ADMI

NISTRATI
VELAW NOTES
Uni
t1

1. Discusst
hemeani
ngNat
ure,
scopeandi
mpor
tanceofAdmi
nist
rat
ivel
aw.I
sadmi
nist
rat
ivel
awani
nev
itabl
enecessi
ty
today?

2. Expl
aint
her
elat
ionanddi
ff
erencebet
weenadmi
nist
rat
ivel
awandconst
it
uti
onal
law?

3. Expl
aint
het
heor
yofr
uleofl
awwhati
sit
simpor
tancei
nIndi
anadmi
nist
rat
ivel
awexpl
ain

4. Expl
ainthedoct
ri
neofsepar
ati
onofpower
?Whati
sit
simpor
tancei
nadmi
nist
rat
ivel
awdi
scussal
soi
tsmer
it
sand
demerit
s.?

5. Whatdoy
ouunder
standbyDor
itadmi
nist
rat
ion?Di
ff
erencebet
weenadmi
nist
rat
ivel
awanddr
oitadmi
nist
rat
if
f?

Uni
t2

1. Whatdoyouunderst
andbyQuasij
udici
alfunct
ion?"
AQuasi
judi
cial
deci
sionisonewhichhassomeoft heatt
ri
but esof
j
udi
cial
deci
sionbutnotal
l
"di
scussindetail
?Howdoesadmini
str
ati
vedecisi
ondif
ferf
rom Quasi
judi
cialdeci
sions?

2. Delegat
ionnonpotestdel
egat
ediscusst
herel
evanceofthi
sdoctr
ine?Whatdoyouunder
standbydel
egat
edl
egisl
ati
on?
Whatarethecausesofthegrowt
hofdelegat
edlegi
slat
iondi
scussit
sconst
it
uti
onal
it
yini
ndiawit
hthehel
pofdeci
ded
cases?

3. Discussinbri
efthepr
ocedur
all
egi
slat
ivecont
rol
ont
hedel
egat
edl
egi
slat
ion?Howt
hej
udi
cial
cont
rol
isexer
cisedon
delegat
edlegi
slati
on?

Uni
t3

1. Sal
ientfeatur
esofAdmini
str
ati
vetr
ibunal
s.Howisi
tdif
ferf
rom cour
t?Poi
ntoutt
headv
ant
ageofanAdmini
str
ati
ve
Tri
bunaloveracourt
?Whatarethereasonsoft
hegrowthofTr
ibunali
nModernTi
mes?Meri
tsanddemer
it
sof
Administr
ativ
eTri
bunal
inIndi
a?

2. Noonecanbejudgeinhi
sowncasei
nvi
ewoft
hisst
atementexpl
aint
hedoct
ri
neofBi
aswi
tht
hedeci
dedcases?Expl
ain
di
ff
erentki
ndsofBi
as?

3. Di
scusst
her
uleofAudi
alt
eram par
tem wi
tht
hehel
pofdeci
dedcases?Howf
art
hisr
ulehasbeenr
ecogni
sedi
nIndi
a

4. Thel
i
abi
l
ityofadmi
nist
rat
ioni
ntor
t?

Uni
t4

1. Whati
smeantbyadmi
nist
rat
ivedi
scr
eti
onandhowi
sitcont
rol
byJudi
cial
rev
iewexpl
ain.

2. Whatar
ethedi
ff
erentki
ndsofwr
it
s?Dscussi
nbr
ieft
henat
uregr
oundandl
i
mit
ati
onsofwr
itofcer
ti
orar
i?

3. Descr
ibei
nbr
ieft
henat
ure,
groundsandl
i
mit
ati
onsofwr
itofmandamus?

4. Descr
ibei
nbr
ieft
henat
ure,
groundsandl
i
mit
ati
onsofwr
itofpr
ohi
bit
ion?

5. Whati
shabeascor
puswr
it
?

6. Examinethejuri
sdi
cti
onofSupr
emeCourtandhi
ghcourtofenf
orcet
hef
undament
alr
ight
?Whatar
ethoseGr
oundson
whichthesupremecourtcanr
efuset
hef
undamental
right
s?

7. Whatdoy
ouunder
standbyaOmbudsman?

8. Expl
aincent
ral
Vigi
l
anceCommi
ssi
on.

Whati
spar
entactWr
it
eshor
tnot
eonpubl
i
cunder
taki
ng
Uni
t1
Q.1)Di
scussthemeaningNatur
e,scopeandi
mpor
tanceofAdmi
nist
rat
ivel
aw.I
sadmi
nist
rat
ivel
aw
aninev
itabl
enecessi
tytoday
?

Ans.)Meaning-Admi nistr
ativelawist helawt hatgov ernst headmi ni
strati
veactions.Admi ni
strati
ve
l
awexpandedgr eatl
yduringt hetwent i
ethcent ury
,asl egisl
ativebodieswor l
dwidecr eatedmor e
governmentagenciest oregulatethesoci al,
economi candpol it
icalspheresofhumani nteract i
on.It
i
sabr anchofpubli
claw.Itdeal switht herelati
onshipofi ndivi
dualswiththegov ernment .It
determinestheorganisati
onandpowerst ructureofadmi ni
strati
veandquasi -
judici
alaut horit
iesto
enforcethelaw.Iti
spr i
mar i
lyconcer nedwi t
hof fi
cialactionsandpr oceduresandput sinpl acea
controlmechanism bywhi chadmi nistrat
iveagenciesst aywi thi
nbounds.Howev er,admi nistrati
ve
l
awi snotacodi fi
edlaw.Itisaj udge-madel awwhi chev olvedov ert
ime.

Definiti
ons-Therei
sagr eatdiver
genceofopi ni
onr egardi
ngt hedefini
ti
onoftheconceptofthe
admi nist
rat
ivel
aw.Thisisbecauseoft hetremendousi ncreaseintheadmi ni
str
ati
veprocessthati
t
makesi mpossi
blet
oattemptanypr ecisedefi
niti
onofadmi ni
strat
ivelawwhichcancov ert
heentir
e
rangeoft headmini
str
ati
v eprocess.Howev er
,twoi mportantfactsshouldbetakenint
oaccountin
anat temptatunder
standinganddef i
ningtheadmi nist
rati
velaw.

Fi
rst
ly,
admi ni
str
ativ
elawi spr
imar
il
yconcer
nedwit
hthemannerofexerci
si
nggov
ernment
alpower
.
Thedecisi
on-makingprocessi
smor ei
mport
antt
hanthedeci
si
onitsel
f.

Secondly,
admi ni
str
ativel
awcannotf ull
ybedefinedwithoutdueregardtot
hefuncti
onalappr
oach.
Thisi
st omeant hatthefunct
ion(purpose)ofadmi ni
str
ati
velawshouldbetheunderl
yingel
ementof
anydefini
ti
on.Theultimatepurposeoftheadmi nist
rat
ivel
awi scontr
oll
i
ngtheexerci
seof
governmentalpower.Thecontrolaspectimpli
edlyshadessomel i
ghtontheothercomponentsofi
ts
defi
niti
on.

Accor
dingtoSIRI
VORJENNINGS-Admini
str
ati
velawi
st hel
awrelati
ngtotheadmi
nist
rat
ion.I
t
det
erminestheor
gani
zat
ion,
power
sanddut
iesofadmi
nistr
ati
veauthori
ti
es.

Masseycrit
ici
zesthi
sdefi
niti
onbecausei
tfai
lstodif
fer
ent
iateadministr
ativ
eandconsti
tut
ional
law.
Thisdefi
nit
iondoesnotgi
vedueregardtotheadmini
str
ati
veprocess,i.
e.themannerofagency
decisi
onmaking,i
ncl
udingtherul
es,pr
ocedures,
andpri
nci
plesitshouldcomplywit
h.

AccordingtoI.PMassey-“Admini
str
ati
velawi
sthatbranchofpubl
iclawwhichdeal
swiththe
organizati
onandpowersofadmi
nistr
ati
veandquasi
-admini
str
ati
veagenci
esandprescr
ibesthe
pri
nciplesandrul
esbywhichanoff
ici
alact
ioni
sreachedandrevi
ewedi nr
elat
iont
oindi
viduall
i
ber
ty
andfreedom.”

THEGROWTHOFADMI
NISTRATI
VELAW

ENGLAND-I n1885Al bertVennDicey ,

aBr it
ishjur
ist
, r
eject
edthewholeconceptofAdminist
rat
ive
l
aw.Unt i
lthe20thCentury,Admini
strati
velawwasnotaccept edasasepar at
ebranchofl
aw.The
LordDonoughmor eCommi ttee,i
n1929, recommendedf orbett
erpubl
i
cationandcontr
olof
subor
dinatelegi
slat
ion.I
n1958, Tri
bunalsandI nquir
iesActwaspassedf orbett
ercont
roland
super
visi
onofAdmi nistr
ati
v eDeci
sions.
BreenvAmalgamat
edEngineer
ingUni
on[1971]2QB175wast
hef
ir
stcasewher
eint
heexi
stence
ofAdmini
str
ati
vel
awintheUnitedKi
ngdom wasdecl
ared.

UNITEDSTATESOFAMERI CA-Int heUnitedStatesofAmer i

ca,theexistenceofadmi ni
str
ati
velaw
anditsgrowt hwasignoreduntil
itgrewupt obecomet hefourt
hbranchoft heSt at
e.Bythenmany
l
egal scholar
sli
keFrankGoodnowandEr nstFreundhadal r
eadyauthoredaf ewbookson
Admi ni
strati
vel
aw.Itwasi n1933t hataspecialcommi tt
eewasappoi ntedt odeter
minehowj udi
ci
al
contr
ol overadmini
strat
iveagenciescouldbeexer ci
sed.Thereaft
er,
in1946TheAdmi ni
str
ati
ve
ProcedureActwaspassedwhi chpr ovi
dedforjudici
alcontr
oloveradmi nist
rati
veacti
ons.

I
NDIA-TheMaur yansandt heGupt asofancientIndi
ahadacent ral
isedadmi nistr
ati
vesy stem.It
waswi t
ht hecomingoftheBr i
tishthatAdministr
ativelawinIndiawentt hroughaf ewchanges.
Legi
slati
onsregulat
ingadmi ni
strati
veacti
onswer epassedi nBriti
shIndia.Afterindependence,India
adoptedtobecomeawel farestate,whi
chhencefor t
hincreasedthest at
eact i
v i
ti
es.Ast heactiv
iti
es
andpower softheGov er
nmentandadmi nist
rati
veaut hor
iti
esincreasedsodi dt heneedf or‘Rul
eof
Law’and‘Judici
alReviewofSt ateacti
ons’
.

Hencefor
th,i
frul
es,regulati
onsandor derspassedbytheadmini
strat
iveaut
hori
ti
eswer
efoundt
o
bebeyondtheauthorit
ieslegisl
ati
vepower sthensuchorder
s,r
ulesandregul
ati
onswer
etobe
decl
aredult
ra-
vir
es,unconst i
tut
ional
,i
llegalandvoi
d.

REASONSFORGROWTHOFADMI
NISTRATI
VELAW.

1.Theconceptofawelfar
est
ate-AstheStateschangedt
heirnat
urefr
om lai
ssez-
fai
ret
ot hatofa
welfar
estate,
gover
nmentact
ivi
ti
esi
ncreasedandthustheneedtoregul
atethesame.Thus,thi
s
branchoflawdevel
oped.

2.Theinadequacyoflegi
sl
ature-Thelegi
slat
urehasnot i
metolegi
sl
ateupont heday-
to-
dayever
-
changi
ngneedsoft hesociety
.Evenifi
tdoes,thel
engthyandt
ime-t
akinglegi
sl
atingpr
ocedur
e
wouldrendertherul
esolegisl
atedofnouseast heneedswoul
dhav echangedbyt het
imetherul
e
i
simplement ed.

3.Theinef
fi
ciencyofJudi
ciary-Thejudici
alprocedur
eofadjudicat
ingmatter
sisveryslow,costl
y
complexandf or
mal.Fur
thermore,ther
earesomanycasesal r
eadyl i
nedupthatspeedydisposalof
sui
tesisnotpossibl
e.Hence,theneedfortri
bunalsarose.

4.Scopefortheexperi
ment-Asadmi ni
str
ati
velawi
snotacodifi
edlawtherei
sascopeof
modifyi
ngitaspertherequi
rementoftheStat
emachiner
y.Hence,i
tismorefl
exi
ble.Ther
igi
d
l
egisl
ati
ngproceduresneednotbefoll
owedagainandagain.

NATUREOFADMI NI STRATI VELAW : Admi ni

strativeLawi sanewbr anchofl awthatdealswiththe
power soft heAdmi nistrativeauthorit
ies, themanneri nwhi chpower sar eexer ci
sedandt he
remedi eswhi char eav ailabletotheaggr eivedper sons, whent hosepower sar eabusedby
admi nistr
ativeauthor i
ties.TheAdmi nistrativepr ocesshascomet ostayandi thastobeaccept edas
anecessar yev i
li
nal lprogr essiv
esoci eti
es.Par ti
cularlyinwel far
estate,wher emanyschemesf or
thepr ogressoft hesoci etyareprepar edandadmi nisteredbyt hegov ernment .Theexecutionand
i
mpl ement ationoft hesepr ogrammesmayadv erselyaf fecttheright
soft heciti
zens.Theactual
problem ist oreconci l
esoci alwel f
arewi thr i
ghtsoft heindividualsubjects.Themai nobjectofthe
studyofAdmi ni
strati
v elawi stounr av elthewayi nwhi cht heseAdmi nist
r ati
veauthori
ti
escoul dbe
keptwi thi
nt heirli
mitssot hatthedi scr et
ionar ypower smaynotbet urnedi ntoarbit
rar
ypower s.
SCOPEOFADMI NISTRATI VELAW : Therearesev eralbranchesoft hescienceofl aw.The
Administ
rati
veLawi sar ecentbr anchofthescienceofl aw.I nthepolit
icalsciencet her
ear efew
Administ
rati
veorgans.Cer tai
nf uncti
onshavebeenal l
ot tedtot heseorgansi ntheAdmi ni
strati
ve
Machinery.TheAdministrativ
el awdealswiththest ructure,functionsandpower softhe
Administ
rati
veorgans.Italsol aysdownt hemet hodsandpr ocedureswhi char etobef oll
owedby
them dur
ingthecourseofr emedi eswhichar
eav ai
labletot heper sonswhoser ightsandot her
pri
vi
legesaredamagedbyt heiroperat
ions.

From t
hef
ewl i
nesaboveexpl
aini
ngthemeani
ngoft
heAdmi ni
str
ati
vel
aw,
wecannot i
cetheex
act
scopeoft
hisnewbranchofLaw.ThescopeofAdmi
nist
rat
ivel
awcanbenarr
atedasunder:
-

1)Themet
hodsandpr
ocedur
esoft
heseAdmi
nist
rat
iveor
gansar
eal
sost
udi
edbyt
hisnewbr
anch
ofl
aw.

2)I
tcov
erst
henat
ureofst
ruct
ure,
power
sandf
unct
ionsofal
ltheseadmi
nist
rat
iveor
gans.

3)Ital
somakesavai
lableal
ltherel
evantr
emediest
ot hepersonswhoser
ight
sar
einf
ri
ngedbyt
he
operat
ionsoft
heseorgansduri
ngthecourseofAdminist
rat
ion.

4)WhyandHowt
heAdmi
nist
rat
iveOr
gansar
etobecont
rol
l
edi
sal
sov
iewedbyt
heAdmi
nist
rat
ive
l
aw.

I
nthiswayal ongwit
hthedevelopmenti
nthePoli
ti
calSci
enceandalongwiththeideaoffederal
Admini
str
ation,thesepar
atebranchofAdmini
str
ati
velawhasbeendev el
oped.Itist
obecl earl
y
not
edthatthisbranchofLawisexclusi
vel
yrest
ri
ctedtotheAdmini
str
ativeorgansonly
.The
del
egat
edlegi sl
ati
onsaresupposedtobethebackboneoftheAdmini
strati
velaw.

Conclusi
on-ThusAdmi ni
str
ativ
el awcanbesai dtobesci
enceofpowerofAdmi
nist
rati
ve
aut
hor i
ti
es,andt henatureoftheirpowerscanbest udi
edundert
hethr
eeheads-
Legi
slati
veorRul
e
making,PurelyEx ecut
ive,
Judici
al orAdj
udicat
ive.Nowthemainconsi
der
ati
onofAdminist
rat
ivel
aw
i
sthecont r
ol overtheexerci
seoft hesepowers.

Q.
2Expl
aint
her
elat
ionanddi
ff
erencebet
weenadmi
nist
rat
ivel
awandconst
it
uti
onal
law?

RELATIONSHI PBETWEENCONSTI TUTIONALLAW ANDADMI NI

STRATI VELAW : Asever
yl awoft
he
Stat
emustsat isfyt
heConstit
uti
onal benchmark,iti
sessent
ialt
oknowt herelat
ionshi
pbet weent
he
Consti
tut
ionallawandtheAdmi nistr
ativ
el awoftheStat
e.Consti
tut
ional l
awisthegenusand
admini
strat
ivelawitsspeci
es,hencet hejudge-
madel awmustcompl ywi t
htheconst i
tut
ional
prov
isi
ons.Ther ear
efewsimilari
tiesanddi f
fer
encesbetweenConstit
utionalLawand
Administ
rati
veLaw.

Di
ff
erencebet
weenAdmi
nist
rat
ivel
awandConst
it
uti
onal
law:

1)AConst i
tut
ionisthesupr
emelawoft heland.Nolawi sabovet
heconst
it
uti
onandhencemust
sati
sfyit
sprovisi
onsandnotbeinit
sviolat
ion.Administ
rati
vel
awhenceissubor
dinat
eto
consti
tut
ionall
aw.Inotherwor
ds,whil
eConst i
tut
ionisthegenus,
admini
str
ati
vel
awi saspeci
es.

2)Const
it
uti
ondeal
swit
hthest
ruct
ureoft
heStat
eandi
tsv
ari
ousor
gans.Admi
nist
rat
ivel
aw,
on
theot
herhand,
deal
sonl
ywitht
headmini
str
ati
on.
3)WhileConst
it
uti
ontouchesal
lbranchesofl
awanddeal swit
hgeneralpr
inci
plesr
elat
ingt
o
organi
sati
onandpowersofthevari
ousorgansoftheStat
e;admini
str
ati
velawdealsonl
ywitht
he
powersandfuncti
onsoftheadmini
str
ativ
eauthor
iti
es.

4)Si
mplyspeakingtheadmini
str
ati
veaut
hor
it
iesshoul
dfi
rstf
oll
owt
heConst
it
uti
onandt
henwor
k
aspert
headmi nist
rat
ivel
aw.

Si
mil
ari
ti
es:
1)Bot
hConst
it
uti
onal
LawandAdmi
nist
rat
iveLawar
ePubl
i
cLaw.

2)Bot
hhav
ethesamesour
ceofl
aw.

Q.
3Expl
aint
het
heor
yofr
uleofl
awwhati
sit
simpor
tancei
nIndi
anadmi
nist
rat
ivel
awexpl
ain?

Ans)Meani ngandOr igi

n:Ther uleoflawi saproductofcenturi
esofst ruggleofthepeoplef ort
he
recognitionoft heiri
nherentrights.
TheconceptofRul eofl awisofol dori
ginandi sanancientideal.
Itwasdi scussedbyanci entGr eekphilosopherssuchasPl at
oandAr i
stotl
earound350BC.Pl ato
wr ote:“Wher ethelawi ssubjecttosomeot herauthori
tyandhasnoneofi tsown, t
hecollapseofthe
state,inmyv iew,isnotfaroff;butiflawist hemasterofthegov ernmentandt hegov er
nmenti sit
s
slave,thenthesi tuati
onisfullofpromi seandmenenj oyallt
hebl essi
ngsthatt hegodsshowerona
state”.Likewise,Ar i
stot
lealsoendor sedt heconceptofRuleoflawbywr i
ti
ngt hat“l
awshoul dbet he
finalsovereign.”

Thephrase‘Rul
eofLaw’ i
sderivedfr
om theFr
enchphr ase‘laprinci
pedelegali
te’(t
hepri
ncipl
eof
l
egali
ty)whichref
erstoagovernmentbasedonprinciplesoflawandnotofmen.Rul eoflawisone
ofthebasi
cpr i
nci
plesoftheEngli
shConsti
tut
ionandt hedoct r
ineisacceptedi
nt heConsti
tut
ionof
U.S.
AandI ndi
aaswel l
.Theenti
rebasisofAdmini
strati
v eLawi sthedoctr
ineoftherul
eoflaw.

AlbertVennDi
cey(
aBrit
ishj
uri
standconst
it
utionalt
heori
st)devel
opedtheconceptofRuleofl
awi n
hisbook‘TheLawoft
heConsti
tuti
on’
(1885).Heidenti
fi
esthreepri
nci
pleswhi
cht oget
herest
abli
sh
theruleofl
aw:

1.Theabsolut
esupr emacyorpr edominanceofregularlawasopposedt othei nf
luenceofarbitr
ary
power/Absenceofdi screti
onar
ypower sandsupr emacyofLaw: -vi
z.nomani sabov el
aw.Noman
i
spunishabl
eexceptf oradisti
nctbreachoflawest abl
ishedinanordinaryl
egal mannerbefore
ordi
nar
ycour t
s.Thegov ernmentcannotpunishanyonemer elybyit
sownf iat.Personsi
naut hori
ty
donotenjoywide,arbit
raryordi
screti
onarypowers.Diceyassertedthatwherevertherei
sdiscreti
on
ther
eisroom forarbit
rari
ness.

2.Equalit
ybeforethelawort heequal subject
ionofal
l classestotheordi
narylawoft heland
administer
edbyt heordinarycourts;
-Ev er
yman, what
ev erhisrankorcondit
ion,issubjectt
othe
ordi
narylawandj uri
sdicti
onoftheor dinarycourt
s.Noper sonshouldbemadet osufferinbodyor
depri
vedofhi spropert
yexceptf orabreachofl awestablishedintheor
dinarylegalmannerbefore
theordinarycour
tsofthel and.

3.Predomi nanceofl egalspi

ri
t/Theconst ituti
onisther esul
toft heor dinarylawoftheland–It
meanst hatt hesour ceoft heri
ghtofindivi
dual si
snotthewr i
ttenconst itut
ionbuttherul
eas
defi
nedandenf orcedbyt hecourts.Thegener alpri
nci
plesoft heBr i
ti
shconst it
uti
onandespecial
ly
thei
ndividual’sliberty,ar
ejudgemade. i
.e.
,thesearether esul
tofj udicialdecisi
onsdetermi
ningthe
ri
ghtsofpr iv
at eper sonsinpart
icularcasesbr oughtbef
or ethecour tsfr om ti
met oti
me.
IMPORTANCEI NI NDIANADMI NISTRATI VELAW -Rul eoflawi sclassi cal principl
eofadmi nistrat
ive
l
aw.Asamat teroffactthi sprincipl
ewasoneoft hepr i
ncipl
est hatact edasi mpedi ment
dev elopmentofAdmi nistrativ
eLawpr i
nci pl
es.Thei ronyfurtheri st hatt her uleoflawi snowan
i
mpor tantpar tofmoder nAdmi nistr
ativeLaw.Themoder nadmi nistr ativelawi sfi
nemi xtureofDr oi
t
Admi nist
ratif
,theFr enchl awsy st
em andDi ceyr uleoflaw.Thesophi st i
cat edcombi nationoft he
twopr i
ncipleshasgi venriset opower f
ul andv astbodyofexecut i
v e.I nIndi at heConst ituti
oni s
supr eme.Thepr eambl eofourConst i
tuti
oncl earlysetsoutt hepr inci pleofr uleoflaw.I tis
somet i
messai dt hatplanningandwel fareschemesessent i
allystr i
keatr uleofl awbecauset hey
affectt heindiv i
dualfreedomsandl ibertyinmanyway s.Butr uleofl awpl ay sanef fecti
v eroleby
emphasi zi
nguponf ai
rplayandgr eateraccount abili
tyoftheadmi nist r
ation.I tlaysgr eateremphasi s
upont heprinciplesofnat ur alj
usticeandt heruleofspeaki ngor deri nadmi nistrat
ivepr ocessi n
ordert oeliminat eadmi nistrati
vear bitr
ariness.

Inanear l
ycaseS. G.Jaisi nghani V.Uni onofI ndiaandothersAIR1967SC1427t heSupr emeCour t
port
rayedt heessent ial
sofr uleofl awi nav erylucidmanner.Itobserved:“
Theabsenceofar bi
trar
y
powerist hefir
stessent ialofther uleofl awuponwhi chourwhol econsti
tuti
onal sy
st em i
sbased.I n
asystem gov ernedbyr uleofl aw, discreti
onwhenconf err
eduponexecut iveauthori
tiesmustbe
conti
nuedwi thinclear l
ydef i
nedl i
mi ts.Ther uleoflawfrom thi
spointsofv i
ewmeanst hatdecisi
ons
shouldbemadebyt heappl i
cationofknownpr i
nci
plesandrulesand,ingeneralsuchdeci sion
shouldbepr edictableandt heci ti
zenshoul dknowwher eheis.I
fadeci si
onistakenwi t
houtany
pri
ncipl
eorwi t
houtanyr uleitisunpr edictableandsuchadeci sionisanti
thesi
sofadeci siontaken
i
naccor dancewi tht her uleofl aw”

RULEOFLAW I NINDIANCONSTITUTION -Thef

irstandthesecondaspect sapplytoI
ndiansyst
em
butthethir
daspectofDicey`
srul
eoflawdoesn`
tappl yt
oIndiansystem asthesourceofri
ght
sof
i
ndividual
sistheconsti
tut
ionofI
ndi
a.Theconst
it
ut i
onisthesupremelawoft helandandalll
aws
passedbyt helegi
sl
atur
emustbeconsist
entwit
ht heprovi
sionsoftheconstit
uti
on.

Basi
cPr
inci
plesoft
heRul
eofLaw

·Lawi
sSupr
eme,
abov
eev
ery
thi
ngandev
ery
one.Nobodyi
sabov
ethel
aw.
·Al
lthi
ngsshoul
dbedoneaccor
dingt
olawandnotaccor
dingt
owhi
m.
·Noper
sonshoul
dbemadet
osuf
ferexceptf
oradi
sti
nctbr
eachofl
aw.
·Absenceofar
bit
rar
ypowerbei
nghear
tandsoul
ofr
uleofl
aw.
·Equal
i
tybef
orel
awandequal
prot
ect
ionofl
aw.
·Di
scr
eti
onar
ypowershoul
dbeexer
cisedwi
thi
nreasonabl
eli
mit
ssetbyl
aw.
·Adequat
esaf
eguar
dagai
nstex
ecut
iveabuseofpower
s.
·I
ndependentandi
mpar
ti
alJudi
ciar
y.
·Fai
randJustPr
ocedur
e.
·SpeedyTr
ial
Q.
4Explai
nthedoct
ri
neofsepar
ati
onofpower
?Whati
sit
simpor
tancei
nadmi
nist
rat
ivel
aw
di
scussal
soit
smerit
sanddemerit
s.?

THEDOCTRI
NEOFSEPARATI
ONOFPOWERS

Thehistor
yofori
ginofthedoct
ri
neistr
aceabletoAr i
stot
le.I
nthe16thand17thCenturi
es,Fr
ench
phil
osopherJohnBodinandBri
ti
shPoli
ti
cianLockerespectiv
elyhadexpoundedthedoctr
ineof
separat
ionofpowers.Buti
twasMontesquieu,
Frenchjuri
st,whoforthefi
rstt
imegaveita
syst
emat i
candscienti
fi
cfor
mulat
ioni
nhisbook‘ Espri
tdesLois’(
Thespiri
tofthel
aws).

Nat
ur eandMeani ngofthePr i
nciple-Theseparati
onofpowersisbasedont hepr i
ncipl
eoft rias
pol
i
tica,whichmeanssepar ationbetweenthreeindependentpowersi nnati
oni .
e.Legislatur
e,
Administr
ati
onandJudi ci
ary.Thedoct ri
neofseparati
onofpower smeanst hatnoneoft he
gov
er nment,i
.e.
,thelegi
sl
ative,executi
veandjudicial
shouldeverexercisethepower soft heother.
I
tmeanst hatthethreedepartment sofgovernmentar et
obesepar atedanddi st
inct.Theyar etobe
i
ndependentofoneanot her,andeachcanexer ciseonlyonetypeofaut hori
ty,l
egisl
ative,executi
ve
orj
udicial
.

Thetheor
yofsepar
ati
onofpower
ssi
gni
fi
est
hreef
ormul
ati
onsofst
ruct
ural
classi
fi
cat
ionof
gover
nmental
powers.

A)Thesamepersonshouldnotf
orm par
tofmor
ethanoneoft
het
hreeor
gansoft
hegov
ernment
;
forexampl
e,mi
nist
ersshoul
dnotsi
tinparl
i
ament.

B)Oneorganofthegovernmentshouldnoti
nter
fer
ewi
thanyotheror
gansoft
hegovernment
.For
exampl
e,theexecut
iveshoul
dnotinter
fer
eintheadmi
nist
rat
ionofj
usti
cebyt
hecourt
s.

C)Oneorganofthegover
nmentshouldnotexer
ciset
hefunct
ionsassi
gnedtoanyotheror
gan.For
exampl
e,theexecut
ivebr
anchcannotl
egi
slat
elaws,andaswelli
tcannotadj
udi
cat
ecases.

THEMERI
TSOFTHETHEORYOFSEPARATI
ONOFPOWERSARESTATEDBELOW.

1.Pr
otect
ionofLi
bert
yandRi
ghts:Thet
heoryofseparat
ionofpowersprot
ect
iont
othel
i
ber
tyand
ri
ght
softheindi
vi
dual,
andpr
otect
shimfrom di
ff
erentofdespoti
sm andoppr
essi
on.

2.Eff
ici
encyinadmi
nist
rati
on: separ
ati
onofpowersprovi
deeffi
ciencyintheadmini
str
ati
onoft
he
country
.Aspowersaredist
ributedamongt hegov
ernmentdepart
ment s,t
hesedepart
mentsgai
n
deepknowledgeoft
hemat terstheywith,
andbecomemor eeffi
ci
ent .

3.Limit
edGov er
nment :
Aspower
saredi
str
ibut
edamongdi
ff
erentdepar
tthesedepar
tment
senj
oy
onlyli
mitedpowers.Thi
spr
event
sri
seofdi
ctat
orshi
p.

4.Checksandbalances:separat
ionofpowerworkswellwhentherei
sthepri
nci
pleofchecksand
bal
ances,t
hishel
pt ocheckontheshortcomingsofanyofthearmsofgover
nment,theexecut
ive
thr
oughthi
stechniquecancheckthejudi
ciar
yandthetwointurncoul
dcheckthel
egisl
atur
eandso
on.

DEMERI
TSOFSEPARATI
ONOFPOWER

1.NotFull
yPossible:Thi
stheoryi
snotf ul
l
ypossible.Theexecut
ivehassomerolei
nrul
e-maki
ng,
andthelegisl
aturealsoperfor
mssomej udi
cialfuncti
ons.Forexample,i
mpeachmentwhichis
j
udici
ali
nnatureisdonebythelegi
slat
ure.
2.Admini
str
ati
veCompli
cati
ons:Separat
ionofpowersresul
tsinadmini
str
ati
vecompl i
cat
ions.I
t
becomesdif
fi
cul
ttof
orgecooper
ati
on,coordi
nat
ionandharmonyamongtheorgansofgover
nment.

3.ConfusionandDeadl
ock:Separ
ati
onofpower sleadst
ojealousy,suspi
ci
onandfr
icti
onamong
the or
gans ofgovernment.Whil
e produci
ng di
sharmony and confusi
on,itmay par
aly
se t
he
admini
strati
on.

4.Itcan del
ay& aff
ectPer
for
mance:checksand bal
ancescan del
ayand af
fecteach ar
m's
per
for
manceinthedeci
si
onmaki
ngprocess

POSI
TIONI
NINDI
A:CONSTI
TUTI
ONALPROVI
SIONS:

Therearenosepar ateprovisi
onsr egar
dingtheDoct ri
neofSeparat
ionofPower shasbeengivenin
ourConstituti
on.Buttherearesomedi recti
veprincipl
esaregiv
enint heconst i
tut
ionasinPart
-I
V
andPart-VandAr ti
cale-
50ofourconst itut
ioni
ssepar ati
ngthejudi
ciar yfr
om executi
veas,“
thestat
e
shall
takest epstoseparatejudici
aryfr
om theexecut i
veinthepubl
icser vicesofthest
ate,
”and
exceptthistherei
snof ormal anddogmat i
cdivisionofpowers.InI
ndi a,notonlyf
uncti
onal
overl
appingi st
herebutalsot hepersonalover
lappingisprevai
li
ng.

Judici
ary:UnderAr t
icl
e-142andAr ticl
e-145ofourconstit
uti
on, theSChast hepowert odecl ar
evoid
thelawspassedbyl egi
slat
ureandact ionstakenbyt heexecutiv
ei ftheyviolat
eanypr ovisi
onofthe
consti
tuti
onort helawpassedbyt helegisl
atureincaseofex ecuti
v eacti
ons.Ev enthepowert o
amendt heconst i
tuti
onbyPar l
iamenti ssubjecttothescrut
inyoft heCour t.TheCour tcandeclar
e
anyamendmentv oidifitchangest hebasicstruct
ureoftheconst i
tution.
[Keshav anandaBhar t
iv.
Stat
eofKer la,
(1973)4SCC225, AI R1973SC1461. ]Inmanycasescour tshav eissueddi r
ecti
ons
fort
hePar li
amentt omakepol ici
es.

Executi
ve:ThePresidentofIndi
awhoi st hesupremeexecuti
veaut hori
tyinIndiaexerciselaw
makingpoweri ntheform ofordinancemaki ngpowerunderArticl
e-123,al
sot heJudicialpowers
underArti
cle-
103(1)andAr t
icl
e-217(3),hehast heconsul
ti
ngpowert otheSCofI ndiaunderArti
cl
e-
143andal sothepardoningpoweri nArticle-
72oftheConstit
ution.Theexecut ivealsoaffect
ing
funct
ioni
ngoft hejudi
ciarybymaki ngappoi ntmentst
otheofficeofChi efJusticeofIndiaandother
j
udges.

Legi
slature:TheCouncilofMinisteri
sselectedfr
om thel
egisl
atureandthisCounci
lisr
esponsi
ble
fort
hel egisl
atur
e.Thelegisl
atureexerci
singjudi
cial
powersincasesofbreachofit
sprivi
l
eges,
i
mpeachmentoft hePresidentunderAr t
icl
e-61andremovalofjudges.Thelegi
sl
ati
vebodyhasthe
puni
ti
v epower sunderArti
cle-
105( 3)
.

Concl
usion-Inbri
efwecansaythatt
heDoctri
neofSepar
ati
onPower
s;isfol
lowedi
nUSwi
tha
spi
ri
t,neverf
oll
owedinUKpurel
y,andIndi
ahasfol
l
oweditwit
hlar
geexcepti
ons.
Q.
5-)Whatdoy ouunder
standbyDor
itadmi
nist
rat
ion?Di
ff
erencebet
weenadmi
nist
rat
ivel
awand
dr
oitadmi
nist
rati
ff
?

TheDr oi
tAdministr
ati
f(DA)isaseparat
et r
ibunal
.Theyarenotpar toftheFrenchCourt
sandare
i
ndependentoft hem.DroitAdmi
nist
rati
onisauni quecharacteri
sti
coft headmini
str
ati
veset
upof
France.Accor
dingtoBrit
ishJuri
stAlber
tVennDi cey(4t
hFeb1835-7t hApril
1922),
theDroi
t
Admi ni
str
ati
vesy st
em i
sbasedont hefoll
owingoft woordinarypri
nciples,
namely:

1)Thegovernmentandit
sev
eryser
vantpossessesspeci
alr
ight
s,pr
ivi
l
egesandpr
erogat
iveas
agai
nstpr
ivateci
ti
zens.

2)Suchright
sandprivi
l
eges,et
c.,ar
edeter
minedonthepr
inci
plesdi
ff
erentf
rom t
heconsi
der
ati
on
thatf
ixesthel
egal
rightsandduti
esoftheci
ti
zens.

LegendaryFr
enchmil
i
taryleaderNapol
éonBonapar
te(
15thAugust1769-5thMay1821)wasthe
founderofDroi
tAdmi
nist
rati
on.Heforthef
ir
stti
meestabl
i
shed‘Consei
ld'
État
’whi
chmeansthe
CouncilofSt
ate.

Pr
inci
plesofDr
oitAdmi
nist
rat
ion-Emi
nentFr
enchschol
arJeanWal
i
nepr
opoundedf
oll
owi
ngt
hree
pr
inci
plesofDr
oitAdmi
nist
rat
ion:

Pri
nci
ple1:Thepowerofadmi
nist
rati
ont
oact‘
SuoMot
u’(
oni
tsown)t
oimposedi
rect
lyonsubj
ect
s
i
tsdeci
siontobeobeyedasaduty.

Pri
nciple2:Thepoweroft headmini
strati
ont
ot akedecisi
onsandexecut
ethem ‘
SuoMot u’
(oni
ts
own)andmaybeexer cisedonlywit
hintheor
bitofthelawthatpr
otect
sindi
vi
duall
iabi
l
iti
esagai
nst
administr
ati
vearbi
tr
ariness.

Pr
inci
ple3:
Theex
ist
enceofaspeci
ali
zedadmi
nist
rat
ivej
uri
sdi
cti
on.

I
nconnect i
onwitht
hePr i
nci
pleNo.3,JeanWali
nesai
d,“
OnespeaksofAdmini
strat
iveJur
isdi
cti
on
becausethesedeci
sionsrel
atetosuperi
orcont
rol
oft
heConsei
ld'Ét
atei
thert
hroughappealorby
therecour
seonitscessat
ion.”

Consei
ld'État:Themainadv ant
ageofConseil
d'Ét
ati
sthatbei
nganindependentbody
.Itrev
iews
ever
yadmi nist
rati
veacti
on.Thiscounci
loft
hestat
ecomprisesofeminentci
vi
lserv
ants.Thi
s
counci
ldealswi t
hav ar
iet
yofmat ter
sli
ke:

I
ncomeTax,Clai
msf ordamagesforwr
ongf
ulactsofGov er
nmentser
v ant
s,Per
sonal
clai
msofCi
vi
l
Ser
vant
sagainst:(Wrongf
uldismi
ssal
orSuspensi
on),
Disputedel
ect
ions,et
c.

TheConsei
ld'Ét
atcanint
erf
ereinadmi nist
rat
iveorderi
fther
eis:
Lackofj
uri
sdi
cti
on,
Theer
rorof
l
aw,Misappl
icat
ionofpower,Thei
rregulari
tyofprocedur
eetc

DI
FFERENCEBETWEENADMI
NISTRATI
VELAW ANDDROI
TADMI
NISTRATI
FF
Uni
t2
Q.1)Delegat
ionnonpotestdel
egatediscussther
elevanceoft
hisdoct
ri
ne?Whatdoy ouunderst
and
bydelegatedlegi
sl
ati
on?Whatarethecausesoft hegrowthofdel
egat
edlegi
slat
iondi
scussit
s
consti
tuti
onali
tyi
nindi
awiththehelpofdecidedcases?

Del
egatedLegisl
ati
on-Iti
snoteasytogettheexactdefi
nit
ionofdel
egat
edl
egi
sl
ati
on.
Delegat
ed
l
egi
slat
ion,al
sorefer
redtoassecondar
ylegisl
ati
on,i
slegi
slati
onmadebyaper
sonorbodyother
t
hanPar l
i
ament .

Accor
dingt o Sal
mond,del
egat
ionl
egisl
ati
onis thelegi
sl
ati
onthatcomesf r
om anyf orm of
aut
hori
tyapartfrom t
hesov
erei
gnpoweranddependsonasupremeauthor
it
yforthecont
inuance
ofi
tsexist
ence.

Delegat
edlegi
slationisakindofsubor di
natelegi
slati
on.Gener
all
y,the‘del
egat
edl egi
slat
ion’means
thelawmadebyt heexecutiv
eundert hepower sdelegat
edt oi
tbytheSupremel egisl
ati
veauthori
ty.
I
tcomesi nthef orm oforders,by
e-l
awset c.TheCommi tt
eeonMi nist
er’
spowersai dthattheter
m
delegat
edl
egisl
at i
onhast womeani ngs-

1.I
tmeanst
heexer
ciseofpowert
hati
sdel
egat
edt
otheexecut
ivet
omaker
ules.

2.I
tmeanst
heout
putort
her
ulesorr
egul
ati
onset
c.madeundert
hepowersogi
ven.

Therearethr
eemeasuresofcont
roll
ingabuseofpowerthroughdelegatedl
egisl
ati
on( asadoptedi
n
I
ndia).Her
ewemaygi v
esomei nstancesofdelegat
ionvi
ztheNor t
hernIndi
aCanal andDrainageact
1873,TheAdvocat
eAct1961,TheIndianMedicalCounci
lact,TheRighttoI
nformationact2005etc.

Delegati
onnonpot estdel egateLegal r
ulethatanagentt owhom anaut hor
it
yordecisionmaking
powerhasbeendel egatedbyapr incipalorhigherauthori
tymaynotdel egateitt
oasubagent
unlesstheoriginaldelegat orexpresslyauthorizesi
t,orthereisanimpl i
edauthori
tyt
odoso.I t
sisa
fundament alpri
ncipleofadmi nist
rativelaw.Iti
sapr i
ncipleinconsti
tuti
onalandadmi nist
rat
ivelaw
thatmeansi nLat i
nt hat"nodel egatedpower scanbef urt
herdelegated."Al
ter
nati
vel
y ,i
tcanbe
stateddel
egat usnonpot estdelegar e("onetowhom poweri sdelegatedcannothimselffurt
her
delegat
et hatpower ").

I
nIndi
a,thelawwasfi
rststat
edinAKROYv .St
ateOfPunj
ab,
(1986)4SCC326,
thatsubdel
egat
ion
ofdel
egatedpoweri
sultr
av i
rest
otheEnabl
i
ngAct.

REASONSFORGROWTHOFDELEGATEDLEGI
SLATI
ON

Manyf actorsareresponsiblefortherapidgrowt hofdelegatedlegisl

at i
oni neverymodern
democr ati
cstate.Thet radit
ionalt
heoryoflaissez-f
aire’hasbeengi venupbyev erystat
eandt heol
d
“pol
icestate”hasnowbecomea“ Welfar
esat e”.Becauseoft heradical changeinthephil
osophyas
totheroleofthest at
e, i
tsfuncti
onshav eincreased.Consequent l
y,delegatedlegisl
ati
onhasbecome
essenti
al.Accordingtothecommi tt
eeonmi nist
ers’powerthef ol
lowingf actorsareresponsi
blefor
therapidgrowthofdel egatedlegi
slati
on.

(a)Pressur
euponparli
amentarytime:Parli
amentisanextr
emelybusybody .I
tisoverl
oadedand
burdenedwithlegi
sl
ati
vework.Ithast
oenactsomanyl egi
slat
iont
hatitcanhar dl
ylookintodetail
ofeverylaw.Thehori
zonsofstateact
ivi
ti
esareexpandi
ng.Thebul
kofl egi
sl
ationissogr eat
.Itis
notpossibl
eforthelegislat
ur etodevotesuff
icientti
met odiscussall
themat
ter
sindetai
l.
Theref
ore,l
egisl
atureformul atesthegeneralpoli
cy–t heskelet
onandempowerstheexecuti
vet
o
fi
ll
inthedetail
s–t husgi vi
ngf leshandbloodtot heskel
etonsot hati
tmayl
iv
e-byissui
ng
necessar
yrules,r
egulation,bye- l
awsetc.

(b)Technicali
ty:Sometimes,subj
ectmatteroflegi
slat
ionistechnicalinnature.So,
assistanceof
expertsisrequir
ed.Member sofparl
iamentmaybet hebestpol it
ici
ansbutt heyarenotexper tto
dealwithhighlytechni
calmatter
s.Thesemat t
ersarerequir
edt obehandl edbyexper t
s.Her e,t
he
l
egislati
vepowermaybeconf err
edonexper t
stodeal wit
hthet echnicalprobl
ems.i.e.gas,atomic
energy,drugs,el
ectri
ci
tyet
c.

(c)Fl
exibi
l
ity:I
ncaseofdelegatedl
egi
slat
ionchangesi
nthelegi
slat
iont
akepl
acemorefr
equent
ly
andwithoutdel
ay,t
hisi
snotpossibl
einl
egisl
ati
onbyparli
ament.Moreov
er,
thei
mplement
ati
onof
l
awbecomeseasi erandfl
exibl
ebymeansofdel egat
edl
egisl
ati
on.

(d)Exper
iment:Thepracti
ceofdelegat
edlegi
slat
ionenablest
heexecut
ivetoexper
iment.Thi
s
methodpermitsrapi
dut i
l
izat
ionofexperi
enceandimplementati
onofnecessar
ychangesin
appli
cati
onoftheprovisi
onsintheli
ghtofsuchexperi
ence.

(
e).Emer
gency:Intimesofemergency,
quickact
ioni
srequi
redtobetaken.Thel
egisl
ati
veprocess
i
snotequi
ppedtopr ov
ideforur
gentsol
uti
ontomeettheemergencysit
uati
on.Del
eqatedlegi
sl
ati
on
i
stheonl
yconvenientremedy.

(f
)Compl exi
tyofmoder nadmini
str
ation:Thecomplexi
tyofmodernadmini
str
ationandthe
expansionofthefuncti
onsofthestatetotheeconomicandsoci
alspher
ehaver ender
editis
necessarytoresortt
onewf or
msofl egisl
ati
onandtogivewidepowerst
ov ar
iousauthori
ti
eson
sui
tableoccasions.

Theref
ore,ther
ehasbeenrapi
dgrowthofdel
egat
edl
egi
sl
ati
oni
nal
lcount
ri
esandi
tbecomes
i
ndispensablei
nmodernadminist
rat
iveer
a.
Q2)Discussi
nbrieft
hepr
ocedur
allegi
slat
ivecont
rol
ont
hedel
egat
edl
egi
sl
ati
on?Howt
hej
udi
ci
al
cont
roli
sexer
cisedondel
egat
edlegisl
ati
on?
 PARLI
AMENTARYCONTROL

Parli
amentar
ycont
rol
isconsi
der
edasanor
mal
const
it
uti
onal
funct
ionbecauset
heExecut
ivei
s
responsi
blet
othePar
li
ament.

I
ntheinit
ial
stageofparl
iament
arycont
rol
,i
tismadesur
ethatt
hel
awprov
idestheext
entof
del
egatedpower.Thesecondst
ageofsuchcontr
oli
nvol
vesl
ayi
ngoft
heBil
lbef
orethePar
li
ament
.

Ther
ear
ethr
eet
ypesofl
ayi
ng-

Simplel
aying-Int
his,
therul
esandr egulat
ionsmadecomei nt
oeff
ectassoonastheyar
elai
d
befor
etheParli
ament.Iti
sdonetoinformt hePar
li
ament
, t
heconsentoft
heParl
i
amentwithrespect
toit
sapprovaloft
herulesandregul
ationsmadearenotrequir
ed.

Negati
velay
ing-Therul
escomei nt
oforceassoonastheyar
epl
acedbef
oret
hePar
li
amentbut
ceasetohaveef
fecti
fdisappr
ovedbytheParl
iament
.

Aff
ir
mati
velay
ing-Ther
ulesmadeshal
lnoef
fectunl
essappr
ovedbybot
htheHousesoft
he
Parl
i
ament.
 PROCEDURALCONTROL

Procedur
alcont
rol
meanstheprocedur
esdefi
nedintheParentAct(
Actdel
egati
ngthel
egi
sl
ati
ng
power)havetobefol
l
owedbytheadminist
rat
iveaut
hori
tywhil
emakingtherul
es.

I
tinvol
vespre-
publ
icat
ionoft
herul
essothatthepeopl
ewhowouldbeaff
ectedbyt
hepr
oposed
r
ulesknowitbefor
ehandandcanmakerepresent
ati
onsift
heyar
enotsat
isf
ied.

Aft
erpre-publ
icati
onisdoneandonceal
ltheconcer
nedbodies,
personsandauthor
it
ieshavebeen
consult
edther ul
esaretobepubl
ishedi
ntheoff
ici
algazet
tesothatthepubl
i
cisawar eoft
he
exi
stenceoftherules.

JUDI
CIALCONTROL

Thejudi
ciar
ylooksi
ntothefol
l
owi
ngaspect
stodet
ermi
net
hel
egal
val
i
dit
yoft
her
ulessomade
usi
ngthepowersodelegated-

1)I
ftheadmi
nist
rat
ivel
egi
sl
ati
oni
sul
tr
a-v
irest
heConst
it
uti
on.

2)I
ftheadmi
nist
rat
ivel
egi
sl
ati
oni
sul
tr
a-v
irest
hePar
entAct
.

3)I
ftheadmi
nist
rat
ivel
egi
sl
ati
oni
sar
bit
rar
y,unr
easonabl
eanddi
scr
imi
nat
ory
.

4)I
ftheadmi
nist
rat
ivel
egi
sl
ati
oni
smal
afi
de.

5)I
ftheadmi
nist
rat
ivel
egi
slat
ionencr
oachesuponther
ight
sofprivat
eci
ti
zensder
ivedf
rom t
he
commonlaw,i
ntheabsenceofanexpressaut
hori
tyi
ntheParentAct.

6)I
ftheadmi
nist
rat
ivel
egi
sl
ati
oni
sinconf
li
ctwi
thanot
herst
atut
e.

7)Poweroft
hel
egi
sl
ati
ngaut
hor
it
ytol
egi
slat
ether
ule.

8)I
ftheadmi
nist
rat
ivel
egi
sl
ati
oni
svague.

Judi
cial
cont
rol
overdel
egat
edl
egi
slat
urecanbeex
erci
sedatt
hef
oll
owi
ngt
wol
evel
s:-

1.Del
egat
ionmaybechal
l
engedasunconst
it
uti
onal
;or

2.Thatt
heSt
atut
orypowerhasbeeni
mpr
oper
lyexer
cised.

Thedelegat
ioncanbechal
l
engedi
nthecour
tsofl
awasbei
ngunconst
it
uti
onal
,excessi
veor
arbi
tr
ary.

Thescopeofper missi
bledelegati
oni
sf ai
rl
ywi de.Withinthewidel i
mit
s,delegati
onissustai
nedi
t
doesnotother
wise; i
nfr
ingetheprovi
sionsoftheConst itut
ion.Thelimi
tati
onsi mposedbythe
appl
icat
ionoftheruleofultr
av i
resar
equi t
eclear.IftheActoft heLegisl
atureunderwhichpoweri
s
del
egated,i
sultr
avires,thepowerofthelegisl
atureinthedelegationcannev erbegood.

Nodel egat
edlegi
slat
ioncanbei
nconsi
stentwit
hthepr
ovisi
onsoft
heFundament
alRi
ght
s.Ift
he
Actviolat
esanyFundamentalRi
ght
stherules,
regul
a­ti
onsandbye-
lawsfr
amedther
eunder
cannotbebetter.
Q.3)Whatdoyouunderst
andbyQuasi judici
alf
unct
ion?"AQuasi
judi
cial
deci
si
oni
sonewhichhas
someoftheatt
ri
butesofjudici
aldeci
sionbutnotal
l
"discussi
ndetai
l
?Howdoesadmini
str
ati
ve
decisi
ondi
ff
erfr
om Quasijudici
aldeci
sions?

Quasi
-j
udi
cial
isdef
inedasanact
ionbyanadmi
nist
rat
iveagencywhi
ch

ascer
tainscer
tainf
acts,hol
dhearings,
weighevi
dence,makeconcl
usi
onsf
rom t
hef
act
sasabasi
s
fort
heiroff
ici
alact
ion,andexer
cisesdiscr
eti
onofajudi
ci
alnat
ure.

Aquasi
-j
udi
cialpr
oceedi
ngi
nvest
igat
esadi
sput
edcl
aim,
wei
ghsev
ident
iar
yfact
sandr
eachesa
bi
ndi
ngdeci
sion.

InBrustadv.Rosas, 1999Mi nn.App.LEXIS1384(Minn.Ct.App.Dec.28,1999)

,thecourtheldthat
quasijudi
cialdecisi
onsar ebindi
ngont hedi
sputedclaim.Theproceedingsofadminist
rati
ve
agenciesarequasi -
judi
ci
al when;heari
ngishel
d,bothparti
esparti
ci
pate,thepr
esidi
ngof f
icer
subpoenawi tnessesandt headmi ni
str
ati
vebodyhast hepowertotakeremedialact
ion[
Tokerv .
Poll
ak,44N. Y.2d211( N.Y.1978)]
.

I
nCabanav .KenaiPeninsul
aBorough,21P.3d833(Al
aska2001),
thecour
theldt
hatwhenanenti
ty
whi
chnormallyactsasal egi
slat
ivebodyappl
i
esgener
alpol
icyinpri
vat
ecapaci
ti
es,
iti
sfunct
ioni
ng
i
naquasi
-judici
alcapacit
y.

Quasi
judi
cial
funct
ion-Anaut
hor
it
yissai
dtobeex
erci
si
ngQuasi
-Judi
ci
alFunct
ionwhen:

1)i
tisempower
edunderast
atut
etodoanyact

2)t
heactwi
l
laf
fectt
heci
vi
lri
ght
sofaci
ti
zen

3)whethert
heacti
sdonei
nthecontextofresol
vi
ngadi
sput
ebet
weent
woci
ti
zens,
orwhet
hert
he
di
sputeisbet
weenaci
ti
zenandtheauthori
tyit
sel
f

4)t
heaut
hor
it
yisr
equi
redt
oactj
udi
cial
l
yandi
naccor
dancewi
thr
ulesofnat
ural
just
ice

Exampl
esofQuasi
-j
udi
ci
albodi
esi
nIndi
a

Nat
ional
HumanRi
ght
sCommi
ssi
on St
ateEl
ect
ri
ci
tyRegul
ator
yCommi
ssi
on

St
ateHumanRi
ght
sCommi
ssi
on Appel
l
ateTr
ibunal
forEl
ect
ri
cit
y

Cent
ral
Inf
ormat
ionCommi
ssi
on Rai
l
wayCl
aimsTr
ibunal

St
ateI
nfor
mat
ionCommi
ssi
on I
ncomeTaxAppel
l
ateTr
ibunal

Nat
ionalConsumerDi
sput
esRedr
essal St
ateConsumerDi
sput
esRedr
essal
Commi ssi
on Commissi
on

Di
str
ictConsumerDi
sput
esRedr
essal
For
um I
ntel
l
ect
ual
Proper
tyAppel
l
ateTr
ibunal

Compet
it
ionCommi
ssi
onofI
ndi
a Centr
alExci
seandSer
viceTaxAppel
l
ate
Tri
bunal

Banki
ngOmbudsman I
nsur
anceOmbudsman

I
ncomet
axOmbudsman El
ect
ri
cit
yOmbudsman
S.No Judi
cial
funct
ion Quasi
judi
cial
funct
ion

1 Asli
esinterpar
ties(
adisputebet
weent wo Al isint
erparti
esisnotanessenti
al
par
ti
es)isanessential
charact
eri
sti
cfeatur
e character
ist
icfeat
ureofquasi
-j
udi
cial
ofj
udici
alfunct
ion. functi
on.

2 Theev
idenceshal
lbet
akenonoat
h. Theev
idencei
snott
akenonoat
h.

3 Therul
esofevi
dence,Ci
vi
lPr
ocedur
eCode, Therul
esofevidence,
C.P.
C.,
Cr.
P.C.et
c.
et
c.arest
ri
ctl
yfol
lowed. arenotst
ri
ctl
yfoll
owed.

4 TheCour
tfee,
asperr
ules,
arer
equi
redt
obe Cour
tfeei
snotr
equi
redt
obepai
d.
pai
d.

5 Thedoct
ri
nesofpr
ecedent
s,st
aredeci
sis Thesedoct
ri
nesar
enotf
oll
owedst
ri
ctl
y.
et
c.shal
lst
ri
ctl
ybefol
l
owed.

6 Nomanajudgeinhi
sowncase.Thi
smaxi
m Somet
imes,
itmayber
elax
edher
e.
i
sst
ri
ctl
yfol
lowed.

7 Thecourtist
her
eal
for
um ofj
udi
cial I
tisonl
yatr
appi
ngofacour
t,buti
nreal
i
tyi
t
proceedi
ngs. i
snotacour
t.

Uni
t3): Q.1)Sal
i
entf
eatur
esofAdminist
rati
vetr
ibunal
s.Howisitdi
fferf
rom court?Poi
ntoutt
he
advant
ageofanAdmi ni
str
ati
veTri
bunaloveracourt?Whatarether
easonsoft hegrowt
hof
Tri
bunalinModernTi
mes?Mer i
tsanddemer i
tsofAdmini
str
ativ
eTri
bunal i
nIndia?

Admi
nist
rat
ivet
ri
bunal
sar
eagenci
escr
eat
edbyspeci
fi
cenact
ment
s.

Mai
nchar
act
eri
sti
csofAdmi
nist
rat
iveTr
ibunal
s

1)Admi
nist
rat
iveTr
ibunal
isacr
eat
ionofast
atut
e.

2)AnAdmini
strat
iveTri
bunal
isvest
edi
nt hejudi
cialpoweroftheStat
eandt
her
ebyper
for
msquasi
-
j
udici
alf
unct
ionsasdisti
ngui
shedfr
om pureadministr
ati
vefunct
ions.

3)Admi
nist
rat
iveTr
ibunal
isboundt
oactj
udi
cial
l
yandf
oll
owt
hepr
inci
plesofnat
ural
just
ice.

4)I
tisr
equi
redt
oactopenl
y,f
air
lyandi
mpar
ti
all
y.

5)Anadmini
str
ati
veTri
bunali
snotboundbyt
hest
ri
ctr
ulesofpr
ocedur
eandev
idencepr
escr
ibed
bytheci
vi
lpr
ocedurecour
t.

Ther
ear
efourcat
egor
iesoft
ri
bunal
sinI
ndi
a:

1)Admini
str
ati
vebodiesexer
cisi
ngquasi
-j
udi
cial
funct
ions,
whet
heraspar
tandpar
cel
oft
he
Depar
tmentorother
wise.
2)Admini
str
ativeadj
udi
catorybodies,whichar
eout
sidet
hecontr
oloftheDepart
menti
nvolvedi
n
thedi
sputeandhencedecidedisputesli
keajudgef
reefr
om j
udi
cial
bias.Example:
TheIncomeTax
Appel
lat
eTribunali
sundertheMi ni
str
yofLawandnotunderMini
str
yofFinance.

3)TribunalsunderArt
icl
e136inwhichtheauthori
tyexer
cisesinherentj
udi
cialpowersoftheSt
ate.
Becauset hefunct
ionsofthebodyareconsi
deredimport
antov erthecontr
ol,composit
ionand
procedure,evenDepartment
albodi
escanbecl assi
fi
edasTr i
bunals.

4)Tr
ibunal
sconst
it
utedunderAr
ti
cle323Aand323Bhav
ingaconst
it
uti
onal
ori
ginandenj
oyi
ngt
he
powersandst
atusofaHighCourt
.
Di
ff
erencebet
weenTr
ibunal
andCour
t

Thejudici
arywingoft heconstituti
onperfor
msar angeoffunctionsli
kedi sput
er esolut
ion,judi
cial
revi
ew,enforci
ngf undament alr
ightsandupholdi
nglaw.Itr
egulatesthecommonl awsy stem ofthe
country
.InIndi
a,therear evari
ousl ev
elsofthej
udici
arywhichincludetheSupr emeCour t
,theHigh
Courtsandthesubor dinatecourts.Thesubordi
natecour
tsincl
udedi st
rictcourtsandt r
ibunals.The
fi
rstandforemostdi f
ferencebet weencourtandtr
ibunal
isthattri
bunalsar esubordinat
et ocourts.

Cour t
sar eest
abli
shedtomai ntai
nlawandor deri
nt herespect
ivejur
isdi
cti
on.Onthecontr
ary
,
tr
ibunalsareapartofjudi
cialsetupthatdealswithdir
ecttaxes,l
abour,cooper
ati
ves,
clai
msfor
accidents,et
c.Checkoutthisarti
clef
ormor edif
ferences.

Basisfor TRI
BUNALS COURTS
di
fference

MEANI
NG Tri
bunalscanbedescr i
bedasminor Cour
trefer
stoapartoflegalsystem whi
ch
courts,
thatadj
udicat
esdisput
es ar
eestabli
shedtogi
vetheirdecisi
onson
ari
singinspeci
alcases. ci
vi
landcriminal
cases.

DECI
SION Awar
ds Judgement
,decr
ee,
conv
ict
ionoracqui
tt
al

DEALSWI
TH Deal
swi
th Var
iet
yofcases

PARTY Atri
bunalmaybeapar
tyt
othe Cour
tjudgesar
eimpar
ti
alar
bit
rat
orandnot
di
spute. apar
ty.

HEADEDBY Chai
rper
sonandot
herj
udi
cial Judge,
panel
ofj
udgesormagi
str
ate
members

CODEOF Nosuchcodeofpr
ocedur
e. Ithastofol
l
owt
hecodeofpr
ocedur
e
PROCEDURE stri
ctl
y.
Q.
2)Noonecanbejudgeinhi
sowncasei nvi
ewofthi
sst
atementexpl
aint
hedoct
ri
neofBi
aswi
th
t
hedeci
dedcases?Expl
aindi
ff
erentki
ndsofBi
as?

Natur
alJusti
ce’isanexpr essi
onofEnglishCommonLawhav ingi
tsori
gini
nJusnat ural
(lawof
Natur
e.)I
tinvolv
est heproceduralr
equir
ementoffai
rness.InEngl
and,i
twasi ni
ti
all
yappli
edtot
he
court
sbutlaterproj
ectedf r
om thej
udici
altotheAdmini
strati
vespher
e.Iti
sjust
icethati
ssimpl
e
andelementary,andfai
rplayinacti
on.

Doct
ri
neofbi
as

Biasisoneofthegroundsofjudici
alrevi
ewinSingapore.I
tisanaspectoft
heprinci
plenemojudex
i
ncausasua–nooneshoul dbeaj udgeinhi
sorherowncause–whi chisregar
dedasoneoft he
twinpil
l
arsofnatur
aljust
ice.Ajudgewi l
lbedi
squali
fi
edf r
om det
ermini
nganycaseinwhi chhemay
be,ormayfair
lybesuspectedtobebi ased.

AsLordHodsonputi
tinRi
dgev .Bal
dwi
n(1963)
,oneoft
hef
eat
uresofnat
ural
just
icei
s"t
her
ightt
o
beheardbyanunbi
asedtr
ibunal
".

Ingener
alter
msitsanincl
inat
iont
opr
esentorhol
dapar
ti
alper
spect
iveatt
heexpenseof(
possi
bly
equal
lyval
i
d)alt
ernat
ives.

Anothermeani
nggi
venis„
anyt
hingwhi
chtendsormayberegar
dedast endi
ngt
ocausesucha
per
sont odeci
deacaseot
her
wiseonevi
dencemustbehel
dtobebiased.‟

I
nFr
ankl
i
nv.Mi
nist
eroft
ownandcount
rypl
anni
ng,
Lor
dThanker
tondef
inesbi
asasunder
:

“MyLords, Icouldwishthattheuseoft heword"bias"shoul

dbeconf inedt
oit
sproperspher
e.Its
propersignif
icanceinmyopi nionistodenot
eadepar t
urefr
om thestandar
dofevenhandedjusti
ce
whichthel awrequiresfr
om thosewhooccupyj udicialof
fi
ce,orthosewhoarecommonl yr
egarded
asholdingaquasi -
judici
alof
fice,suchasanarbi
trator.
"

Bi
ascannotbepr
esumedasamat
terofcour
se.I
ntheabsenceofspeci
fi
cal
l
egat
ionofbi
as,
cour
ts
wi
l
lnotassumeofanybi
as.

Thet
radi
ti
onal
Engl
i
shl
awr
ecogni
sest
wopr
inci
plesofnat
ural
just
ice:

i
.Nemodebetessejudexi
npropr
iacausa:Nomanshallbeajudgei
nhi
sowncause,ornomancan
actasbothatt
heoneandthesametime– apar t
yorasuit
orandal
soajudge,
ort
hedecidi
ng
author
it
ymustbei
mparti
alandwi
thoutbi
as:and

i
i.Audial
ter
am par
tem:Heartheot
hersi
de,
orbotht
hesidesmustbeheard,
ornomanshoul
dbe
condemnedunheard,
orthatt
heremustbef
air
nessont
hepartoft
hedecidi
ngauthor
it
y.

Thef
ir
str
equirementofnat
ural
just
iceisthatthejudgeshoul
dbeimpar
tialandneut
ral
andmustbe
fr
eef
rom bi
as.Heissupposedtobeindif
ferentt
opar t
iest
othecont
rov
er sy.

I
ft heJudgeissubj
ectt
obiasinfav
ouroforagainstei
therpar tyt
othedisputeori
sinaposit
ion
thatabiascanbeassumed,heisdi
squali
fi
edtoactasaj udge,andtheproceedi
ngswil
lbevit
iat
ed.
Thisrul
eappli
estothej
udi
cial
andadmi ni
str
ati
veauthori
tiesrequi
redtoactjudi
ci
all
yorquasi
j
udi ci
all
y.
TYPESOFBI
AS

1)PersonalBias:Anumberofcir
cumst ancesmaygiveri
set opersonalbias.Her ejudgemaybe
rel
ati
ve,fr
iendorbusi
nessassoci
ateofapar ty
.Hemayhav esomeper sonal grudge,enmit
yor
gri
evanceorpr of
essi
onalri
val
ryagainstsuchpar
ty.I
nviewoft hesefactors,thereisever
yli
kel
i
hood
thatt
hejudgemaybebi asedtowardsonepar t
yorprej
udicedtowardstheot her.

InCottl
ev .Cot
tl
e1939,t
hechairmanofthebenchwasaf r
iendoft
hewi f
e‟sf
amil
ywhohad
i
nsti
tutedmat r
imoni
alpr
oceedingsagai
nstherhusband.Thewifehadtol
dthehusbandt hatt
he
chai
rmanwoul ddeci
dethecasei nherf
avour.Thedi
visi
onalcour
torder
edrehear
ing.I
tlatert
urned
outthatthechair
manwasaf r
iendofthewife‟sfami
ly.

Jeejeebhoyvcol l
ectorAI
R1965SC1096, t
hechiefjusti
cereconst
it
utedthebenchwheni twasf ound
thatoneoft hemember softhebenchwasamemberoft hecooperat
ivesocietyf
orwhichtheland
hadbeenacqui red.TheMadrasHighCourtalsoquashedt hedeci
sionofthedecisi
onofthecollect
or
whoi ncapacityasthechair
manoft heRegi
onalTransportAuthor
it
yhadgr antedapermiti
nf avour
ofacooper ati
vesocietyofwhi
chhewasal soachai r
man.

3)SubjectMatterBias:Thi
salsoknownasOf f
ici
alBi
as.Thosecasesfallwit
hinthi
scategor
ywhere
thedecidingof
ficerisdi
rect
ly,
orotherwi
se,
invol
vedinthesubj
ect-
mat t
erofthecase.Hereagai
n
mereinv olv
ementwoul dnotvi
tiat
etheadmini
str
ati
veacti
onunlessther
ei sareall
ikel
i
hoodofbias.

Murali
dharvkadam singhAIR1954,Thecour
tref
usedt
oquashthedeci
sionoftheEl
ect
ionTr
ibunal
onthegroundthatthewifeofthechai
rmanwasamemberoftheCongresspart
ywhosecandi
date
thepeti
ti
onerdefeat
ed.

4)DepartmentalorI
nstit
uti
onalBias:Depar
tmentalBiasari
seswhenThef unct
ionsofj
udge&
prosecut
orarecombi nedinthesamedepar t
ment.Thepr obl
em ofdepar
tmentalbi
asissomet
hing
whichisinger
entintheadmi ni
str
ati
veprocess,
andi fnoteff
ect
ivel
ychecked,i
tmaynegatet
hev er
y
conceptoffai
rnessi
nadmi ni
str
ati
veproceedi
ngs.

5)Poli
cyNot ionBi as:Biasar i
singoutofpr econceivedpol
icynot
ionsisav er
ydelicateprobl
em of
administrat
ivelaw.Ononehand, nojudgeasahumanbei ngisexpectedtositasabl anksheetof
paperandont heot her,
pr econceivedpol i
cynotionsmayviti
ateafai
rtrai
l
.Recentt rendinal
mostall
j
uri
sdictionsisthatpol i
cybi asisnotconsi der
edasbi aswhichvi
tiat
esanadmi nistr
ativeact
ion.I
n
Bajaj
Hi ndustanltd.V.si rShadi l
alenterpri
sesltd.
,cour
tdidnotall
owachal l
enget oan
administrat
iveactionont hegr oundofpol icybias.

6)Biasonaccountofobsti
nacy/Doctri
neofnecessit
y: Obst
inacymeansunreasonableand
unwaveri
ngpersist
enceandthedeci
dingoff
icerwouldnota'no'fort
heanswer.Doctri
neof
necessi
ty:
Biaswouldnotdisqual
i
fyanoffi
cerfrom t
akinganactioni
fnootherpersoniscompet
ent
toactinhi
splace.
Except
ionst
other
uleagai
nstBi
as:
Ther
ear
etwoexcept
ionst
wot
her
uleagai
nstbi
as-

(1)
Doctr
ineofnecessi
ty:Wherebiasisapparentbutt
hesameper sonwhoisli
kel
ytobe.biasedhas
todeci
de,becauseofthest
atutoryrequi
rementortheexcl
usi
venessofalcompetentaut
horit
yto
deci
de,t
hecour t
sall
owsuchper sont odeci
de.

(2)Wai ver
:Anall
egat
ionofBiasshouldberai
sedatapr opertime.I
fapartyknewofdi squali
fi
cat
ion
ari
singoutofbiasint
headjudicati
onandkeptsi
lent,
hisr i
ghttoobj
ectislostbytheprinci
pleof
walver.Butsometi
mes,anindivi
dualmaynotbeinaposi ti
ont oobj
ectearl
ierbecauseoffearor
i
gnor ance,i
nsuchcasesthecourtsmaynotapplytheprincipl
eofwaiver
.

AUDIALTERM PARTEM (
Discusst
heruleofAudi
alt
eram par
tem wi
tht
hehel
pofdeci
dedcases?
Howfarthi
srul
ehasbeenrecogni
sedinIndi
a)

Thef i
rstli
mbofnat uralj
usti
cei sbasedont heLati
nmax im‘Audialt
erm partem’.“Heartheot her
si
de”ist heessenceofthepr i
nci pl
e.Theaut hori
tymustnothearoneside, i
nt heabsenceoft he
otherormakeadeci si
onwi t
houtahear ing.Beingoneoft hepri
ncipl
esofnat uraljusti
ce,i
twas
madeappl icabl
eevent oadmi nistr
ati
veaut hori
tyadj
udicati
ngmatterhavingciv i
lconsequences.
Thismeansanyaut hor i
tyorbodyempower edtodecidethequesti
onofl egalrights,ofpersons,
shouldfoll
owt hi
srule.Otherwise,thedecisionwouldbequashedasv i
olati
veofAudi alt
eram
partem.

Thisr ul
egoti ntopr ominencewi t
hDr .Bentl
ey’
scasereportedin[(
1723)92ER818] ,Dr.Bentl
eywas
aprofessorofgr eateminence.Apr ocesswassentt ohim bytheVice-
chancell
orofCambr i
dge
Univ
er si
ty.Hei gnoredit&r emarkedt hatt
heViceChancell
orhadact edli
keaf ool
.TheUniversit
y
depriv
edhi m ofhi sdegrees.Thecasewasnul l
if
iedbytheCour tonthegroundthatDr.Bentl
eywas
notheard.Thej udgeFortescuesaid, “
EvenGodhi msel
fdidnotpasssent enceuponAdam bef orehe
wascal l
edupont omakeadef ense”.Hence,t
heopportuni
tyofbeinghear di
sthefir
strul
eof
ci
vil
izedjuri
spr udenceasdev el
opedbyMen&God, and“Rightofheari
ng”isasinequanon.

Noticeisthefir
stl i
mbofapr operhearing.Anot
iceshouldbedef inite.Itshouldspecif
ytheaut hori
ty
i
ssuingt henotice.Itshouldbeahol l
owandbar renmani f
estati
onofnat uralj
usti
cetosayt hatasof
ri
ghtsomeonemaybehear dindef enceofhimselfbutonlyagainstanunknownchar ge.Hence, t
he
chargeofgr oundsoft hepr oposedact ionmustbespeci f
iedinthenot ice.TheCour t
sinsistthat
suffi
cientti
meshoul dbegi ventot hepersonagainstwhom anact ioni sproposedtobet akent o
preparehisdefence.TheCour thasstruckdownanot icewhichstat edt hataninqui
rywoul dbehel d
i
nt henextmor ningNot iceofpl ace,ti
meandt hepropositi
onmustbegi ven.Itmustbesuf fi
cient
ly
cl
ear ,
specifi
c,unambi guousandunder st
andabl
ebyt heconcernedper son.

Af airheari
ngmustbegi ventothepersonconcer ned.Theobjectoff airheari
ngi stoensurethat
j
ust i
cei sdonet hatthereisnof ai
lur
eofj usti
ceandt hatever
yper sonwhoser i
ght saregoingtobe
affectedbyt heproposedact i
ongetsaf airheari
ng.Adequateoppor tunit
ymustbepr ovidedforan
oralhear i
ng,Document ar yandoralevi
dencear et obeconsidered,cross-examinationmustbe
all
owed, Evi
dencei stobecol l
ectedinthepr esenceofbothpar t
ies,Hewhohear smustdeci deisa
rul
et houghnotessent i
al,ther
eshouldbenomal afi
deorvindi
ctivetendencyont hepartofthe
PresidingOf f
icer,speakingordersshouldbemadegi vingoutreasonsf orthefindingsdecisi
on.

ManekaGandhi vs.Union[
(1978)SCR( 2)621],Thepasspor
tofthepetit
ionerhadbeeni
mpounded
bytheGovt.ofI
ndia“inpubli
cinter
est”.Noopportuni
tyhadbeengiventoherbeforei
mpoundingt
he
passpor
t.Held,
thiswasv i
olat
iveofther i
ghtofheari
ng&heldUltr
aVires.HerFundament
alr
ightt
o
goabroadunderAr t
.21hadbeenaf fected,wit
houthear
ing.
Q.3)Theliabil
it
yofadministrat
ionintort
?Liabil
i
tyofAdminist
rat
ioni nTor
t-Towhatextentt
he
administ
rationwouldbel i
ableforthetort
scommi tt
edbyitsservantsisacomplexpr
oblem
especi
all
yi ndevelopi
ngcount r
ieswitheverwideni
ngStateacti
vi
ties.Thel
iabi
l
ityoft
hegovernment
andadmi nistr
ati
onintortisgovernedbytheprinci
plesofpubl
iclawinheri
tedf
rom Bri
ti
shCommon
Lawandt hePr ovi
sionsoftheConst i
tuti
on.

Thewhol ei
deaofv
icar
iousl
i
abi
l
ityoft
hest
atef
ort
het
ort
scommi
tt
edbyi
tsser
vant
sisbasedon3
pri
nci
ples.

1.RespondeatSuper
ior(
Lett
hepr
inci
pal
bel
i
abl
e).

2.Qui
-Faci
tperAl
i
um Faci
tperse(
Hewhoact
sthr
oughanot
herdoesi
thi
msel
f)
.

3.Soci
ali
zat
ionofCompensat
ion.

Article300oft heConst it
utionofIndiadeal swi ththeext entofli
abil
it
yoft heUni onofI ndiaandt he
gov ernmentofaSt ate, butitdoesnotl aydownl i
abili
tyinspeci f
icter
ms.Ther ootoft hepr ovisi
on
canbet r
acedbackt osect i
on65oft heGov ernmentofI ndiaAct,1858,whi chlaiddownt hatont he
assumpt ionoft heGov ernmentofI ndiabyt heBr it
ishCr own, t
heSecr et
aryofSt at eforIndia-i
n-
Counci lwouldbel i
ablet othesameext entast heEastI ndi aCompanywaspr eviouslyli
able.Thisis
certainl
yast rangewayofdet erminingt hel i
abil
ityofast ategovernedbyaConst it
uti
on.Itis
becauseoft his‘
Strangeway ’wi
thresul tantconf usionandcompl exit
ythatt heLawCommi ssion
recommendedal egislati
onont hesubj ectt oo.Accept ingt herecommendat i
on, thegov er
nment
i
ntr oducedtwoBi ll
s,‘TheGov ernmentLi abil
it
yi nTor t’
,inLokSabhai n1965and1967, neitherof
whi chemer gedasanAct .Thegover nmental lowedt heBi l
lstolapseont hegr oundt hattheywoul d
bringanel ementofr igidi
tyinthedet er
mi nati
onoft hequest i
onofl i
abil
it
y .

Thefirstj
udici
alint
erpret
ati
onofStateLiabi
li
tyduringt heEastIndiaCompanywasmadei nJohn
Stauart’
scase,1775.Itwasheldfort
hef i
rstt
imet hatGov er
nor-
Gener ali
nCouncilhadnoi
mmuni ty
fr
om Cour t
’sjuri
sdi
cti
onincasesinvolv
ingthedismi ssalofGov ernmentServants.I
nMoodalyv.The
EastIndiaCompany1775( 1Bro-
CC469) ,t
hePrivyCounci l
iexpressedtheopini
onthatCommonl aw
doctri
neofsov erei
gnimmuni t
ywasnotappl i
cabletoI ndia.

Somejudgment
sduri
ngBrit
ishRul
eIndi
a,dot
ell
us,
howt
hel
awofadmi
nist
rat
ivet
ort
iousl
i
abi
l
ity
evol
vedi
nIndi
ancondi
ti
ons.

I
nP.andO.St eam Nav igat
ionCo.v .Secy.OfSt at
ef orIndia[(1861)5Bom HCRepor t,
Appendi x‘A’
]
theSupr emeCour tallowedanact ionagainstthesecr etaryofst at
ef orthenegli
gentactoft he
governmentwor kers.Inthi
scase,thewor kersempl oy edbyt heKidderporeDocky ard,whichwasa
governmentdocky ard,werecarryi
ngi r
onbar sacrossapubl icwaypassi ngthrought heport
, which
barstheydr oppedont heroad.Thenoi sesocr eatedscar edthehor sesofthecar r
iageinwhi chthe
plai
ntif
fwassi t
ti
ngandhesust ai
nedi njur
ies.SirBarnesPeacock, C.J.whodel i
veredthejudgment
ofthecour t,hel
dt hatCompanyhadbeeni nvestedwi t
hsov erei
gnfunctionsbutthisdidnotmakei t
asov ereignauthorit
y.

Theevol
uti
onoflawinthisfi
eldwaspr
edomi
nant
lyr
est
ri
ctedt
ojudi
ci
alpr
onouncement
s,ev
enaf
ter
thei
ndependenceofI
ndia.

I
nStat
eofRajasthanv.Vidyawat
i(Mst
.)[
AIR1962SC933]
,theSupr
emeCour
tofI
ndi
ahel
dthe
St
atevi
car
iousl
yliabl
eforthetor
tcommitt
edbyit
sser
vant
s.
InRuhul Shahv .StateofBihar, [AI
R1983SC1086] ,t
heCour tspeaki ngt hroughJust iceChandrachud,
provi
dedcompensat i
ontot heper sonwhowasunderi ll
egaldetent i
onf ormor ethan14y ear
s.The
Courtorderedcompensat i
onofRs.30, 000fortheinj
usticeandi njurydidt oRudul Shahandhi s
helpl
essf amil
y, becauseoft hewr ongact ionsofoffi
cialsoftheGov ernment .TheCour tsimi
lar
ly
grantedmonet ar ycompensat ionint hecaseofNi l
abatiBehrav .StateofOr issa[AIR1993SC1960]
andspel toutt
hepr i
ncipl
esont heliabil
it
yoft heStat
ei nthecasef orpay mentofcompensat i
onfor
thetortsocommi t
tedandal sohel d,thati
fnoot herredressisav ail
ablet hent hegov er
nmenti s
stri
ctl
yli
abletopayt hevi
ctimt hemonet arycompensat ionforbreachoff undament alri
ghtsofthe
vict
im byStateori tsemploy ees.

I
nBhim Singhv.Stat
eofJ.K.[
19854SCC677],t
heSupr
emeCourtawar
dedtheexemplar
ycostof
Rs.50,000onaccountoft
heauthor
it
ari
anmanneri
nwhicht
hepol
icepl
ayedwit
hthel
ibert
yofthe
appel
lant.

Simi
lar
ly,
inMahavirSinghv
.Stat
eofRaj
ast
han[19872SCC342]
,thecourtgrant
edr
upeesonel
akh
fort
hecustodi
aldeathofayoungboywhohadbeenar
rest
edonatheftcharge.

Liabi
lit
yofAdmini
strati
onunderContr
act-Accor
dingtoCommonLaw, before1947,t
heCr owncoul
d
notbesuedi nacourtonacontract
.Theprivi
l
egewast r
aceabletotheday soffeudal
ism whena
l
or dcouldnotbesuedinhisowncourts.Anot
hermaxim whichwaspr essedintoserv
icewasthat
the‘Kingcandonowr ong’
.Asubjectcoul
d,however
,seekredressagainsttheCrownt hr
ougha
petit
ionofri
ghti
nwhi ch

hesetouthisclai
m, andiftheroy alfi
atwasgranted,t
heactioncouldthenbet r
iedinthecourt
.The
royalfi
atwasgrant
edasamat terofcourseandnotasamat terofri
ght,andtherewasnor emedyi
f
thefiatwasr
efused.TheCr ownPr oceedi
ngsAct,1947,aboli
shedthisprocedureandpermitt
ed
suitsbei
ngbroughtagainsttheCr owni nt
heordinarycourt
stoenforcecont r
actuall
i
abil
it
y,afew
typesofcontr
actsis,however,excepted.

TheContract ual Li
abi
lit
yoftheUni onofIndiaandSt atesisr ecogni
zedbyConst i
tuti
onunderar t
.294,
298,299,300.Ar ti
cl
e294pr ov i
desthatexecuti
vepower sofuni onandofeachst at
eshal lextendto
thecarr
yingonanyt r
ade,businessandt heacquisiti
onhol di
nganddi sposalofpropertyandt he
makingofCont ractsforanypur pose.Art
icl
e299l aysdownmodesoft hemannerofex ecutionof
suchcontract sandsomer equirements.Therequirement sinclude,t
hatContract
sbemadei nthe
nameofPr esident/Governor,al
lcontract
stobeexecut edbysuchper sonsandinsuchmanneras
presi
dent/gov ernordir
ects,andt hecontr
actistobeexecut edonbehal fofPresi
dent/Governor.

TheSupr emeCourti
nKaramshi Jet
habhai v.TheStat
eofBombay[AI
R1964SC1714] ,emphasized
thataccordi
ngtoart
.299,thewords“expressedtobemadeandexecuted”cl
ear
lyshowsthatthere
mustbeaf or
malwri
ttencontr
actexecutedbyt hedul
yaut
hor
izedper
son.

Therecanbenoimpli
edcontractbet
weenthegover
nmentandanot
herper
son,
ashasbeenhel
dby
theSupremeCour
tinK.P.Chowdharyv.St
ateofM.P.[
AIR1967SC203]
.

Concl
usion:Asitisnowcl eart hatevenpersonnelworkingunderthe‘ authori
ty’
of‘administr
ati
on’
canbeheldpersonallyliable,inadditi
onto‘l
iabi
li
tyofstate’
perse, butev enwiththi
s,thenumberof
wrongcommi t
tedbyt headmi ni
strati
on,ar
eincreasi
ngdaybyday .Ther ecenttr
endoft hesoaring
numberofPublicInterestLi t
igati
on( PI
Ls)beingfi
ledinadministr
ativemat ter
s,bothinHi ghCourt
s
andSupremeCour ts,clearlyshowt hesi
tuati
onthat,t
headmi nist
rati
oni snotwor ki
ngpr operl
yeven
whenthejudi
ciaryhast riedtot i
ghtenitshands.
Uni
t4
Q.
1)Whati
smeantbyadmi
nist
rat
ivedi
scr
eti
onandhowi
sitcont
rol
byJudi
ci
alr
evi
ewexpl
ain.

I
npubl icadmini
str
ati
on,administ
rati
vedi
screti
onrefer
stothefl
exibleexer
cisi
ngofj
udgmentand
deci
sionmakingallowedt opubli
cadminist
rat
ors.
Regulat
oryagencieshavethepowertoexer
cise
thi
stypeofdiscret
ioninthei
rday-to-
dayacti
vi
ti
es,andther
ehav ebeencaseswhereregul
ator
y
agencieshaveabusedthispower.

Administ
rat
ivedi
scret
ionallowsagenciestouseprofessi
onalexper
tiseandjudgmentwhenmaking
deci
sionsorperf
ormingof f
ici
alduti
es,asopposedtoonlyadheri
ngt ostr
ictr
egul
ati
onsorstat
uses.
Forexample,apubl
icoffi
cialhasadminist
rat
ivedi
screti
onwhenheorshehast hefr
eedom t
omake
achoiceamongpotentialcoursesofacti
on.Thefai
luretoexer
cisereasonabl
ejudgmentor
di
screti
onisabuseofdiscreti
on.

Discreti
onmeanst oactaccordingtodesi r
eorchoosef rom giv enoptions.Admi nistr
ativediscr eti
on
meanschoosi ngf rom amongstt hevariousav ail
ableal t
ernativesbutwi thr eferencet otherul esof
reasonandj usticeandnotaccor di
ngt opersonal whi msandf ancies.Theexer ciseofdi scr
et ion
shouldnotbear bitrar
y,vagueandf anciful
,butlegal andr egular.InIndia, whileexer cisi
ngdi scr et
ion,
thegov ernmenthast omeasur eitupont het ouchstoneofConst i
tuti
onal provisionsofequal i
ty ,
freedom andj ust ice.Agov er
nmentneedsdi screti
onf ort hepr operconductofi tsfunctions; howev er
,
i
tshoul dex ercisei tspowerwell wi
thintheConst i
tuti
onal li
mits.Agov ernmenthast oactfort he
benef i
toftheci tizens.Ithastoensur eequal i
tyinitstreatmentoft hecit i
z ens.Ar ti
cle14pr ov idesfor
theequal i
tybef orel awclauseandi tseekst hattheci t
izensar enotsubj ect edtounj ustorar bitrary
actionsoft hegov ernment.Arti
cle14st andsagai nstany thingt hatisunr easonabl e,unjustor
arbitr
ary.Everygov ernmentactionhast opasst hi
st estofequal i
ty.

Judici
alcont
rol:Theactionsoftheadministrat
ioncanbecheckedatthejudi
cial
levelaswell
.The
Constit
uti
onofIndiahaspr ov
idedthej
udiciarywiththepowertorev
iew.Thecourtscankeepa
checkuponanyar bi
trar
yexerciseofdi
scretionarypowersbytheadmini
str
ati
on.Thecourtscantake
upcasesofdiscreti
onuponr eceiv
ingacauseaswel lassuomoto.Thecourt
scancont r
olitatt
wo
stages.

(1) Att hest ageofdelegati

onofdi scretion: Thecour tsexer
cisecontroloverdelegati
onof
discr
etionarypower stotheadmi ni
st r
ationbyadj udicati
ngupont heconstit
uti
onalit
yofthelaw
underwhi chsuchpower saredelegatedwi threferencetothefundament alri
ghts.Thestatut
e
conferr
ingt hepowerofdi scret
ionupont hegov ernmentbodyneedst obeconst it
utional
.Ift
he
parentstatuteisul t
ravi
restheConst i
tution, i
tcannotconf ervali
ddiscret
ionarypower suponthe
administrat
ion.Ev eryl
awhast opasst het estofv al
idit
yupont hetouchstoneofAr t
icl
es14and19
oftheConst i
tuti
on.

I
nSt ateofWestBengalvAnwarAli,
theSupremeCour theldt
hattheWestBengalSpeci
alCourt
sAct
wasi nval
i
donthegroundthattheexpr
ession‘speedi
ertr
ial
s’conf
err
edwidediscr
eti
onarypowers
onthegov er
nmentandmayl eadtounreasonablecl
assi
fi
cati
on.

(2) Contr
olatt
hestageoft
heexerci
seofdiscr
eti
on:I
nordert
ocont
rol
thear
bit
rar
yex
erci
seof
discr
eti
on,
thecour
tshavedevel
opedfor
mulati
onssuchas:

(i
)Thatt
heaut
hor
it
yisdeemednottohaveexerci
sedit
sdiscr
eti
onatall
.InthecaseofPurt
abpor
e
Companylt
dvCaneCommissi
onerofBihar
,theSupremeCourtobser
vedthat,t
heexer
ciseof
discr
etionorit
scompliancewi
thi
nst
ruct
ionsofsomeot
herper
sonamount
stof
ail
uret
oexer
cise
thediscret
ionalt
oget
her.

(i
i
)Thatt heauthori
tyhasnotexercisedit
sdiscret
ionproper
ly.Improperexerci
seofdiscr
eti
on
i
ncludes‘taki
ngirr
elevantconsi
derati
onintoaccount’
,‘
acti
ngf ori
mpr operpurpose’
,‘
aski
ngwrong
questi
ons’,‘
acti
nginbadf ai
th’
,‘
neglecti
ngtotakeintoconsi
der at
ionrelev
antfactor
s’or‘
act
ing
unreasonably
’.

InthecaseofRDShett
yvInt
ernat
ionalAir
portAuthori
ty,
theSupremeCour tobser
vedthatthe
exerci
seofdi
scr
eti
onmustnotbearbit
rary,
fanci
fulandinfl
uencedbyextraneousconsi
derati
ons.
Thechoicemustbedi
ctat
edbypubli
cinter
estandmustnotbeunpr i
nci
pledorunreasoned.

Thus,administ
rat
ivedi
scret i
onhastobeexer ci
sedwi t
hgr eatcauti
on,keepingi
nmi ndthepri
ncipl
es
l
aidunderthechapteronf undamental
rightsintheIndianConstitut
ion.I
ftheadminist
rati
veauthori
ty
fai
l
stoobser veduecautionandactsunr easonabl
y,it
sact i
onsareboundt obest r
uckdownont he
samegr ound.Anadministrati
veaut
hori
tycannotactagai nstthepublicpol
icy.I
thastoactinajust
andreasonablemanner.

Q.2Whatar ethedi f
fer
entkindsofwr it
s?Dscussinbr i
efthenaturegroundandl i
mit
ati
onsofwritof
cert
ior
ari?Describeinbri
efthenat ur
e,groundsandlimitat
ionsofwr i
tofmandamus?Descr i
bein
bri
efthenature,groundsandl i
mi t
ati
onsofwr i
tofprohibit
ion?Whati shabeascorpuswri
t?Examine
thejur
isdict
ionofSupremeCour tandhighcourtofenforcethefundament al
right
?Whatarethose
Groundsonwhi cht hesupremecour tcanrefusethefundamentalrights?

WritsWritsareremedi esavai
ledbyani nj
uredpartyandsai dtobepr erogati
vebynaturewhichisa
pri
vil
egeav ail
edbyaspeci alclassofpersons.Arti
cle32oft heIndianConstit
uti
onconferswrit
j
urisdi
cti
onupont heSupremeCour t
.Iti
scontainedinPart3oft heConst i
tuti
onwhichincl
udes
Fundament alRights.Thusiti
sapar toftheFundament alRightsenumer atedundertheConsti
tuti
on.
I
ncaseofbr eachoft heFundament alRi
ghtsbyanypar tytheaggr eiv
edpar t
ycanclaimremedyin
theform ofwr i
tcommandedbyt heSupremeCour t.

Thewr
it
sincl
udi
ngMandamus,
Quowarr
anto,
HabeousCorpus,
Cer
tior
ari
&Prohi
bit
ioncanbe
commandedbyt
hecour
ttot
hepar
tyr
esponsi
blef
orthebr
eachofFundament
alRi
ghts.

SinceArt
icl
e32isapartofFundament
alRi
ght
sitcanbesuspendeddur
ingemer
gencybythe
presi
dent
.Thejuri
sdi
cti
onofSupremeCour
tunderArt
icl
e32onlyext
endstot
hebreachof
FundamentalRi
ghts.

Arti
cle226oftheIndi
anConsti
tuti
onconferswri
tjur
isdict
ionupont
heSt
ates.I
tcanbeav
ail
ed
duri
ngthebreachofanylegal
righti
ncludi
ngtheFundament alRi
ght
sbyt
heaggreiv
edpar
tyi
nthe
HighCourtoftheStat
ewheresuchbr eachiscommitted.

TheHighCourtofthestatewher esuchbreachiscommitt
edcanissuecommandsi nthefor
m of
writ
stothepart
ycausingsuchi njur
y.Her
eal sothewr
it
sincl
udeMandamus, Cer
ti
orari
,Habeous
Corpus,
QuoWar rant
o&Pr ohibi
ti
onwhichcanbeav ai
l
edbytheinjur
edpart
yfrom HighCourti
n
caseofbreachofanylegalright
.

Ar
ti
cle226beingnotaFundamentalRi
ghtcannotbesuspendedevenduri
ngemergency.Bothofthe
Ar
ti
clesareofnat
ureofwri
t&canbeav ai
ledatanyti
medur i
ngbreachbythepart
iesbutthescope
Ar
ti
cle226ismuchwider&intr
insi
ccomparedtoArti
cle32asiti
ncludesFundamental
Rightsal
ong
wi
thotherRi
ghts.
Fort
hebr
eachofFundamental
Rightsaggr
eiv
edpartycandi
rect
lycl
aimr
emedyunderAr
ti
cl
e32i
n
Supr
emeCourtandal
sounderArti
cle226i
nHi ghCour
t.

Buti
ncaseofbr
eachofot
herl
egalr
ight
stheaggr
eiv
edpar
tycanonl
ycl
aimr
emedyunderAr
ti
cl
e
226atHi
ghCourtoft
hepar
ti
cul
arStat
e.

Ty
peofWr
it Meani
ngoft
hewor
d Pur
poseofi
ssue

HabeasCor
pus Youmayhav
ethebody Toreleaseapersonwhohasbeendet
ainedunl
awf
ull
y
whetherinpr
isonori
npri
vat
ecustody
.

Mandamus WeCommand Tosecuret

heper
formanceofpubli
cdut
iesbyl
ower
cour
t,t
ri
bunal
orpubl
icaut
hori
ty.

Cer
ti
orar
i Tobecer
ti
fi
ed Toquashtheorderal
readypassedbyani
nfer
ior
cour
t,t
ri
bunalorquasij
udici
alaut
hor
it
y.

Pr
ohi
bit
ion Toprohi
bitaninfer
iorcourtf
rom cont
inui
ngthe
pr
oceedingsinapar t
icul
arcasewhereithasno
j
uri
sdict
iontotry
.

QuoWar
rant
o Whati
syouraut
hor
it
y? Tor
estr
ainapersonfr
om hol
dingapubl
i
cof
fi
ce
whi
chheisnotenti
tl
ed.

Jur
isdi
cti
onoftheHighCour
tThejur
isdi
cti
onoftheHi
ghCourt
shav
eal
sobeenpr
ovi
dedi
nAr
ti
cl
e
226oftheConsti
tut
ion,
andt
heycanbedividedi
ntot
wopart
:

Territ
ori
alTheHi ghCour t
shav etherighttoissuewr i
tswithintheter
ri
toryofthest
atewhicht he
HighCour tisconcer nedwi t
h.UnderAr ti
cle226(2)thecour thasbeengrantedacert
aindegreeof
extra-
terr
itor
ialjuri
sdict
ionaswel l.HighCour t
sareallowedt oissuewrit
stoanygov er
nment,
authorit
yorper sonout si
det hei
rterri
tori
aljur
isdi
cti
oni ft
hewhol eorpartofthecauseofaction
ari
sesi ntheirconcernedst ate.

SubjectmatterHighCourtshavebeengr ant
edalargeambittoexerci
sethi
spower .AHighCourtcan
i
ssuewr i
tsnotonl yf
ortheenforcementofFundamentalRightsgiv
eninPartI
IIoftheConsti
tut
ion
butalsonon-FundamentalRight
sf orwhichtheConst
it
uti
onofI ndi
ahasusedt hewords“f
orany
otherpurpose”towidenthescopeofHi ghCourt’
sJuri
sdi
ction.

Wri
tofHabeasCorpus:TheLati
nterm habeascorpusmeans‘youmusthavethebody‘andawr i
t
f
orsecuri
ngtheli
ber
tywascall
edhabeascor pusadsubj
ici
endum.Thi
swr i
tisissuedbythecourt
whichdi
rect
stheaut
horit
yort
hegov ernmentbodywhichhasdetai
nedthepersontopresenthi
mi n
f
rontoft
hecourtsothatapr
operjusti
cecouldbeimpart
edtothatper
son.

Groundforthei
ssueofthi
swr i
t:Thi
swr i
tisbasical
l
yissuedbythecourtwhenthepersondet
ained
i
snotpresentedi
nfrontofthemagist
ratewithi
n24hour sofhi
s/herdet
enti
on.Fai
lur
et odoso
wouldenti
tl
ethearr
estedpersontobereleased.

I
nGopalanv.GovernmentofI
ndi
a,t
heSupremeCourtr
uledthatt
heearl
iestdat
ewithref
erencet
o
whi
chthelegal
i
tyofdetent
ionmaybeexaminedi
sthedateonwhichtheappli
cati
onfort
hesamei s
madet
ot hecourt
.
Wr i
tinvokedagainst:Writofhabeascorpuscanbei
nvokednotonlyagai
nstthestatebutalso
againstanyindi
vidualwhoi sholdi
nganypersoni
nunl
awfulcustodyordet
ention.Insuch
cir
cumst ances,i
tisthedutyofthepoli
cetomakenecessaryeff
ortst
oseethatt hedetent
ioni
sgot
rel
easedbut ,i
fdespitesucheffort
sifapersoni
snotf
ound,thepoli
cecannotbeputunderundue
pressuretodoimpossi bl
e.

InthecaseofADM Jabal
purv.Shi
vakantShukl
a[1976]whi
chisalsoknownastheHabeasCorpus
case,i
twasheldt
hatthewritofHabeasCorpuscannotbesuspendedevendur
ingt
heemergency
(Art
icl
e359)

TheWr itofQuo-Warranto:Thewor dQuo- War r

antolit
eral
lymeans" bywhatwarrant
s?"or"whatis
yourauthori
ty"
?Iti
sawr i
tissuedwi thav i
ewt orest
rainaper sonfrom holdi
ngapublicoff
iceto
whichhei snotent
itl
ed.Thewr itrequirestheconcernedper sont oexplaintotheCourtbywhat
authori
tyheholdstheof f
ice.I
faper sonhasusurpedapubl i
cof fi
ce, t
heCourtmaydirecthim nott
o
carryoutanyacti
vi
tiesintheof f
iceormayannouncet heofficetobev acant
.ThusHighCour tmay
i
ssueawr i
tofquo-warrantoifaper sonholdsanof f
icebey ondhi sretir
ementage.

Condi
ti
onsf
ori
ssueofQuo-
War
rant
o:

Theof
fi
cemustbepubl
i
candi
tmustbecr
eat
edbyast
atueorbyt
heconst
it
uti
oni
tsel
f.

Theoff
icemustbeasubstant
iveoneandnotmer
elyt
hef
unct
ionorempl
oymentofaser
vantatt
he
wil
landdur
ingthepl
easur
eofanother.

Theremusthavebeenacont
raventi
onoft
heconst
it
uti
onorast
atut
eorst
atut
oryi
nst
rument
,in
appoint
ingsuchper
sont
othatoffi
ce.

WritofMandamusThiswriti
sbasicall
yissuedbythecourtt
odirecttheaut
hor
it
ytodothework
assignedt
othepar
ti
cularoff
ice.I
ssuedbyt hecour
ttodir
ecttheauthori
tyt
operf
ormthedut
y
i
mposedoni tbyl
aw.

Groundsforissuingthiswri
tMandamuscanbei ssuedwhent heGovernmentdeniestoi
tsel
fa
j
urisdi
cti
onwhi chitundoubtedl
yhasundert hel
aw, orwhereanauthor
ityvest
edwi t
hapower
i
mpr operl
yrefusestoexercisei
t.Thefunctionofmandamusi stokeepthepubli
cauthor
iti
eswi
thi
n
t
hel i
mitsoftheirjur
isdi
cti
onwhileexerci
singpublicfunct
ions.

ThewritcanbeissuedagainstMandamuscanbei ssuedtoanykindofauthor
it
yinrespectofany
ty
peoff unct
ion–admi ni
str
ati
ve,l
egi
slat
ive,
quasi
-judi
ci
al,
judi
cialMandamusisusedt oenfor
cethe
perf
ormanceofpublicduti
esbypubli
cauthori
ti
es.Mandamusi snotissuedwhenGov er
nmentis
undernodutyunderthelaw.

Limitati
onsThecour t
sar eunwi ll
ingtoi ssuewr itofmandamusagai nsthi ghdignitarieslikethe
Presidentandt heGov ernor s.InthecaseofS. P.Gupt av .Uni onofIndia[1982] ,j
udgeswer eofthe
viewt hatwritcannotbei ssuedagai nstt hePr esidentofI ndiaforfixi
ngt henumberofj udgesi nHigh
Cour t
sandf i
ll
i
ngv acancies.Buti nAdv ocatesonRecor dsAssoci at i
onv .Gujarat[1993] ,the
SupremeCour tr uledthatt hej udges’issuei saj ustici
ablei ssueandappr opriat
emeasur escanbe
takenf orthatpur poseincl udingt heissuanceofmandamus.Buti nC. G.Gov i
ndanv .StateofGuj ar
at
[
1998] ,itwasr efusedbyt hecour tt
oi ssuet hewr i
tofmandamusagai nstt hegover nortoappr ove
thefixationofsal ari
esoft hecour tstaf fbyt heChiefJust iceofHi ghCour tunderAr ti
cle229.Hence,
i
ti ssubmi tt
edt hattheGov er
norort hePr esidentmeanst hestateort heUni onandt herefore
i
ssuanceofmandamuscannott akepl ace.
Wr i
tofCerti
orar
i:Awri
tofcer ti
orarihasmuchi ncommonwi t
hawr itofprohi
bit
ion.Theonly
dif
ferencebetweent
hetwoi s,wher easawr i
tofprohibit
ionisissuedtopreventaninferi
orcour
tor
tr
ibunaltogoaheadwiththet r
ialofacasei nwhichithasassumedexcessofj uri
sdicti
on,awri
tof
cert
iorari
isi
ssuedtoquasht heor derpassedbyaninf er
iorcourtortr
ibunali
nexcessofj ur
isdi
cti
on.

Wri
tofCert
ior
arimeanstobecert
if
ied.I
tisi
ssuedwhenthereisawrongf
ul exer
ciseofthe
j
uri
sdi
cti
onandthedecisi
onofthecaseisbasedoni
t.Thewr i
tcanbemov edtohighercourt
sli
ke
t
heHighCourtortheSupr
emeCour tbytheaf
fect
edpart
ies.

Groundsforthei
ssue: Cer
ti
orariisnotissuedagainstpurel
yadmi
nist
rat
iveormini
steri
alorder
sand
thati
tcanonlybeissuedagainstjudi
cialorquasi
-judi
cial
order
s.I
tisi
ssuedtoquasi
-judi
cialor
subordi
natecour
tsiftheyactinthefoll
owingway s:

1)Ei
therwi
thoutanyj
uri
sdi
cti
onori
nexcess.

2)I
nvi
olat
ionoft
hepr
inci
plesofNat
ural
Just
ice.

3)I
nopposi
ti
ont
othepr
ocedur
eest
abl
i
shedbyl
aw.

4)I
fther
eisaner
rori
njudgementont
hef
aceofi
t.

Wr
itofcer
ti
orar
iisi
ssuedaf
tert
hepassi
ngoft
heor
der
.

I
nSuryaDevRai v.Ram ChanderRai
&Or s.,t
heSupremeCour thasexplainedthemeani ng,ambit
andscopeofthewr i
tofCert
ior
ari
.Al
so,inthisi
twasex plai
nedthatCerti
orarii
salwaysav ail
abl
e
agai
nsti
nfer
iorcourt
sandnotagainstequalorhighercourt
,i.
e.,
itcannotbeissuedbyaHi ghCourt
agai
nstanyHighCourtorbenchesmuchl esstotheSupremeCour tandanyofi tsbenches.

TheninthecaseofT.C.Basappav.T.Nagappa&Anr
.[1954]
,i
twashel
dbytheconsti
tut
ionbench
thatcer
ti
orar
imay beandisgener
all
ygrant
edwhenacourthasact
ed(i
)wi
thoutj
uri
sdi
cti
onor( i
i
)in
excessofit
sjur
isdict
ion.

Wri
tofProhi
bit
ion:Awritofprohi
bit
ionisissuedbyasuperi
orcour
ttoaninf
eri
orcourtort
ri
bunal
t
opreventi
tfr
om exceedingi
tsjur
isdict
ionandtocompelitt
okeepwithi
ntheli
mitsofit
s
j
uri
sdi
cti
on.

Gr
oundsf
ori
ssui
ngt
hiswr
it:
Awr
itofpr
ohi
bit
ioni
snor
mal
l
yissuedwheni
nfer
iorcour
tort
ri
bunal

1)Pr
oceedst
oactwi
thoutj
uri
sdi
cti
onori
nex
cessofj
uri
sdi
cti
on

2)Pr
oceedst
oacti
nvi
olat
ionofr
ulesofnat
ural
just
iceor

3)Pr
oceedst
oactunderal
awwhi
chi
sit
sel
ful
tr
avi
resorunconst
it
uti
onal
or

4)Pr
oceedst
oacti
ncont
rav
ent
ionoff
undament
alr
ight
s.

I
nthecaseofBengalI
mmunit
yCo.Ltd[1955]
,theSupr
emeCourtpoi
ntedoutthatwher
eaninfer
ior
t
ri
bunali
sshowntohavesei
zedjur
isdi
cti
onwhichdoesnotbel
ongtoi
tthenthatconsi
der
ati
onis
i
rr
elev
antandthewri
tofPr
ohi
bit
ionhastobeissuedasari
ght.

Li
mi t
ati
onstoArti
cle32: Therearecer
tainci
rcumstancesdur
ingwhichtheci
ti
zensdonotgetthe
pri
vi
legeswhichtheyoughttounderArti
cle32.Therefor
e,t
hesit
uati
onswhenthefundamental
ri
ghtsmaybedeni edtotheciti
zensbuttheconsti
tuti
onalr
emedieswil
lnotbeavai
labl
ei.
e.Art
icl
e
32willnotbeappli
cabl
ear e:
1)UnderArti
cle33,theParl
i
amentisempower
edtomakechangesi
ntheappl
i
cati
onof
FundamentalRightstoar
medforcesandt
hepoli
cear
eempoweredwit
hthedutyt
oensur
epr
oper
di
schargeoftheirduti
es.

2)Duringtheoper
ati
onofMartial
lawinanyar
ea,anyper
sonmaybeindemni
fi
edbytheParl
iament
,
i
fsuchper sonisi
nserv
iceofthestat
eorcent
ral
governmentf
ort
heactsofmaint
enanceor
rest
orati
onoflawandorderunderArt
icl
e34.

3)UnderAr
ti
cle352oftheConstit
uti
onwhenanemer gencyisprocl
aimed,t
heguarant
eed
Fundament
alRightsoft
hecit
izensremai
nssuspended.Also,
FundamentalRight
sguarant
eedunder
Art
icl
e19isrest
rict
edbytheParli
amentunderAr
ti
cle358duringthependencyofanemergency
.

4)Ar
ti
cle359conf
ersthepowertothePr
esi
denttosuspendAr
ticl
e32oft
heConsti
tut
ion.Theor
der
i
stobesubmitt
edtotheParl
iamentandt
heParl
iamentmaydisapprov
ePr
esi
dent
’sorder.

Q.
3)Whatdoy
ouunder
standbyaOmbudsman?

Ombudsmani saneffecti
vemechani sm thatcanprotectapersonfr
om admi ni
str
ati
vef
laws.The
ter
m ombudsmani ntermsofutil
itymeansa“ watchdogoftheadministr
ati
on”orthepr
otectoroft
he
l
itt
leman” .Thisinst
it
utionwasf i
rstdevelopedinSwedeni n1809andsoonbecameacher ished
i
mpor tablecommodi tythewor l
dov er.I
tisauniqueinsti
tuti
onwhichleadstoan“opengovernment”
byprov i
dingademocr aticcontr
olmechani sm overthepower soft
hestate.I
tsmaincatchisits
apparenteffecti
venessdespiteminimal coerci
vecapabili
ti
es.

Conceptuall
y,anombudsmani sonlyanon- adversari
aladjudi catorofdisputes.Heserv esasan
al
ternati
vetotheadv ersar
ysystem forresolvi
ngdisputes, especi al
lybetweenciti
zensand
governmentagenci es.Heisanindependentandnon- partisanof f
icerwhodeal swiththespeci f
ic
compl ai
ntsfr
om thepubl i
cagainstadmi ni
str
ativ
ei nj
usti
ceandmal administ
rati
on.Certainl
y,an
adversari
aladj
udicationbycourtsnecessaril
ystandsonahi gherpl anethanadecisionby
ombudsman.Ther eforei
famat teri
spendi ngbeforeacour t
, ombudsmancannotex ercise
j
uri
sdicti
on.(DurgaHot elComplexvs.Reser veBankofI ndia, (2007)5SCC120) .

Anat t
empttoestablishLokpal (ombudsman)i nIndiast art
edintheyear1968whent heLokpal
and
LokayuktasBi
ll
,1968wasi ntroducedinthePar l
i
ament .Duetovari
ouscircumstancesnoconclusi
on
couldbedrawninv ariousattempt s.Thedemandf orset ti
nguptheinsti
tuti
onofLokpal and
Lokayuktagotnewi mpetusi n2011whensoci alacti
vistAnnaHazarewentonf astuntodeatht
o
pushf ort
he“JanLokpal Bil
l”proposedbyt hecivilsocietyi
nIndi
ainv i
ewofal lperv
asive
governancedefi
ci
tint hecount ry.Fi
nall
ythi
slawgotenact edthr
oughanot if
icati
oninGazettei
nthe
year2014.Alt
hought il
ldatenoLokpal hasbeenappoi nted.

Itmustbeensuredthatthelawper t
aini
ngtoombudsmani sinconsonancewiththeconstit
uti
onof
Indi
aandi tmustupholdrul
eoflaw.Itshouldalsonottr
ansgressthebasicfeatur
eofour
consti
tut
ion.Thoughthebirt
hofanombudsmani ntheCentrei
sstil
ldoubtf
ul,butfort
hestatesi
t
hasbecomeacher i
shedinsti
tut
ion.Theinst
it
utionofLokayukt
aisfuncti
oningin13States.

Conclusi
on: Someoft hereasonresponsibleforthefai
lureofthi
sinst
it
uti
oninIndi
aincl
udelackof
poli
ti
calwil
ltorootoutcorrupti
on,poli
ti
cizati
onofappoi nt
mentofLokayukta,
lackofinfr
astr
uctural
faci
li
ti
es,l
ackofadmi nist
rati
vecooperati
onandpol i
ti
calapathy,
lackofi
ndependenti
nvesti
gator
y
machineryandadvisorynatureofrecommendat ions,etc.

Tosomeext
entt
hei
nst
it
uti
oni
tsel
fisr
esponsi
blef
ori
tsf
ail
ure.
Q.
4)Expl
aincent
ral
Vigi
l
anceCommi
ssi
on.

Cent ralVi
gil
anceCommi ssi on(CVC)isanapexI ndi
angov ernmentalbodycreat edin1964t o
addr essgovernmentalcorrupti
on.In2003, theParli
amentenact edalawconf erringstatutorystat
us
ont heCVC.I thasthestatusofanaut onomousbody ,
freeofcontrolfr
om anyex ecuti
veaut hori
ty,
chargedwi thmonitori
ngall vi
gil
anceact iv
ityundertheCentralGovernmentofI ndia,advisi
ngv ari
ous
author i
ti
esincentr
alGov ernmentor ganizati
onsinplanning,
executing,r
evi
ewi ngandr eformingthei
r
vi
gilancewor k.

I
twassetupbyt heGovernmentofIndiaResolut
ionon11Februar
y1964, onther
ecommendati
ons
oftheCommi t
teeonPr event
ionofCorrupt
ion,headedbyShr
iK.Santhanam Committ
ee,t
oadvi
se
andguideCentralGover
nmentagenciesinthef i
eldofv
igi
l
ance.Ni
ttoorSri
niv
asaRau,wassel
ected
asthefir
stChi
efVi gi
l
anceCommi ssionerofIndi
a.

TheCommi
ssi
onshal
lconsi
stof
:

1)ACent
ral
Vigi
l
anceCommi
ssi
oner-Chai
rper
son;

2)Notmor
ethant
woVi
gil
anceCommi
ssi
oner
s-Member
s;

ThecurrentCent
ral
Vigi
l
anceCommi ssi
oneri
sShr
iKVChowdar
yandVi
gil
anceCommi
ssi
oner
sar
e
Dr.Tej
endraMohanBhasinandShr
iSharadkumar
.

Q.
5)Whati
spar
entact

Par
entActi
sanylegi
sl
ati
on(law)passedbythePar
li
amentorSt
atel
egisl
atur
e.TheparentActmay
hav
esubordi
nat
elegi
slat
ion(
s),t
heprovi
sionofwhi
chispr
ovi
dedwit
hintheparentl
egi
slat
ionit
sel
f.

Considert
heConsti
tuti
onofI
ndiat
obet heparentActandall
Cent r
alandSt
ateLegi
sl
ati
onstobe
subordi
natel
egi
slat
ionstot
hispar
entAct.Noneoftheselegi
slat
ionscanbeinder
ogat
ionofthe
parentAct
.

Del
egat
edLegi
sl
ati
oni
saLawmadebysomeone,
othert
hanPar
li
ament
,butwi
tht
heaut
hor
it
yof
Par
li
ament
.

Theauthori
tyf
orenactmentofsuchDel
egat
edLegi
slat
ioni
sknownas‘Parent’Act,al
soknownas
anEnabli
ngAct,whi
chcreatesthef
ramewor
kofthelaw,al
l
owingdel
egat
edl egisl
ati
ontomakea
moredetai
ledl
awint hear
ea.

Forexample,TheParl
iamentofIndiahasenactedtherecentCommer ci
al Cour
tsandCommer cial
s
Divi
sionsAct
,2015.UndertheAct ,aprovi
sionst
atesthat“Centr
algovt.maymodi f
ytheli
stof
commer ci
aldisput
estobeadjudicatedbysuchCourts.Now, t
hemodificati
onoftheli
stshal
lbe
deemedt obedelegat
edLegisl
ationandtheacti.
e.Commer ci
alCourt
sandCommer cial
sDivi
si
ons
Act,2015shallbecal
l
edtheParentAct .

Q.
6)Wr
it
eshor
tnot
eonpubl
i
cunder
taki
ng