Module 1: Administrative Law – Meaning and Development

1. Meaning and Definition of Administrative Law

• Definition: Administrative Law is the body of law that governs the activities
of administrative agencies. It includes rules, regulations, orders, and decisions
created by government agencies that affect the rights of private individuals
and groups.

• Scope and Functions: It includes ensuring that governmental powers are not
exercised arbitrarily and are within the legal bounds set by statutes and
regulations.

• Importance in Public Administration: Administrative law enables

transparency, accountability, and justice by subjecting administrative actions
to legal scrutiny. It enforces checks on administrative authorities, ensuring
they do not exceed their powers or violate constitutional rights.

References: For further reading, consult Administrative Law by P.P. Craig for an in-
depth analysis of administrative principles and their relevance in modern governance
(LLM S1).

2. Significance of Administrative Law in a Welfare State

• Welfare State Context: In a welfare state, the government’s role extends

beyond law and order, encompassing public welfare activities such as
healthcare, education, and social security. Administrative law facilitates this
by defining the scope and limits of government intervention.

• Control Mechanisms: Administrative law uses tools like judicial review and
tribunals to ensure that the welfare state does not infringe on individual rights
under the guise of public interest.
 • Examples: The Right to Information (RTI) Act in India allows citizens to seek
information on government activities, promoting transparency. Another
example is public interest litigation (PIL), which expands citizens' access to
judicial review against state excesses.

References: See I.P. Massey’s Administrative Law for a discussion on administrative

law’s evolution in welfare states and its role in protecting citizens from overreach
(LLM S1).

3. Theories of Administrative Law

• Red Light Theory: This theory prioritizes individual rights and argues for
limiting government powers to prevent state intrusion. A.V. Dicey was a
proponent, emphasizing the rule of law as a safeguard against administrative
overreach.

• Green Light Theory: Advocated by legal theorists like Harlow and

Rawlings, this theory argues that administrative law should enable
government agencies to function efficiently in delivering public services. It
encourages proactive governance with minimal judicial interference.

• Amber Light Theory: This is a balanced approach that recognizes the need
for government intervention in public welfare while maintaining checks to
avoid abuse. It advocates judicial review as a moderating tool rather than a
barrier.

References: Explore Law and Administration by Harlow and Rawlings for

comprehensive insights into these theories and their application in various legal
systems(LLM S1).
4. Relationship Between Administrative Law and Constitutional Law

• Overlapping Areas: Constitutional law provides a foundation, setting broad

principles such as the separation of powers, fundamental rights, and
federalism, which guide administrative functions. Administrative law applies
these principles in specific contexts, focusing on the day-to-day operations of
government agencies.

• Distinctive Features: While constitutional law is fundamental, setting out

rights and state powers, administrative law is procedural, providing
mechanisms like tribunals, judicial reviews, and appeals to address
grievances.

• Judicial Interpretation and Case Laws: In landmark cases such as A.K.

Kraipak v. Union of India, the Indian Supreme Court highlighted that
administrative law principles must conform to constitutional mandates.
Similarly, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India emphasized the application of
fundamental rights within administrative procedures.

References: Principles of Administrative Law by M.P. Jain and Administrative Law

by Wade and Forsyth discuss these relationships extensively(LLM S1).

Module 2: Ambit of Jurisdiction

1. Amenability to Writ Jurisdiction

• Article 32: This article of the Indian Constitution allows citizens to approach
the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights, making
judicial review an essential component of the constitutional framework.
 • Article 226: Provides High Courts with extensive jurisdiction to issue writs
for various purposes beyond fundamental rights, such as enforcing
administrative decisions, statutory duties, and public interest.

• Types of Writs: Courts can issue writs like habeas corpus (to address
unlawful detention), mandamus (to compel public duties), prohibition (to
stop illegal proceedings), certiorari (to review administrative decisions), and
quo warranto (to question the legitimacy of a public office).

• Key Cases: In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the Supreme

Court utilized Article 32 to enforce the rights of bonded laborers, showing
how judicial review can address public welfare issues.

References: For judicial interpretations on writs, refer to Administrative Law by

Wade and Forsyth, which examines these powers in Indian and global contexts(LLM
S1).

2. Definition of ‘State’ and its Applicability

• Article 12’s Broad Definition: In Indian constitutional law, the term "state"
includes not only government departments but also other authorities like
public sector units, local bodies, and, in certain cases, private bodies
performing public functions.

• Judicial Expansion: Courts have expanded this scope to include privately

managed institutions (e.g., schools or hospitals) performing functions critical
to society. For instance, R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India established criteria for identifying "state" functions, based on the
agency's nature, control, and functions.
 • Private Bodies and Public Functions: The "state" definition encompasses
private entities performing functions of public importance, making them
subject to judicial review.

References: Consult I.P. Massey’s Administrative Law for discussions on the

evolving interpretation of "state" in the Indian context(LLM S1).

3. Procedural Limitations on Judicial Review

• Locus Standi: Traditionally, only individuals directly affected by an

administrative action could challenge it. However, the PIL doctrine
introduced by Justice P.N. Bhagwati in cases like SP Gupta v. Union of India
has expanded access to the courts, allowing third parties to raise issues of
public interest.

• Laches (Delay): Courts may refuse judicial review petitions if there is an

undue delay, as it implies acceptance of the status quo. However, this doctrine
can be relaxed in cases where fundamental rights are at risk.

• Res Judicata: This principle prevents the same issue from being adjudicated
repeatedly, encouraging finality in legal decisions. However, it applies only if
the matter has been conclusively settled, and exceptions may arise in cases
involving public rights.

References: For the evolution of procedural limitations, refer to De Smith’s Judicial

Review, which discusses how doctrines like locus standi and laches have adapted
over time(LLM S1).

4. Comparative Approach

• United Kingdom: Judicial review in the UK has historically been limited due
to parliamentary sovereignty, with courts reluctant to question administrative
 decisions. However, the Human Rights Act 1998 increased the scope of
judicial review by incorporating European Convention on Human Rights
protections.

• India: India’s judiciary has a broader mandate due to the written Constitution
and constitutional supremacy. The judiciary frequently uses Article 13 to
declare unconstitutional any laws or actions that infringe on fundamental
rights, reflecting a more expansive approach to judicial review.

• Case Comparison: In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the

Civil Service (UK), judicial review was granted for executive orders affecting
fundamental freedoms. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (India),
the Supreme Court underscored its power to strike down constitutional
amendments infringing on the basic structure of the Constitution.

References: For a comparative study of judicial review, consult Controlling

Administrative Power by Peter Cane and Judicial Review by De Smith for a broader
international perspective(LLM S1).

Module 1: Administrative Law – Meaning and Development

1. Definition and Scope of Administrative Law

Administrative law is the branch of public law that deals with the organization,
powers, and duties of administrative authorities. It defines the limits within which
administrative agencies can operate and provides mechanisms for redress if these
limits are exceeded. Distinguished from constitutional law, which broadly lays out
government structure and fundamental rights, administrative law focuses
specifically on the workings of government agencies and how they carry out their
responsibilities. It is critical in ensuring that administrative actions align with legal
principles, transparency, and fairness.
The scope of administrative law includes rule-making, enforcement of laws,
adjudication of disputes, and judicial review. Through these mechanisms,
administrative law balances government efficiency and individual rights. This
branch of law has evolved significantly as governments increasingly take on roles in
social welfare and economic development, making administrative law crucial in
protecting citizens from arbitrary state action.

2. Significance of Administrative Law in a Welfare State

In a welfare state, the government has an expansive role in social welfare, economic
regulation, and service delivery. Administrative law supports this role by
establishing clear guidelines for administrative action, ensuring it serves public
welfare without infringing on individual rights. This balancing act is particularly
important in welfare states where citizens rely on state provisions like healthcare,
education, and social security, making government accountability vital.

Administrative law in a welfare state uses tools like tribunals, ombudsman offices,
and public inquiries to hold agencies accountable. For instance, in India, the Right
to Information Act (RTI) allows citizens to request government information,
enhancing transparency. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) also enables individuals to
approach the courts on behalf of marginalized groups, expanding judicial oversight
of administrative actions in the public interest.

3. Theories of Administrative Law

Three main theories—Red Light, Green Light, and Amber Light—illustrate different
approaches to administrative law. The Red Light Theory, developed by A.V. Dicey,
emphasizes the rule of law as a check on government power. It advocates limited
government intervention to protect individual freedoms and supports strong judicial
oversight to prevent abuse.
In contrast, the Green Light Theory suggests that administrative law should support
efficient government functioning, with less focus on limiting power. This theory,
endorsed by scholars like Harlow and Rawlings, views government intervention as
beneficial for public welfare, advocating a cooperative relationship between law and
administration.

The Amber Light Theory seeks a middle ground, allowing proactive government
functions but within a framework of accountability and judicial oversight. This
balanced approach recognizes the necessity of government intervention while
maintaining legal safeguards to prevent abuse.

Each theory reflects different political philosophies and informs judicial approaches
in various jurisdictions. For example, the Green Light approach aligns with welfare
states, while the Red Light theory resonates with more libertarian states prioritizing
limited government.

4. Relationship Between Administrative Law and Constitutional Law

Administrative law and constitutional law are closely related, though they serve
different purposes. While constitutional law provides a foundational framework,
setting out fundamental rights and powers, administrative law applies these
principles in practice. Constitutional law is broad, governing structures like the
executive, judiciary, and legislature, while administrative law details the day-to-day
operations and procedures of administrative bodies.

The two fields intersect in areas like fundamental rights and judicial review. For
instance, in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, the Indian Supreme Court established
that administrative decisions must align with constitutional principles, reinforcing
judicial review as a safeguard against administrative overreach. Similarly, Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India expanded the scope of personal liberty, asserting that
administrative actions must respect constitutional rights, even in procedural matters.
These cases illustrate how constitutional principles like equality and fairness shape
administrative law.

5. Key Case Laws and Judicial Interpretations

Cases like A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
have defined administrative law's relationship with constitutional law. In Kraipak,
the Court ruled that administrative actions must follow principles of natural justice,
particularly when affecting individual rights. This case emphasized that even
discretionary powers must align with constitutional values, establishing judicial
review as a key check on administrative power.

Maneka Gandhi further expanded the interpretation of "personal liberty," holding

that administrative actions affecting fundamental rights must meet procedural
fairness. These landmark cases have strengthened judicial oversight, ensuring that
administrative law operates within constitutional bounds, particularly in matters
involving individual freedoms.

Module 2: Ambit of Jurisdiction

1. Amenability to Writ Jurisdiction

Writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution enables
citizens to seek judicial remedies against administrative actions. Article 32 grants
the Supreme Court authority to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights, while
Article 226 gives High Courts broader powers to issue writs "for any other purpose"
in addition to fundamental rights. This expanded jurisdiction under Article 226
allows for judicial review over a wide range of administrative actions, including
those that may not directly violate fundamental rights but still affect public welfare
or statutory duties.

Writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto
provide specific remedies for grievances. For instance, in Bandhua Mukti Morcha
v. Union of India, the Supreme Court issued directions to protect the rights of
bonded laborers, demonstrating the writ jurisdiction's role in upholding social
justice.

2. Definition of ‘State’ and its Applicability

Article 12 defines "State" to include government bodies and authorities controlled

by the government, extending to institutions with public functions. Courts have
interpreted this term to sometimes include private entities when performing public
functions, as seen in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India. In
this case, the Court developed criteria to determine whether an entity qualifies as
"State" based on its functions and level of government control.

This broad interpretation ensures that entities, even if privately managed, can be
subject to judicial review if their actions impact the public. This approach helps keep
institutions accountable to constitutional standards, even when their operational
structures fall outside traditional government categories.

3. Procedural Limitations on Judicial Review

Procedural limitations in judicial review include doctrines like locus standi, laches,
and res judicata. Initially, locus standi restricted judicial review to individuals
directly affected by an administrative action. However, with the introduction of
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, this restriction has eased, allowing
concerned citizens to file petitions on behalf of others, as seen in SP Gupta v. Union
of India.
The doctrine of laches discourages delay in filing for judicial review, as prolonged
inaction implies acceptance of the status quo. However, this principle is flexible,
especially in cases of human rights violations where delays may be excused to
prevent injustice.

Res judicata, which prevents the re-litigation of the same issue, encourages finality
and efficiency in legal decisions. While essential for stability, exceptions can arise
in cases involving fundamental rights or new evidence.

4. Comparative Approach: UK and India

Judicial review in the UK and India reflects different constitutional philosophies. In

the UK, judicial review has traditionally been limited by parliamentary sovereignty,
with courts reluctant to question administrative decisions. The Human Rights Act
1998, however, expanded judicial review by integrating European human rights
protections, allowing courts greater leeway in reviewing administrative actions on
rights grounds.

In contrast, India's written constitution and emphasis on constitutional supremacy

provide a broader mandate for judicial review. Courts in India, empowered by
Articles 13, 32, and 226, frequently invalidate administrative actions infringing on
fundamental rights, as seen in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. This case
reinforced judicial review by establishing the "basic structure" doctrine, ensuring
that even constitutional amendments cannot undermine fundamental principles.

5. Case Law Analysis

The Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service case in the
UK (often known as the GCHQ case) highlighted the judiciary's authority to review
executive actions. Here, the House of Lords ruled that executive orders impacting
individual rights are subject to judicial review, provided they do not involve sensitive
issues like national security.

The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case in India defined the judiciary’s
role in upholding the constitution's "basic structure." This case confirmed that
judicial review protects democratic principles, even limiting constitutional
amendments that threaten fundamental values. Similarly, R.D. Shetty v.
International Airport Authority of India expanded judicial review to include
private bodies performing public functions, enhancing judicial reach over state-like
entities.

Higher-Order Analysis and Comparisons

1. Application of Theories in Real-Life Governance

The Red Light and Green Light theories represent two ends of the spectrum
regarding administrative law’s role. While the Red Light theory advocates for
limited government intervention, the Green Light theory supports a more proactive
administrative role, especially relevant in welfare states. The Amber Light Theory,
however, finds a middle ground, balancing government powers with accountability.

2. Judicial Review and Public Interest

The expansion of locus standi through PIL has democratized judicial review,
allowing courts to address broader social issues. This development is vital in India,
where courts have responded to public grievances on issues such as environmental
protection, workers’ rights, and public health. By relaxing procedural limitations,
PIL enables citizens to seek justice in cases involving systemic issues.

3. Impact of Procedural Limitations

Procedural limitations like laches and res judicata maintain judicial efficiency and
ensure cases do not clog the system unnecessarily. However, these limitations may
be set aside in cases affecting fundamental rights, where justice outweighs
procedural strictness.

4. Comparative Legal Systems

India's approach to judicial review, with its written constitution and the judiciary's
role in upholding fundamental rights, contrasts with the UK’s system rooted in
parliamentary sovereignty. The UK’s judicial review, while more limited, has
adapted to international human rights standards, providing insights for Indian
jurisprudence on balancing judicial activism and restraint.

5. Influence of Globalization on Judicial Review

Globalization has encouraged courts to adopt more universal human rights

standards, impacting administrative decisions. This trend, seen in both the UK and
India, illustrates how judicial review can evolve to meet global expectations on
rights and governance, enriching the scope of administrative law.

Module 1: Administrative Law – Meaning and Development

1. Definition and Scope of Administrative Law

Definition
Administrative law is a branch of public law that governs the activities, procedures,
and powers of administrative agencies. I.P. Massey defines it as “that branch of
public law which deals with the powers, functions, and procedures of the
administrative authorities as well as the remedies available to an individual
aggrieved by the administrative action” (Massey, Administrative Law, 2017). Unlike
constitutional law, which lays out broad governmental structures and fundamental
rights, administrative law focuses specifically on the machinery and limits of
government actions, emphasizing accountability and adherence to law.

Scope of Administrative Law

Administrative law covers a wide range of government actions, including:

• Rule-Making: The process by which agencies formulate rules and regulations

under delegated legislative power.

• Adjudication: Administrative tribunals make quasi-judicial decisions,

affecting individuals’ rights and obligations.

• Judicial Review: Courts review administrative actions to ensure they adhere

to the law, protecting against abuse of power and upholding principles of
natural justice.

Importance in Public Administration

The scope of administrative law is particularly crucial as government functions
expand. Paul Craig highlights that “administrative law forms the core structure of
the regulatory state, ensuring that the agencies operate within legal bounds and
adhere to principles of fair treatment” (Craig, Administrative Law, 2015). The
growth of welfare and regulatory states worldwide necessitates an effective system
of administrative law to oversee and curb potential bureaucratic overreach, making
it essential for good governance and protection of individual rights.

2. Significance of Administrative Law in a Welfare State

Administrative Law as a Tool for Accountability

In a welfare state, the government plays an expansive role in delivering social
services like healthcare, education, and social security. Administrative law enables
the efficient functioning of these welfare services while providing mechanisms to
safeguard against abuse. In India, the Right to Information (RTI) Act exemplifies
administrative law’s role in promoting transparency, allowing citizens to scrutinize
government actions and hold authorities accountable.

Balancing Power and Rights in Welfare States

Administrative law balances the power of government with the rights of individuals
by enforcing checks on administrative bodies. M.P. Jain explains that “in a welfare
state, where the government assumes responsibility for citizens' well-being,
administrative law becomes an indispensable mechanism to protect citizens from
arbitrary administrative action” (Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, 2016).
Through judicial review, public inquiries, and tribunals, administrative law ensures
that government bodies operate within their prescribed boundaries.

Case Examples

• In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), the Supreme Court of

India intervened to protect bonded laborers, underscoring administrative law’s
role in welfare and public interest.

• The landmark case of People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of

India (1982) expanded administrative law’s scope by mandating labor rights
and fair treatment in government-contracted projects, enhancing welfare
principles in administrative governance.

3. Theories of Administrative Law

Red Light Theory
Proposed by A.V. Dicey, the Red Light Theory of administrative law emphasizes
limitations on state power to protect individual rights. Dicey argues that
administrative discretion must be curtailed through strict judicial oversight, as
unchecked government action poses risks to personal freedoms. This theory is a
foundational principle of judicial review, supporting the belief that courts must act
as a “watchdog” over administrative actions to prevent abuse (Dicey, An
Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 1915).

Green Light Theory

Advocated by Carol Harlow and Richard Rawlings, the Green Light Theory
encourages minimal judicial interference, viewing administrative bodies as essential
for delivering welfare and regulating economic activities. Harlow and Rawlings
suggest that “the government should have a constructive role in society’s
development, with judicial review aiding rather than restricting the executive's role”
(Harlow & Rawlings, Law and Administration, 2009). This theory aligns with
welfare states where government intervention is seen as beneficial for social justice
and public welfare.

Amber Light Theory

The Amber Light Theory, a balanced approach, recognizes both the necessity of
government intervention and the need for judicial oversight to ensure accountability.
It promotes judicial review as a moderating tool to prevent administrative abuse
without stifling government functions. This theory finds a middle ground, allowing
for government action but under conditions of transparency and accountability.

Application in Governance
While Red Light theory prioritizes protection against state power, Green Light
theory supports government’s proactive role in welfare and development. Amber
Light, meanwhile, endorses a mixed approach suitable for welfare states, where both
government efficiency and accountability are equally essential.

4. Relationship Between Administrative Law and Constitutional Law

Interdependence and Distinctions

Administrative and constitutional law intersect in many areas, especially in defining
the limits of governmental power. Constitutional law provides foundational
principles like rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of fundamental
rights, while administrative law applies these principles to specific government
functions. S.H. Bailey asserts that “constitutional law establishes broad frameworks,
but administrative law operationalizes these frameworks by creating detailed rules
governing government conduct” (Bailey, Cases and Materials on Administrative
Law, 1992).

Case Example

• A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969): The Supreme Court of India

emphasized that administrative bodies must operate within constitutional
limits. The Court noted that constitutional values, such as fairness and justice,
are central to administrative actions, establishing that administrative law
cannot contravene constitutional principles.

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) further strengthened this position

by expanding personal liberty protections under Article 21, thus requiring that
all administrative actions respect fundamental rights.

Module 2: Ambit of Jurisdiction

1. Amenability to Writ Jurisdiction

Articles 32 and 226

Article 32 enables the Supreme Court to issue writs to enforce fundamental rights,
while Article 226 grants similar powers to High Courts with a broader mandate that
includes “any other purpose.” This additional scope under Article 226 means that
High Courts can intervene in administrative matters that might not directly infringe
fundamental rights but may violate statutory duties or public interests.

Types of Writs and Applications

Writs like mandamus compel a government agency to perform a duty, certiorari
reviews administrative actions, and quo warranto questions the legal authority of a
public office holder. For example, in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,
the Supreme Court issued directives to ensure fair treatment for bonded laborers,
utilizing Article 32 to uphold social justice.

Judicial Interpretations
In D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987), the Supreme Court held that government
actions that abuse power, even if within the scope of administrative discretion, are
subject to judicial review. The Court's use of Article 32 ensures adherence to
constitutional principles, while Article 226 empowers High Courts to examine a
broader range of administrative actions, ensuring that administrative bodies act
within their mandates.

2. Definition of ‘State’ and its Applicability

Expanding the Definition of State

Article 12 defines "State" to include various government bodies and authorities
controlled by the government, expanding the scope of judicial review over
administrative actions. Courts have interpreted this term to include private entities
performing public functions, particularly when their actions affect constitutional
rights. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) established
criteria such as government control and public function to determine if a body
qualifies as "State."

Case Examples and Judicial Interpretations

• In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981), the Supreme Court held
that institutions heavily funded and controlled by the government fall under
Article 12's definition of "State," subjecting them to constitutional scrutiny.

• Similarly, Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) ruled that although
not all private entities are "State," those performing significant public
functions and funded by the government may be considered as such, ensuring
accountability.

3. Procedural Limitations on Judicial Review

Locus Standi
Initially, only individuals directly affected by administrative actions had the standing
(locus standi) to seek judicial review. However, Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
expanded this scope, allowing third parties to file petitions on behalf of affected
groups. Justice P.N. Bhagwati in SP Gupta v. Union of India (1981) articulated
that PIL was essential to address collective wrongs, especially where marginalized
groups lack resources to pursue legal action.

Laches and Res Judicata

The doctrine of laches discourages delay, holding that a claim may be barred if filed
too late. Courts may overlook delays in cases involving fundamental rights. Res
judicata prevents the same issue from being re-litigated, providing finality to legal
decisions.

Relevance in India
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, procedural limitations like locus
standi were set aside in favor of addressing broader social concerns. Similarly, laches
and res judicata are relaxed for PIL cases, particularly where public rights are at
stake, allowing courts to address systemic issues of abuse or neglect.

4. Comparative Approach: UK and India

Judicial Review in the UK and India

The UK follows a limited judicial review approach due to parliamentary sovereignty.
However, the Human Rights Act 1998 has expanded judicial review by
incorporating European human rights protections, allowing courts to question
administrative actions impacting rights.

In contrast, India’s written constitution and emphasis on constitutional supremacy

provide a broader mandate for judicial review, particularly under Articles 13, 32, and
226. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court’s
"basic structure doctrine" reinforced judicial review as a tool to protect democratic
principles.

1. Question: Explain the significance of Administrative Law in a welfare state

and discuss the different theories related to Administrative Law.
Answer: Administrative law is essential in a welfare state as it governs the actions
of administrative bodies, ensuring that the rights of citizens are protected from
arbitrary governance. It helps in balancing governmental power and the rights of
individuals. The three main theories of Administrative Law are:

o Red Light Theory: This emphasizes restrictions on governmental

powers to prevent abuse.

o Green Light Theory: It supports the empowerment of the state for

welfare purposes, focusing on governmental efficiency.

o Amber Light Theory: A middle-ground theory, suggesting both

empowerment of the state and checks on its authority to prevent abuse.

In welfare states, Administrative Law provides the framework for delivering public
services, ensuring legality, fairness, and accountability in public administration.

2. Question: What is the relationship between Administrative Law and

Constitutional Law?

Answer: While Constitutional Law lays down the fundamental principles and
structures of the state, Administrative Law focuses on the functioning of various
administrative authorities created under the constitution. Constitutional Law
provides the broad principles of governance, whereas Administrative Law deals with
the day-to-day operations and specific procedures for carrying out governmental
actions. They are interconnected; for instance, judicial review, a constitutional
principle, plays a significant role in controlling administrative decisions.

Module 2: Ambit of Jurisdiction

3. Question: Discuss the amenability of writ jurisdiction under Articles 32 and

226 of the Indian Constitution.
Answer: Writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is a fundamental right that allows
individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of
fundamental rights. Article 226 of the Constitution grants the High Courts the power
to issue writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for other
legal rights. Thus, Article 226 has a broader scope than Article 32. Both articles play
crucial roles in judicial review, as they allow courts to check the legality of
administrative actions and ensure that no governmental authority exceeds its power
or violates constitutional provisions.

4. Question: What are the procedural limitations on judicial review in India,

particularly concerning locus standi and laches?

Answer: The doctrine of locus standi traditionally restricted judicial review to

individuals directly affected by a legal wrong. However, the modern approach in
India, especially in public interest litigation (PIL), allows any public-spirited person
to file a case on behalf of those whose rights are violated but may be unable to
approach the court. Laches refers to an unreasonable delay in filing a case, which
can bar the applicant from obtaining relief through judicial review. Courts expect
timely action; undue delay may harm the respondent's ability to defend themselves
or lead to evidence being lost.

Scenario 1: Discretionary Power of a Local Government Authority

The municipality of City A has the discretionary power to issue business licenses to
street vendors. Recently, a few vendors were denied licenses without any clear
reasons. Some of them allege that the decision was arbitrary and that no opportunity
for a hearing was provided.
Question 1: What principles of administrative law can be applied to challenge
the municipality's denial of business licenses?

Answer: This situation raises the issue of abuse of discretionary power. The
vendors can challenge the denial under the following principles:

• Natural Justice: The municipality should have followed principles of natural

justice, including the right to a fair hearing. Denying the licenses without
providing reasons or giving the vendors a chance to explain their case is a
violation of this principle.

• Unreasonableness (Wednesbury Unreasonableness): If the decision of the

authority is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider
it, it can be challenged on the grounds of irrationality.

• Non-application of mind: If the decision appears to be arbitrary and without

reasoning, it can be contended that the authority failed to apply its mind to the
case, a key principle in controlling discretion.

The vendors may seek judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution to
question the legality of the decision.

Scenario 2: Legitimate Expectation and Government Promises

A state government promised to provide free housing to all residents of Village X as

part of an election manifesto. After the election, the government changed its stance,
claiming that the promise was politically motivated and therefore unenforceable.
Some villagers have sold their existing homes in reliance on the government's
promise.
Question 2: Can the villagers challenge the government's reversal of its
promise? On what grounds?

Answer: Yes, the villagers can challenge the government's reversal on the grounds
of Legitimate Expectation. The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel can also be
invoked.

• Legitimate Expectation: The villagers acted on the government's promise

and therefore had a legitimate expectation that the promise would be fulfilled.
In administrative law, if a public body makes a clear and unambiguous
representation, it cannot arbitrarily renege on it, especially if individuals have
relied upon it to their detriment.

• Promissory Estoppel: Although a government cannot be held to a promise

that is unlawful, the promise in this case was made during an election and
could be seen as a lawful administrative promise. The villagers could argue
that since they relied on the promise by selling their homes, the government
should be estopped from going back on its word.

Courts may review the government's actions to ensure that it is not acting unfairly
or arbitrarily in withdrawing its promise.

Scenario 3: Judicial Review of a Public Officer's Decision

Mr. B, a public health officer, has been accused of negligence in carrying out his
duties. The health department set up an internal committee to investigate the matter.
However, the committee was made up of the officer’s direct supervisors, and no
independent members were included. The committee found him guilty without
allowing Mr. B to defend himself.
Question 3: How can Mr. B challenge the outcome of the committee’s
investigation?

Answer: Mr. B can challenge the committee’s findings through judicial review
based on the following principles:

• Bias (Rule against Bias): The committee consisted of Mr. B’s supervisors,
which raises concerns about potential institutional bias. The rule against bias,
a key component of natural justice, demands that decision-makers should be
impartial.

• Right to a Fair Hearing: Mr. B was not given a chance to defend himself,
which violates the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side).
This principle requires that an individual should be given an opportunity to
present their case before a decision is made.

Mr. B can file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the
procedural fairness of the inquiry.

Scenario 4: Proportionality in Administrative Decision-Making

A city's transport authority issued a blanket ban on all private taxi services without
conducting any consultations or studies to understand the impact on citizens. The
decision has severely impacted those who rely on these services for daily transport.

Question 4: Can this decision be challenged, and what legal principle is

applicable?

Answer: The transport authority's decision can be challenged on the basis of the
principle of proportionality. The following grounds apply:
 • Proportionality: The blanket ban on private taxi services might be excessive
and disproportionate to the aim of regulating transportation. Courts applying
the proportionality test would examine whether less restrictive means could
have been employed, such as stricter regulations or partial restrictions rather
than a complete ban.

• Arbitrariness: The decision was made without any apparent consultation or

study, making it vulnerable to a challenge for arbitrariness. An arbitrary
decision is one that lacks a reasonable basis and ignores relevant factors.

Citizens affected by the ban may seek judicial review, arguing that the decision is
not only disproportionate but also arbitrary, as it was made without considering the
wider public interest.

Scenario 5: Writ of Mandamus for Administrative Inaction

The Pollution Control Board was supposed to issue regulations regarding the
disposal of hazardous waste in City Y. However, despite several reminders from
environmental groups, the Board has failed to act. This inaction has resulted in
significant environmental damage.

Question 5: What legal recourse is available to force the Pollution Control

Board to fulfill its statutory obligations?

Answer: In this scenario, environmental groups can file a petition seeking a Writ of
Mandamus under Article 226 to compel the Pollution Control Board to fulfill its
statutory obligations. A Writ of Mandamus is issued to compel public authorities
to perform a duty that they are legally bound to perform but have failed to do so.
 • The writ can be invoked when the authority's inaction is unlawful or if it has
neglected to exercise its powers.

• The environmental groups can argue that the Board's failure to issue the
necessary regulations violates environmental laws and is detrimental to public
health.

The court may direct the Board to act within a specified time frame to address the
environmental issues.

Q. Public and private bodies to acquire gigantic concerns and thereby exercise
monopoly power over its activities which are akin to governmental
functions.however the fundamental rights of the citizen are being strained to a very
large extend by these activities Analyse the statement in the light of amenability of
writ jurisdiction on private bodies with the help of decided case laws

Q. The statement brings up a crucial issue concerning the extension of monopoly

powers by private bodies over activities that resemble governmental functions, and
how such powers may infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens. This
analysis will focus on the amenability of writ jurisdiction on private bodies,
particularly under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, and will draw upon
significant case laws to explore the evolving jurisprudence on this subject.

1. Constitutional Provisions and Writ Jurisdiction

Under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, a writ can be filed against the State for
enforcement of fundamental rights. The term State is defined under Article 12, and
includes the Government, Parliament of India, and all local authorities or bodies
under the control of the government.
However, Article 226 has a broader scope. It empowers the High Courts to issue
writs not just for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for "any other
purpose." This gives the courts the ability to issue writs against private entities if
they are performing public duties akin to governmental functions.

2. Amenability of Writs on Private Bodies: Judicial Evolution

The jurisprudence on the application of writs to private bodies has evolved over time,
with courts increasingly recognizing that private bodies may be subject to writ
jurisdiction if they perform functions that are in the nature of public duties or
governmental functions. Several landmark cases highlight this expansion of writ
jurisdiction.

3. Decided Case Laws

a. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)

In this case, the Supreme Court laid down that if a private entity is performing a
public function or acting as an agent of the State, it can be amenable to writ
jurisdiction. The court held that a body, even if private, must follow fair and just
procedures if its actions affect public interest.

The court observed that the nature of the function performed by the entity is a key
determinant. If the entity is performing a public duty, it can be treated as an
instrumentality of the State under Article 12, and thus, writs can be issued against it.

b. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981)

This case expanded the interpretation of the term "State" under Article 12. The
Supreme Court held that an entity that may not be directly owned by the government,
but where government control and influence is substantial, can be considered as
"State." The test applied was whether the body was "instrumental in achieving
governmental purposes."

This case was significant in bringing institutions such as educational institutions

and private corporations performing public functions within the ambit of writ
jurisdiction.

c. Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005)

This case involved the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which was
argued to be performing public functions and hence subject to writs. The Supreme
Court, in a split decision, held that the BCCI was not a State under Article 12.
However, it left open the possibility that private entities discharging public duties
could still be challenged under Article 226.

While BCCI was not considered "State," the court clarified that writs under Article
226 could still be issued against it because it exercises monopoly power over a
public activity (i.e., cricket), a significant concern in the context of citizens’ rights.

d. Binny Ltd. v. V. Sadasivan (2005)

In this case, the Supreme Court made a crucial distinction. It held that private bodies
may be subject to writ jurisdiction if they perform public duties or statutory duties,
but not every contract or action of a private entity will attract writ jurisdiction. Only
where the action complained of has a public character would writs be applicable.

e. Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015)

In this case, the Supreme Court further expanded the scope of writ jurisdiction,
holding that the BCCI was performing a public function and hence could be subject
to judicial review under Article 226. The court emphasized that where an entity
exercises monopoly power over activities with a wide public interest, it must be held
accountable.

4. Public Functions and Monopoly Power

The key to determining whether writs can be issued against private bodies lies in
whether the body is performing functions that are traditionally the domain of the
State or which are of public importance:

• Monopoly Power: If a private entity exercises monopoly power, especially

over activities that affect fundamental rights (such as access to services or
employment), courts have leaned toward treating these bodies as amenable to
writ jurisdiction.

• Public Character of Functions: The courts look at whether the function

performed by the body has a public character and whether its actions affect
public interest or individual rights.

For example, private educational institutions, hospitals, and sports associations

have increasingly been seen as performing public functions, and their actions, if
arbitrary or unjust, can be challenged through writs.

5. Balancing Private Autonomy and Public Accountability

Courts have tried to balance the autonomy of private entities with the need for
accountability when such entities perform public functions. The idea is not to
subject every private act to writ jurisdiction, but to ensure that where private bodies
are entrusted with public responsibilities, they are held accountable for protecting
the rights of citizens.

In conclusion, the amenability of writ jurisdiction on private bodies has expanded

significantly, especially where such bodies are performing functions akin to
governmental roles or public duties. The exercise of monopoly power by private
bodies over activities that significantly affect public rights or welfare can strain
fundamental rights, and in such cases, courts have upheld the applicability of writs
under Article 226.

The R.D. Shetty, Ajay Hasia, Zee Telefilms, and BCCI cases are clear examples
where the courts have drawn the line between private autonomy and public duty,
emphasizing that private bodies cannot act arbitrarily when they perform functions
that affect the public at large.

Module 1: Administrative Law – Meaning and Development

Scenario 1: Regulatory Function of a Private Telecom Company

A private telecom company, TeleNet, was granted a license by the government to

provide network services across the country. Recently, TeleNet suspended services
in certain rural areas without any prior notice. Many users in these areas depend on
TeleNet for crucial online services. A group of customers approached the court,
arguing that TeleNet’s actions violate their fundamental right to communication.

Question 1:

Can the actions of TeleNet be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution? Justify your answer with relevant case laws.

Hint: Consider whether TeleNet’s activities fall within the ambit of public duty or
governmental function. Explore the concept of monopoly power and refer to cases
like Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India and Board of Control for Cricket in
India v. Cricket Association of Bihar.
Question 1: Amenability of Writ Jurisdiction on Private Entities

Scenario: Private Telecom Company (TeleNet) suspends services without

notice.

Answer:

The actions of TeleNet, though a private company, can be challenged through a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution because it performs functions that
affect the public. The issue here revolves around whether a private body can be
subject to writ jurisdiction when it exercises monopoly power over a public
function.

In the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court
clarified that while BCCI was not a "State" under Article 12, it was amenable to
writs under Article 226 because it exercised public functions (i.e., regulating
cricket, which affects public interest). Similarly, TeleNet provides an essential public
service—telecommunication—and its actions affect citizens' access to
communication, a critical public utility.

Furthermore, in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of

Bihar (2015), the Court ruled that BCCI was performing public functions and thus
could be subject to judicial review. By analogy, TeleNet, as a private entity with
government authorization to provide telecommunication services, can be challenged
if it suspends services arbitrarily, as this violates citizens' right to communication.

The principle from Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981) can also be applied here. It
held that when a private body performs public functions or is substantially
controlled by the government, it can be amenable to writ jurisdiction. TeleNet,
although private, may be seen as exercising state-like powers by controlling
telecommunication, a public utility, and thus falls under the scrutiny of Article 226.

Scenario 2: Public Interest in a Private Healthcare Institution

LifeCare Hospital is a private hospital that receives government grants and has a
monopoly over healthcare services in a certain district. The hospital recently refused
treatment to several underprivileged patients, citing “lack of insurance coverage.”
The patients argue that LifeCare, despite being a private institution, is performing a
public function and should be held accountable under public law principles.

Question 2:

Is LifeCare Hospital amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226? Analyze the
situation by considering the hospital’s role in providing essential public services and
the doctrine of public function.

Hint: Refer to the Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib case and the doctrine of
instrumentality of the State. Discuss the scope of writs against private entities
involved in providing services of public interest Question 2: Public Interest and
Private Healthcare Institutions

Scenario: LifeCare Hospital refuses treatment to underprivileged patients

despite receiving government grants.

Answer:

LifeCare Hospital can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution because
it performs public functions—providing healthcare, a service of public importance,
especially when supported by government funding. Although it is a private entity, its
actions are subject to judicial review if they infringe on citizens' rights, especially
when it operates with government support.

In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981), the Court held that an entity may be
considered an instrumentality of the State if it is performing functions closely
connected with governmental activities. LifeCare, being the sole hospital in the
district and receiving public funds, is arguably performing a public function similar
to state-run hospitals. Denying treatment without just cause may violate the right to
life under Article 21 of the Constitution, making it amenable to judicial review.

Further, the doctrine of public function applies here. In R.D. Shetty v.

International Airport Authority of India (1979), the Supreme Court held that
private bodies performing public duties or functions, especially those involving a
monopoly over essential services, could be subject to writ jurisdiction. The hospital,
by denying treatment, is acting contrary to public interest, and its decisions can be
judicially reviewed for fairness and legality.

Scenario 3: Locus Standi and Public Interest Litigation

A public-spirited citizen files a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the
decision of a private energy company, which has been given government authority
to supply electricity to rural areas. The company’s tariffs have significantly
increased, making electricity unaffordable for many villagers. The energy company
argues that the petitioner has no locus standi, as he is not directly affected by the
tariffs.

Question 3:
Can the writ petition be maintained? Discuss the modern approach to locus standi
in public interest litigation and its application to private entities performing public
functions.

Hint: Analyze the shift in locus standi in Indian law, particularly in public interest
litigation, and refer to S.P. Gupta v. Union of India. Discuss how judicial review
can be invoked even by third parties when the issue affects a large section of
societyQuestion 3: Locus Standi and Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Scenario: A public-spirited citizen challenges increased tariffs by a private

energy company.

Answer:

The petition can be maintained under the principle of public interest litigation
(PIL). The modern approach to locus standi allows individuals who are not directly
affected to file petitions on behalf of those who may not have the resources or
capacity to do so, especially when the issue involves public rights or services.

In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court expanded the doctrine
of locus standi in PIL, holding that any public-spirited individual can approach the
court on behalf of others if a legal wrong affects a large section of society. Here, the
energy company's monopoly over electricity supply and the drastic increase in tariffs
affect the public at large, justifying the petitioner's standing to file the writ.

Additionally, the company provides an essential public service, and its actions have
a wide public impact. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005), the Court
acknowledged that private entities performing public functions could be challenged
under Article 226. Therefore, the petition is maintainable to protect the public
interest, particularly the rights of citizens to affordable access to essential services.
Scenario 4: Abuse of Discretion by a Municipal Corporation

The municipal corporation of City B granted licenses to various food vendors to

operate in public spaces. However, it revoked the licenses of some vendors
arbitrarily, without giving any reason. The affected vendors approached the High
Court, seeking judicial review of the corporation’s actions.

Question 4:

Analyze whether the actions of the municipal corporation are subject to judicial
review. What principles of administrative law govern the exercise of discretionary
powers?

Hint: Discuss the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem),

unreasonableness, and arbitrariness as grounds for judicial review. Refer to the
Wednesbury unreasonableness test and case laws like Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India.

Question 4: Abuse of Discretion by Municipal Corporation

Scenario: Municipal corporation revokes food vendor licenses arbitrarily.

Answer:

The actions of the municipal corporation can be challenged through judicial review
based on the principles of natural justice and arbitrariness. The corporation's
decision to revoke the licenses without providing reasons or a hearing violates the
fundamental principles of administrative law.

The principle of natural justice, particularly the rule of audi alteram partem (the
right to be heard), requires that the vendors be given an opportunity to defend
themselves before their licenses are revoked. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
(1978), the Supreme Court held that any administrative action that affects individual
rights must follow fair procedures, which includes a right to a hearing.

Moreover, the decision could be challenged on the ground of unreasonableness, as

established in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation
(1948) (the Wednesbury unreasonableness test). If the revocation of the licenses
is arbitrary or without a rational basis, it can be declared ultra vires (beyond the
powers) of the authority. The corporation’s action appears to lack a fair, transparent,
and reasonable procedure, thus justifying judicial intervention.

Scenario 5: Judicial Review of Policy Decisions

The state government of X introduced a policy banning the use of diesel vehicles in
certain areas to control pollution. Several transport companies challenged the policy,
arguing that it was discriminatory and unreasonable as it did not consider the
socio-economic impact on the transport industry.

Question 5:

Can the policy be subject to judicial review? Under what circumstances can courts
intervene in policy decisions made by the government?

Hint: Discuss the principle that courts generally refrain from interfering with policy
decisions unless they are arbitrary, unreasonable, or violate fundamental rights.
Refer to the case of State of N.C.T. of Delhi v. Sanjeev to understand the scope of
judicial review in policy matters.

Question 5: Judicial Review of Policy Decisions

Scenario: Government introduces a policy banning diesel vehicles, affecting the
transport industry.

Answer:

The policy banning diesel vehicles can be subject to judicial review, but courts are
generally cautious when reviewing policy decisions. Courts intervene in policy
matters only if the policy is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in violation
of fundamental rights.

In State of N.C.T. of Delhi v. Sanjeev (2005), the Court held that while courts
should generally not interfere with policy decisions, they can do so when the policy
is manifestly arbitrary or fails to consider the public interest. In the present case,
the transport companies can argue that the policy is discriminatory because it does
not consider the socio-economic impact on those relying on diesel vehicles for their
livelihood.

Additionally, the policy must pass the proportionality test—whether the measure
is appropriate and necessary to achieve the stated objective (reducing pollution). The
Court in Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001) laid down that administrative actions
must not be disproportionate to their intended goal. If less restrictive measures (such
as gradual phasing out or providing alternatives) could achieve the same goal, the
policy may be considered disproportionate.

Scenario 6: Proportionality in Administrative Action

A state government revoked the mining licenses of several private companies in an

effort to conserve natural resources. The mining companies challenged the decision,
arguing that it was disproportionate to the intended objective of resource
conservation, as the government did not explore less restrictive alternatives.

Question 6:

Discuss the applicability of the principle of proportionality in this case. How can
the mining companies challenge the government’s decision?

Hint: Explain the principle of proportionality, which demands that administrative

actions must not be excessive in relation to their purpose. Refer to the case of Om
Kumar v. Union of India for judicial precedent on proportionality in administrative
law.

Question 6: Proportionality in Administrative Action

Scenario: Government revokes mining licenses to conserve resources.

Answer:

The principle of proportionality can be applied to challenge the government’s

decision to revoke mining licenses. In administrative law, proportionality requires
that the action taken by the authority must be appropriate and not excessive in
relation to the purpose it seeks to achieve.

In Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001), the Supreme Court held that administrative
decisions affecting rights must be proportionate to the objective being pursued. The
mining companies can argue that the government’s action is excessive, as it imposes
an undue burden on them without exploring less restrictive alternatives such as
regulated mining or environmental safeguards.
If the revocation causes economic harm to the companies without adequately
considering the balance between conservation and industrial growth, the decision
could be struck down for failing the test of proportionality.

Scenario 7: Natural Justice and Administrative Tribunals

An employee of a state-owned corporation was dismissed after an internal inquiry

conducted by the company’s disciplinary committee. The employee claims that he
was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry and seeks
judicial review of the dismissal order.

Question 7:

Is the employee entitled to judicial review of the dismissal decision? Discuss how
the principles of natural justice apply to administrative actions and whether the
company’s actions can be challenged.

Hint: Discuss the principles of audi alteram partem (right to a fair hearing) and
the rule against bias in administrative proceedings. Refer to Union of India v.
Tulsiram Patel to explore how natural justice principles are applied in disciplinary
matters.

Question 7: Natural Justice and Administrative Tribunals

Scenario: Employee dismissed after an inquiry without a chance to defend.

Answer:

The employee can challenge the dismissal order through judicial review on the
ground of a violation of natural justice. Specifically, the principle of audi alteram
partem (right to a fair hearing) requires that the employee be given an opportunity
to present his defense before any adverse decision is made.

In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985), the Supreme Court held that
disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the principles of natural justice unless there
are exceptional circumstances. The employee’s dismissal without a proper hearing
constitutes a violation of procedural fairness, making the administrative action
subject to judicial review.

Moreover, the inquiry committee may also be challenged if it exhibited bias, another
key component of natural justice. If the disciplinary process did not meet the
required procedural safeguards, the dismissal could be quashed by the court.

Scenario 8: Promissory Estoppel Against Government Actions

The government promised tax exemptions to new industries set up in a backward

region as part of an industrial development policy. Based on this promise, several
companies invested in the region. Later, the government withdrew the tax exemption
without prior notice, claiming financial constraints. The affected companies filed a
writ petition seeking judicial relief based on promissory estoppel.

Question 8:

Can the companies rely on the doctrine of promissory estoppel to challenge the
government's withdrawal of the tax exemption? Analyze the case with reference to
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Hint: Discuss the doctrine of promissory estoppel and its limitations in cases
involving government policies. Examine whether the withdrawal of tax exemptions
violates the companies' legitimate expectations.

Question 8: Promissory Estoppel Against Government Actions

Scenario: Government withdraws tax exemptions promised to industries.

Answer:

The companies can challenge the government’s withdrawal of tax exemptions based
on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.
Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979), the Supreme Court held that if a government
makes a clear and unequivocal promise, and individuals act on it to their detriment,
the government is estopped from going back on the promise, unless doing so would
be contrary to law or public interest.

Here, the companies relied on the government’s promise of tax exemptions to make
significant investments. The withdrawal of the exemption without adequate
justification could violate the companies’ legitimate expectation, which is protected
under administrative law. However, if the government can prove that the withdrawal
is necessary for public policy reasons (such as financial constraints), the court may
weigh the competing interests before deciding.

Question 9: Natural Justice and Arbitrariness in Administrative Actions

Scenario: A state transport authority revoked the licenses of several bus operators
without giving them an opportunity to be heard. The authority stated that the decision
was based on public interest, but did not provide detailed reasons for its action.

Answer:

The revocation of licenses by the state transport authority without giving the
operators a chance to be heard is a violation of the principles of natural justice,
particularly the audi alteram partem rule, which guarantees the right to a fair
hearing. The principle of natural justice is integral to administrative law and ensures
that any decision affecting the rights of individuals must be taken following a fair
procedure.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that the
principles of natural justice must be observed in administrative actions that impact
individuals' rights, and that arbitrary decisions without hearing the affected parties
are unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that administrative actions must meet
the test of reasonableness and fairness.

In this case, the bus operators were denied their right to be heard, which constitutes
a breach of procedural fairness. The decision could also be challenged as
arbitrary, as no detailed reasons were provided. The operators could invoke
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the authority’s
failure to follow the principles of natural justice and its arbitrary exercise of
discretion.

Arbitrariness is another ground for judicial review. In E.P. Royappa v. State of

Tamil Nadu (1974), the Supreme Court expanded the concept of equality under
Article 14, stating that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality and fairness. In this
scenario, the arbitrary revocation of licenses without giving reasons could be struck
down as being unreasonable and violating the operators' fundamental rights.

Question 10: Legitimate Expectation and Judicial Review

Scenario: The government promised tax benefits to small-scale industries in a

backward area to boost industrial growth. After several industries were set up relying
on this promise, the government, citing fiscal difficulties, abruptly withdrew the tax
benefits without prior notice. The industries are now facing financial strain and
challenge the government's decision in court.
Answer:

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a key concept in administrative law that

protects individuals when they rely on a governmental promise or established
practice. In this case, the industries established their businesses based on the
government’s promise of tax benefits. The withdrawal of these benefits without prior
notice, and without considering the industries' reliance on the promise, can be
challenged under the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

In Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme
Court held that if a public authority makes a representation or promise, and
individuals act upon it in good faith, the authority is bound by the principle of
legitimate expectation to fulfill that promise unless there is a significant public
interest that justifies its withdrawal.

The case of Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993) also

highlights the importance of protecting legitimate expectations, stating that while
the doctrine does not guarantee a right to fulfillment of the promise, it provides a
safeguard against arbitrary decisions by public authorities.

Additionally, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may apply. In Motilal Padampat

Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979), the Supreme Court ruled
that if a promise is made by the government, and parties act upon it to their detriment,
the government is estopped from reneging on the promise unless overriding public
interest requires such action.

In this scenario, the industries can argue that their legitimate expectation was
violated, as they relied on the government’s promise when setting up their
businesses. The government’s sudden withdrawal of tax benefits without exploring
alternatives or compensating the affected parties could be deemed arbitrary and
unfair. The decision could be challenged under Article 226, and the courts may
consider whether the government’s fiscal difficulties justify overriding the
industries' legitimate expectations.

Scenario 1: Abuse of Discretionary Powers

The Urban Development Authority of City X grants construction permits to private

developers. Recently, it denied a permit to a small construction company without
providing clear reasons, while granting permits to larger companies. The small
company suspects favoritism and arbitrary action.

Question: How can the small construction company challenge the Urban
Development Authority’s decision under administrative law principles? Discuss in
light of abuse of discretion and arbitrariness. Cite relevant case laws.

________________________________________

Scenario 1: Abuse of Discretionary Powers

Question: How can the small construction company challenge the Urban
Development Authority’s decision under administrative law principles? Discuss
in light of abuse of discretion and arbitrariness. Cite relevant case laws.

Answer:

The small construction company can challenge the Urban Development Authority’s
decision on the grounds of abuse of discretion and arbitrariness. Under
administrative law, any discretionary power must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and
in good faith. Denying a permit without providing clear reasons and favoring larger
companies over smaller ones indicates possible arbitrariness and favoritism,
violating principles of natural justice.
 • Abuse of Discretion: Discretionary powers must not be used arbitrarily. In
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court emphasized
that administrative actions affecting fundamental rights must be just, fair, and
reasonable. If the authority acted arbitrarily or based on irrelevant
considerations, the decision can be struck down as an abuse of discretion.

• Arbitrariness: The decision can also be challenged on the grounds of

arbitrariness as held in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974), where
the Supreme Court ruled that arbitrariness violates the principle of equality
under Article 14. The company can argue that its denial of the permit, while
larger companies received theirs, reflects unequal treatment without valid
reasoning.

In this case, the company may file a writ petition under Article 226 for judicial
review of the authority’s decision.

Scenario 2: Delegated Legislation and Control The Ministry of Health has delegated
its power to regulate the manufacture and sale of drugs to a private pharmaceutical
association. The association issued new regulations increasing the price of essential
drugs, impacting public access to affordable medication. Question: Can the
delegation of power to a private body like the pharmaceutical association be
challenged under administrative law? What principles of delegated legislation apply
to control the delegation? Refer to decided cases and legal principles.
________________________________________

Scenario 2: Delegated Legislation and Control

Question: Can the delegation of power to a private body like the

pharmaceutical association be challenged under administrative law? What
principles of delegated legislation apply to control the delegation? Refer to
decided cases and legal principles.

Answer:

The delegation of power to the private pharmaceutical association can be challenged

under administrative law on the grounds of excessive delegation. The principle of
delegated legislation allows administrative bodies to delegate powers, but this
delegation must be within the limits set by the enabling statute.

• Excessive Delegation: The Supreme Court in In re Delhi Laws Act, 1951

held that while some delegation is permissible, excessive delegation,
especially to private bodies without sufficient safeguards or guidance, is
unconstitutional. If the Ministry of Health delegated regulatory powers to the
association without proper oversight or control mechanisms, this could be
considered excessive delegation.

• Non-delegation of essential functions: The court in Hamdard Dawakhana

v. Union of India (1960) held that essential legislative functions cannot be
delegated. Setting drug prices is an essential function impacting public health,
and delegating such power to a private body may be unlawful.

The delegation can be challenged if it lacks adequate control by the Ministry or if

the delegation exceeds the permissible limits set by the law.

Scenario 3: Private Body Performing Public Function A private electricity company

in State Y is responsible for providing electricity to residents. Due to an internal
issue, the company arbitrarily cuts off electricity to several residential areas without
prior notice. The affected residents argue that their fundamental right to life (under
Article 21) has been violated. Question: Can the residents file a writ petition against
the private electricity company? Discuss the amenability of private bodies to writ
jurisdiction when they perform public functions. Provide supporting case laws.
________________________________________

Scenario 3: Private Body Performing Public Function

Question: Can the residents file a writ petition against the private electricity
company? Discuss the amenability of private bodies to writ jurisdiction when
they perform public functions. Provide supporting case laws.

Answer:

Yes, the residents can file a writ petition against the private electricity company
under Article 226, as the company performs a public function—providing essential
services like electricity.

• Private Bodies Performing Public Functions: In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid

Mujib (1981), the Supreme Court held that any body performing a public
duty or function can be subject to writ jurisdiction, even if it is not a state
body under Article 12. The electricity company, by controlling a crucial public
utility, is discharging public duties and can be held accountable under writ
jurisdiction.

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The arbitrary cutting off of electricity

violates the residents' right to life under Article 21, as electricity is an
essential service. The Court in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005)
clarified that private entities performing public functions could be subject to
writ petitions under Article 226.
Thus, the residents can seek relief through judicial review by filing a writ petition
for violation of their fundamental rights.

Scenario 4: Public Duty by Private Institutions A private university is the only higher
education institution in a remote region. The university expelled several students for
raising complaints about campus facilities without providing a fair hearing. The
students claim that the expulsion was arbitrary and violated their right to education.
Question: Can the students approach the court to challenge the university's action
under Article 226? Analyze whether the private university can be considered as
performing a public function and the application of writ jurisdiction in such cases.
Support your answer with relevant judicial precedents.
________________________________________

Scenario 4: Public Duty by Private Institutions

Question: Can the students approach the court to challenge the university's
action under Article 226? Analyze whether the private university can be
considered as performing a public function and the application of writ
jurisdiction in such cases. Support your answer with relevant judicial
precedents.

Answer:

Yes, the students can approach the court under Article 226 to challenge the private
university’s actions, as the university is performing a public function—providing
higher education, which is a fundamental necessity in a remote region.

• Public Function Test: In Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh

(1993), the Supreme Court recognized education as a fundamental right and
 held that private educational institutions perform a public function, making
them amenable to writ jurisdiction. Since the university is the only higher
education provider in the region, its functions directly impact the right to
education.

• Violation of Natural Justice: The expulsion of students without providing a

fair hearing violates the principles of natural justice, particularly the audi
alteram partem rule, as emphasized in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
(1978).

Therefore, the students can file a writ petition challenging the arbitrary action of the
university, which, despite being private, is performing a public duty.

Scenario 5: Locus Standi and Public Interest Litigation (PIL) A social activist, not
directly affected by the issue, files a writ petition against the government alleging
that the construction of a new highway in a wildlife reserve violates environmental
laws and fundamental rights under Article 21. The government argues that the
activist has no locus standi as she is not directly affected. Question: Discuss the
concept of locus standi in light of public interest litigation (PIL). Can the activist
pursue the writ petition under Article 226? Support your answer with relevant case
law on the relaxation of locus standi in PIL matters.
________________________________________ Scenario 5: Locus Standi and
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Question: Can the activist pursue the writ petition under Article 226? Support
your answer with relevant case law on the relaxation of locus standi in PIL
matters.

Answer:
Yes, the social activist can pursue the writ petition under Article 226, as the concept
of locus standi has been broadened in cases of public interest litigation (PIL) to
allow any public-spirited individual to approach the court on behalf of those whose
rights are impacted.

• Relaxation of Locus Standi in PIL: In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981),

the Supreme Court expanded the scope of locus standi, allowing individuals
or groups not directly affected to file PILs if the matter concerns public
interest. In this case, the protection of the environment and wildlife reserves
is a matter of public concern under Article 21 (right to life and a healthy
environment).

• Environmental Protection: In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the

Supreme Court allowed an environmental activist to file a PIL, emphasizing
that environmental conservation is of great public importance and individuals
need not be directly affected to file a petition.

Thus, the activist can challenge the construction of the highway on environmental
grounds and pursue the writ petition as a PIL.

Scenario 6: Writ Jurisdiction Over a Private Club A private sports club, responsible
for managing public recreational facilities in City Z, denies membership to certain
individuals based on arbitrary reasons. The club claims it is a private entity and thus
not subject to judicial review. Question: Can a writ of mandamus be issued against
the private sports club? Analyze the situation based on the club’s public function and
discuss the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 over private bodies
performing public duties. Reference decided cases.
________________________________________
Scenario 6: Writ Jurisdiction Over a Private Club

Question: Can a writ of mandamus be issued against the private sports club?
Analyze the situation based on the club’s public function and discuss the scope
of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 over private bodies performing public
duties. Reference decided cases.

Answer:

Yes, a writ of mandamus can be issued against the private sports club under Article
226 if it performs a public function, such as managing public recreational facilities.

• Private Bodies and Public Functions: In Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib

(1981), the Court held that writs can be issued against private bodies
performing public duties. The private sports club, by managing public
recreational facilities, is engaging in a public function and is therefore subject
to writ jurisdiction.

• Arbitrariness: If the club’s denial of membership is based on arbitrary

reasons, this can be challenged as a violation of the principles of natural
justice and fairness. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005), the
Court reiterated that private entities performing functions that serve the public
can be challenged through writs.

Thus, the denial of membership based on arbitrary grounds makes the club’s actions
subject to judicial review, and a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel it to act
fairly.
Scenario 7: Procedural Fairness and Right to Be Heard A public hospital terminated
the services of several employees without conducting an inquiry or providing them
an opportunity to be heard. The hospital management contends that the terminations
were justified based on poor performance. Question: Can the employees challenge
the termination under the principles of natural justice? Discuss the application of the
audi alteram partem rule in administrative decisions and the relevance of procedural
fairness. Support your answer with case laws.
________________________________________

Scenario 7: Procedural Fairness and Right to Be Heard

Question: Can the employees challenge the termination under the principles of
natural justice? Discuss the application of the audi alteram partem rule in
administrative decisions and the relevance of procedural fairness. Support your
answer with case laws.

Answer:

Yes, the employees can challenge the termination on the grounds of violation of
natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule (the right to be heard).

• Audi Alteram Partem: This principle requires that individuals affected by

administrative decisions must be given an opportunity to defend themselves.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that
the principles of natural justice apply to administrative actions impacting
individual rights. Since the hospital terminated the employees without a
hearing, this is a clear breach of procedural fairness.

• Right to Fair Hearing: In D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries (1993), the

Supreme Court ruled that termination without affording the employee an
opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice.
Therefore, the employees can challenge the termination as a violation of procedural
fairness and the right to be heard, and the court is likely to quash the termination
orders.

Scenario 8: Proportionality in Government Actions The Environmental Protection

Agency imposed a blanket ban on the use of all plastic products in a state, without
any exceptions or alternatives. Small businesses dependent on plastic packaging
argue that the ban is excessive and disproportionate to the environmental harm
caused. Question: How can the small businesses challenge the government’s
decision on the grounds of proportionality? Discuss the principle of proportionality
in judicial review of administrative actions and provide relevant case laws.
________________________________________

Scenario 8: Proportionality in Government Actions

Question: How can the small businesses challenge the government’s decision on
the grounds of proportionality? Discuss the principle of proportionality in
judicial review of administrative actions and provide relevant case laws.

Answer:

The small businesses can challenge the blanket ban on plastic products by arguing
that the decision is disproportionate to the goal of environmental protection.

• Proportionality Principle: The principle of proportionality requires that the

measures taken by an administrative authority must not be excessive in
relation to the objective sought to be achieved. In Om Kumar v. Union of
India (2001), the Supreme Court held that administrative actions must be
proportionate and not impose unnecessary burdens on affected parties.
 • Less Restrictive Alternatives: The businesses can argue that less restrictive
measures, such as regulated use of plastic or phased bans, would achieve the
same environmental goal without harming small businesses. In Tata Cellular
v. Union of India (1994), the Court emphasized that courts can review
administrative actions to ensure that they are proportionate and reasonable.

Thus, the businesses can file a writ petition challenging the blanket ban on the
grounds that it violates the principle of proportionality.

Scenario 9: Legitimate Expectation and Withdrawal of Policy A state government

announced a new housing scheme for low-income families and accepted
applications. After receiving thousands of applications, the government abruptly
withdrew the scheme, citing financial constraints. The applicants claim they acted
on a legitimate expectation that the scheme would be implemented. Question: Can
the applicants challenge the government’s decision to withdraw the housing scheme?
Analyze the situation in the context of legitimate expectation and judicial review of
administrative actions. Discuss relevant case laws that apply to the withdrawal of
policies or promises by public authorities.
________________________________________

Scenario 9: Legitimate Expectation and Withdrawal of Policy

Question: Can the applicants challenge the government’s decision to withdraw

the housing scheme? Analyze the situation in the context of legitimate
expectation and judicial review of administrative actions. Discuss relevant case
laws that apply to the withdrawal of policies or promises by public authorities.

Answer:
Yes, the applicants can challenge the withdrawal of the housing scheme on the basis
of legitimate expectation.

• Legitimate Expectation: In Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society v.

Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court held that if a public authority
makes a representation or promise, individuals who act on it can claim
legitimate expectation that the policy will be implemented. The abrupt
withdrawal of the scheme after receiving applications creates a valid ground
for judicial review.

• Promissory Estoppel: The doctrine of promissory estoppel may also apply

here. In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(1979), the Court held that if the government makes a promise, and people act
upon it to their detriment, the government is estopped from reneging on the
promise unless overriding public interest demands it.

In this case, the applicants can argue that they acted on the promise of the scheme,
and the government’s withdrawal without compensating the affected parties is
arbitrary and violates the principle of legitimate expectation.

Scenario 10: Judicial Review of Discretionary Power A regulatory body, responsible

for issuing permits to private broadcasters, rejected the application of a news channel
without providing detailed reasons. The channel contends that the decision was
arbitrary and seeks to challenge the exercise of discretionary power. Question: What
grounds can the news channel use to challenge the decision of the regulatory body?
Discuss the judicial review of discretionary powers and the legal principles applied
in such cases. Cite relevant case law. prepare me answers with case laws
Scenario 10: Judicial Review of Discretionary Power

Question: What grounds can the news channel use to challenge the decision of
the regulatory body? Discuss the judicial review of discretionary powers and
the legal principles applied in such cases. Cite relevant case law.

Answer:

The news channel can challenge the regulatory body’s decision on the grounds of
arbitrariness, lack of reasoned decision-making, and abuse of discretionary
power.

• Arbitrariness and Lack of Reasoning: The Supreme Court in Kranti

Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) held that
administrative bodies must provide reasons for their decisions. The news
channel can argue that the rejection of its application without detailed reasons
is arbitrary and violates the principles of transparency and accountability.

• Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The decision can also be challenged under

the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness (Associated Provincial
Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, 1948), where an
administrative action is considered unreasonable if no reasonable authority
would have made the same decision. The news channel can argue that the
denial of its permit is unreasonable and disproportionate.

Thus, the news channel can seek judicial review of the discretionary power exercised
by the regulatory body and ask the court to quash the decision for being arbitrary
and unreasonable.