Q&A APPROACH

GENERAL ADVICE

 Do not focus on the number of precedents used- important to identify relevant precedents.
 Analysis/structure is important as well- identifying relevant facts in hypothetical
questions/relevant doctrine in theory questions.
MODULE 1: RULE OF LAW

For theoretical questions on Rule of Law vis a vis Administrative law, focus on:
 Rule of law operates at the level of exercise of executive powers.
 Highlight how administrative law permits discretion, however it is necessary that discretion is not
unchecked, and open to judicial review (you may use precedents from Module 4- abuse/misuse of
discretion; may also rely on precedents from Module 5- Principles of Natural Justice)- dscuss how rule of
law protects liberty- it imposes requirements of procedural fairness and substantive justice.
 ADM Jabalpur: Highlight how the majority read rule of law as technically propounded by Dicey-
mentioning that for them rule of law was prescribed by the constitution. Discuss Justice Khanna’s
interpretation of Dicey.
MODULE 1: SEPARATION OF POWERS

For theoretical questions on Separation of Powers (SoP) vis a vis Administrative law, focus on the scheme of
separation of powers in India-
 Constitution does not mention rigid separation: Discuss Ram Jawaya Kapoor- facts of the case, what was
the main challenge (why did the petitioners claim that government had violated the separation of powers
scheme- that the state’s executive power does not extend to undertaking such executive action without
legislative sanction), what did the court hold (Indian Constitution has not indeed recognized the
doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity).
 Growth of the doctrine: System of checks and balances- Judicial review ensures that the executive does
not have unchecked powers to either make laws or adjudicate: subordinate delegation; as well as
tribunals, are under the purview of courts.
 Explain the scope of separation of power under India with relevant judgments such as Ram Jawaya
Kapoor and delegated legislation as laid down in Re Delhi Laws Act.
 Comment on the changing nature, from administrative to regulatory (refer Somanathan)- evolution of
the doctrine was necessary due to the changing role of the executive.
MODULE 2 & 3: EXCESSIVE DELEGATION |
DOCTRINE OF ULTRA VIRES
i. Check parent statute for excessiveness:
i. Either an essential legislative function has been delegated to executive (Shama Rao, Gwalior Rayon); OR
ii. Parent statute does not give adequate guidance to the executive w.r.t. delegated legislation (Hamdard
Dawakhana- power to include;
iii. Check for additional issues: Do the facts hint/mention a removal of difficulty clause in the parent statute
(Jalan/Gammon- difference between the two cases)? Is the statute a skeletal statute (Harishankar Bagla).
ii. Check for the doctrine of ultra vires: at the delegated legislation level
i. Substantive ultra vires? Retrospective rules/regulations (only when parent statute permits, Tikamdas, A.V.
Nachane, Miss Raj Soni)
ii. Or is there an issue of procedural ultra vires (publication/consultation)? Publication in gazette mandatory (Harla)
iii. For procedural ultra vires, is the provision mandatory or directory (Raza Buland)? Factors to determine whether
the rules are mandatory or directory-
✓ Language/legislative intent qualified
✓ Purpose for which the rules have been enacted
✓ Public Inconvenience Standard - No serious general inconvenience or injustice to anyone if part of the provision is held to be
mandatory.
MODULE 4: THEORY QUESTIONS

For theoretical questions on judicial review of administrative discretion, focus on:

i. Meaning and need for administrative discretion.
ii. Judicial control/review of administrative discretion i.e. grounds:
a. Abuse of discretion (Hukam Chand- consideration of irrelevant factors/ Asha Devi- relevant factors not considered)
b. Non exercise of discretion (Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji- acting on dictation / Kesavan Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala- Fetters on
discretion)
iii. Standards of judicial review: tests of Wednesbury and proportionality (Om Kumar v. Union of India) mandatory.
MODULE 4: THEORY QUESTIONS

For theoretical questions on standards of judicial review of administrative discretion, focus on:

i. Wednesbury test of reasonableness – Associated Provincial Picture Houses vs. Wednesbury Corp

ii. Proportionality test- specific in the context of administrative action curtailing rights, e.g. an administrative action that is
discriminatory vis a vis Article 14. A sledgehammer cannot be used to crack a nut.

iii. Om Kumar vs. UOI – Doctrine of Proportionality and reasonableness- both are applied in India: the distinction between primary
and secondary review.
MODULE 4: HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS

For hypothetical questions of administrative discretion, identify:

 Whether authority has exercised its mind OR it acted on dictation of some other authority (who is taking
the decision?) or authority has limited its discretion/fetters on discretion (Kesavan Bhaskaran).
 Is the decision based on extraneous/irrelevant considerations/ failure to consider relevant factors (Hukam
Chand/ Asha Devi)?
 If the question requires mentioning relevant standard of review:
 Proportionality test- specific in the context of administrative action curtailing rights, e.g. an
administrative action that is discriminatory vis a vis Article 14.
 Test of reasonableness- is the decision-making process in order.
MODULE 5: THEORY/HYPOTHETICAL
QUESTIONS
For theoretical/hypothetical questions on principles of natural justice, identify the relevant principle that the question is focused on-
either rule against bias, or rule of fair hearing- write a note on that principle- what is the rule, what are the key components of the rule, etc.

Rule of fair hearing (cross-examination/counsel/notice/enquiry report)

a. Highlight that PNJ are applied to make administrative decision making- just and fair. Depends on facts and circumstances of the case-
not rigid/not an absolute right/whether not adhering to a particular component of PNJ result in prejudice/harm to the petitioner-
likelihood of harm (Managing director, Electronic Corporation of India v. B Karunakar).
b. Cite precedents- Hira Nath Mishra v. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College- Right to be heard fairly does not imply an
absolute right to cross examine; JK Agarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation (right to counsel- part of right to fair
hearing, but right is based on facts of case and not absolute); Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (fair hearing).

Rule against bias (precedents- Ashok KumarYadav v State of Haryana, A.K. Kraipak v UOI):
a. No one should be a judge in his own cause; applies not only when the adjudicator is himself a party to the dispute he is deciding,
but also when he has some interest therein. The interest may be pecuniary or personal or of some other type.
b. Justice should not only be done but also seen to be done not necessary to prove that a particular decision was actually influenced by
bias. It is sufficient if there is a reasonable suspicion about the adjudicator’s fairness- The adjudicator must not only be free from bias
but there must not be even an appearance of bias
MODULE 6: HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS

For hypothetical questions on legitimate expectations:

a. Identify timeline- when does the legitimate expectation begin from; What is the legitimate expectation created?
b. Define and lay down the scope of legitimate expectations, and the shortcomings of the doctrine: precedent: M/S Motilal Padampat
Sugar Mills v. State of U. P. (also a relevant precent to show that legitimate expectation has roots in estoppel).
c. Whether there is a waiver (a question of fact as laid down in Motilal Padampat).
d. Determine if the petitioner was able to inform/make representation to the administrative authority, precedent: Navjyoti Co-Operative
Housing Society v. Union of India.
e. Also, identify the what form of legitimate expectation- substantive or procedural legitimate expectations and explain the difference
using Navtej Housing.
f. Establish nexus between rule of law and legitimate expectations, vis a vis- arbitrariness/Article 14. Punjab Communications Ltd. v.
Union of India (for rule of law and legitimate expectation) and M. R. F. Ltd., Kottayam Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax (for Article
14 and legitimate expectation).
g. Discuss the stage at which judicial review can be done for legitimate expectations; determine whether petitioner approached court
in a timely manner.
MODULE 6: THEORETICAL QUESTIONS

For theoretical questions on legitimate expectations:

a. Discuss the principle of legitimate expectation. Illustrate that the doctrine further facilitates keeping a check on the administrative
discretion. Establish relation between arbitrariness vis a vis Article 14 of the Indian constitution, PNJ and legitimate expectation.

b. Discuss relevant precedents:

a. M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U. P.
b. M. R. F. Ltd., Kottayam Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax
c. Navjyoti Co-Operative Housing Society v. Union of India
d. Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India