpose to enforce accountability in the government machinery due to absence of independence,
so it was separated by Supreme Court and brought under the aegis of the Central Vigilance
Commission (CVC) with a view to make it the prime body for enforcing transparency in
government functions.

Another Act introduced for purpose of transparency in public administration is the Prevention of
Corruption Act (1988).

In the PV Narsimha Rao v State (CBI/SPE) (JMM Bribery Case) (1998), the court held that
definition of public servants under PCA will include Members of Parliament and Members of
Legislative Assemblies also.

Landmark Judgments :-

Medical Council of India Case :-

In Dr. Ketan Desai v The State (2010), a petition was filed against Ketan Desai, Medical
Council of India President, for large scale bungling in medical admissions of medical colleges in
Pune, Ghaziabad, and Punjab. Desai’s actions was held to be found under the ambit of a public
servant. It was ruled that Ketan Desai had taken advantage of his position and misused his power
as president. He was removed from the position as well as the office and also penalised with fine
and custody.

Commonwealth Games Case :-

In Suresh Kalmadi v The CBI (2012), the Chief of the Organizing Committee of the CWG, was
held responsible to giving a huge loss of almost 95 crores to government by awarding a contract
to an expensive firm. After which Kalmadi was arrested.
One of the recent judgements of Supreme Court, there is judgement on issue of TV
Channel “Republic India” wherein Court restricted some actions of State Government & their
machineries which were beyond their legislative powers.

Some exceptions

Shielding judiciary from purview of RTI Act, SC fails to appreciate doctrine of public
accountability and transparency.

Supreme Court recently restricted the applicability of the RTI Act to Indian courts in a clash
between the Gujarat High Court and the Chief Information Commissioner and also on
some other related issues.

The Supreme Court’s recent contempt judgement against Prashant Bhushan has again
raised the question of what is considered legitimate criticism of India’s higher judiciary.
However The Supreme Court has evolved the judicial appointment system and enlarged its
public interest litigation (PIL) jurisprudence well beyond its original constitutional mandate,
effectively converting itself into a people’s court. This new identity requires new rules of
accountability, criticism and feedback, to ensure checks and balances.

There are many more examples The recent Supreme Court's judgment in Centre for PIL
(CPIL) vs Union of India on the legality of the PM Cares fund is legally flawed and
disheartening. It epitomizes the hands-off approach of the Court in recent years in public interest
cases, where it trusts the executive more and questions it less.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, Indian Judiciary has been proactive in the area of controlling actions of public
administration by way of fixing their accountability towards general public for good governance
and transparency in their functions by way of its various judgements. It’s the Judiciary only
which are playing an important role to control misuse of powers by government machineries and
restraining them to become a dictator.