Judicial Control over Administrative actions

Introduction

In today’s era, the administration plays a vital role in every individual’s life. To meet
the changing demands of new political, economic and social conditions there has been
remarkable expansion of administrative law. To achieve the basic aim of any civilized
society i.e. ‘growth with liberty’ there is need of administrative powers.

Scope Of Judicial Control Over Administration

In India, the constitution provides for independent judicial and legislative powers.
There is a system of separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and
judiciary. The Indian constitution incorporates many provisions to ensure that there is
an effective and efficient system of separation of powers. For example- the executive
appoints the judges of the apex court but within the limits of guidelines provided
thereby.
And after such an appointment, the executive has no control over the discharge of
functions by the judiciary. Similarly. though the judiciary has the power to control
administrative actions of the authorities such control cannot be exercised on their own
accord, but can only be exercised when relief is sought. Judicial Intervention or
control is restrictive in nature which narrows down the scope of its application.

Generally, such control is confined to the following cases:

1. Lack of jurisdiction:
When any public official or administrative authority acts over and beyond its
jurisdiction, the court has the power to declare such an act to be ultra vires.
For instance- In an organization, a particular authority is vested with the
power to take certain decisions or actions and any authority other than the
competent authority exercises such power of decision making then one can
seek court's intervention under the provision of jurisdictional error.
2. Irrationality:
The general principle is that the powers conferred by administrative authorities
are exercised reasonably. But if an administrative authority gives a decision
that overrides the moral standards of the society and is such that which is
absent under law then a such decision can be held to be unreasonable. This can
also be called misfeasance in law.
The concept of irrationality as a ground for judicial control was established
through the case law Associated Provincial Picture House vs. Wednesbury
(1947). This case is also known as the Wednesbury test as the court laid down
three tests to determine whether or not a court has the right to intervene on the
basis of irrationality:
1. If the defendant has not taken into consideration any fact which was to
be taken into consideration.
2. If the defendant has taken into consideration any fact was which was
not to be taken into consideration.
 3. If the decision is such that any reasonable authority would not have
taken into consideration of imposition of such decision after reasonable
application of mind.

The court also stated that any court could not intervene simply on the ground
of disagreement.
3. Procedural Impropriety:
It means the failure of an administrative authority to comply with the laid rules
and procedures or the common law. In the case of procedural impropriety, the
judiciary has the power to intervene even if the principles of natural justice are
not denied. Under the case of Council of civil service unions vs. Minister for
the civil service Lord Diplock considered procedural impropriety as one of the
heads to determine whether or not any administrative action is subject to
judicial intervention.
4. Proportionality:
It means that whatever action is taken by the administrative authority should
be limited to the proportion of the objective of the decision. Before upholding:
1. Irrationality:
This could also be referred to as "Wednesbury Unreasonableness". It
applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or
of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied
his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Any
action by an administrative authority it is necessary for the court to
consider its advantages as well as disadvantages.
Unless, the court is satisfied that the action is necessary in the interest
of public at large, it shall not be upheld. If any such authority takes any
action which is for its personal gains and does not benefit the public
interest, the court's intervention can be sought.

Forms Of Judicial Control Over Administration

1. Judicial Review
2. Statutory Appeal
3. Suits Against The Government
4. Criminal And Civil Suits Against Public Officials
5. Extraordinary Remedies

Judicial Review
Judicial review is one of the most significant powers of High courts and the Supreme
court. It is basic requirement of a developing civilization to protect and safeguard the
rights of the public by checking upon the administrative actions and their
contitutionality as well as legality.
This doctrine prevails in the countries where the constitution is considered as their
supreme law, for eg- USA, India, Australia etc. The power of courts to conduct
judicial review is restricted by constitution. However, the Legislature cannot exclude
judicial review if the administrative action is ultra vires to the constitution or harms
public interest.
The doctrine of Judicial review was first established on February 24, 1803 by the U.S
Supreme Court in the case of Marbury vs. Madison when it declared an act of
legislative (congress) unconstitutional.

Following Are The Mechanisms Of Judicial Review:

1. Judicial Review Of Legislative Actions.
2. Judicial Review Of Judicial Decision.
3. Judicial Review Of Administrative Action.

In the cases of Keshvananda Bharti, Chandra Kumar vs. UOI judicial review
was held to be necessary and was declared to be an essential and integral part of
the Indian Constitution.
In Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union Of India, the first amendment act of
1951 was challenged but the Apex court rejected the contention by conceding
absolute powers to the parliament to amend the constitution.
In the landmark case of Golaknath v. State of Punjab "The supreme court
reversed its decision as it observed that Article 368 does not provide the power to
amend the constitution."
Statutory Appeal
The statutes and laws made by the legislature themselves provide for seeking judicial
intervention in case of any grief or harm. The aggrieved party has the right to appeal
to a higher administrative tribunal than the original decision-making tribunal. For
instance, any person aggrieved by the decision of a session court can appeal to the
high court for intervention. The apex court or the supreme court is the highest court
and hence, no right to appeal lies against its decisions.

Suits Against The Government

There are certain limitations with regard to constituting suits against the government.
The liability of the government under the contract law is similar to that of the citizens
subject to the limitations which can be regulated by the parliament under the
constitution. However, the government is liable for only those acts of their officials
for which they are answerable. The government can be held liable for the actions of
its officials in regard to non-sovereign functions only.

Civil And Criminal Suits Against Public Officials

The laws related to civil and criminal proceedings against public official's acts vary
from country to country. In India, the code of criminal procedure creates the personal
liability of public officials for the acts done by them in such capacity and allows suits
to be filed against such acts with two months prior notice. However, certain
authorities except the ministers are immune to such civil suits such as the President
and the governor. In Britain, the monarch and in the USA the president is immune
from such legal proceedings.
Extraordinary Remedies
Apart from the abovementioned types of judicial controls, the Indian constitution
provides a few additional remedies by way of the writs under Article 13 and Article
226. The court has discretionary powers to provide these remedies except the writ of
habeas corpus when no other remedy is available.
These writs are issued by the supreme court in order to protect only the fundamental
rights of the citizens but the High court is empowered to issue these writs for the
protection of other rights also. The writ of injunction is not specifically provided
under the Indian constitution but yet it is provided as a remedy by the supreme court.
The writ of injunction is of two types- preventive and mandatory. The mandatory writ
is somehow similar to the writ of mandamus and the preventive is similar to that of
prohibition. The writ of injunction is issued against executive authorities.
The Remedies By Way Of Writs Are As Follows:
1. Habeas corpus:
It is derived form a Latin term which means "you may have the body". It is
used to secure a person who is unlawfully or illegally detained. Through this
writ the Supreme Court or the High Court can order another person who has
unlawfully detained another person, to present the body of the latter before the
court. The court requires the detaining person to provide valid ground for
detention and if he fails to do so then the person who was detained will be
released by the court. This writ can be issued against both public and private
authorities.
Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it
exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in
appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders
or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement
of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
In the case of Ichhu Devi v. Union of India the Supreme Court held that even
an application through postcard by any pro bono publico will be considered
for order to issue writ of habeas corpus.
2. Mandamus:
It is an order by the Supreme Court and High court to lower or subordinate
courts, tribunals or public authorities. This writ can be issued to any
government, court, corporation or public authority, if they fail to do their
respective duties. In the case of John Paily & Ors. v. State of Kerala the
Supreme Court held that the court cannot direct any state legislature to
establish a tribunal by issuing the writ of mandamus. The petition cannot be
entertained and was dismissed.
3. Quo Warranto:
This writ is issued against a private individual when he assumes office of a
public servant on which he has no right. The power to issue this writ is
discretionary and it's up to the discretion of the court whether to issue this writ
or not. This writ can only be issued when a substantive public office is
involved and can't be issued against private or ministerial offices. In the case
of Niranjan Kumar Goenka v. The University of Bihar, Muzzafarpur the
court observed that the writ of quo warranto cannot be issued if the person is
not holding the public office.
4. Certiorari:
It is issued by a superior court to the inferior courts. It is corrective in nature
and its work is to correct the errors. It is issued when there is excess of
jurisdiction to the inferior court or the superior court wants to decide a matter
himself in any case.

In the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India the Supreme Court laid down
the distinction between quasi-judicial authorities and administrative authority.
The Supreme Court quashed the decision by issuing the writ of certiorari.
5. Prohibition:
This writ is not issued often and it is an extraordinary remedy which the
 superior court issues to an inferior court or tribunal for stopping them to
decide a case as they have no jurisdiction. If the court or tribunal does not
have a jurisdiction and still decides the case, the decision will be invalid
because for an act to be legal it must have sanction of law. This writ can only
be issued against judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.
In the case of Prudential Capital Markets v. State of A.P. and Others the
question that was raised was that "can the writ of prohibition be issued against
district forums/state commissions which had already passed the judgement
regarding consumer cases?" The court held that after the execution of the
order, the writ of prohibition cannot be issued and neither the judgement can
be stopped nor prevented.

Limitations Of Judicial Control Over Administration

1. With High volume of cases already piled up in courts, it becomes difficult for
the courts to cope up such burden. The excessive delay in justice discourages
justice seekers to approach the court. The old saying "justice delayed is equal
to justice denied" still holds good in such cases.
2. As the courts cannot interfere in the administrative acts in their own accord
and can only intervene when justice is sought, this delays the process of
justice. As in most of the cases the judiciary is able to interfere only when
enough damage is already done and in such cases there is no method to undo
the harm already born by the aggrieved.
3. Due to the high costs of the judicial processes most of the time only rich
people are able to get relief against the administrative actions and the poor
people are denied justice and become victims of such administrative actions
and justice denial.

4. The courts in India are bound by certain statutory limitation and cannot act
against them. Few administrative actions are out of judicial control and cannot
be reviewed.
5. The lack of general awareness also becomes one of the limitation for judicial
control. In a country like India where the illetracy is high, people are also
deprived of the general knowledge of remedies provided by the judiciary in
case of grievances. For the courts who can only act when relief is sought, it
becomes difficult in this case to provide justice to the citizens.

Recent Case Laws Related To Judicial Control

1. In the recent case of Azizur Rahaman vs. The state of WB & ors. The
Calcutta High Court held that the judiciary's power of judicial review is to
check upon the legality and the constitutionality of the administrative act and
not the wisdom or soundness of such act. The judiciary will only exercise its
powers if the acts is completely arbitrary or for personal gains or affects the
interest of public.
2. The Supreme Court in the case of I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs v. State of
Tamil Nadu & Ors., held that laws that are added to the 9 th schedule of the
 constitution by way of amendments after April 24, 1973 can be amended if
they are ultra vires of the Constitution.

Conclusion
The main purpose of judicial control is to protect the rights of individuals from the
abuse of powers by administrative authorities by ensuring the legality as well as
constitutionality of the actions undertaken by them. The Indian Constitution provides
various methods of judicial control like judicial review, statutory appeal etc., and
along with these various types of judicial controls, the Indian constitution also
provides a few additional remedies by way of writs under Article 13 and Article 226.
However, the court has discretionary powers to provide these remedies except the writ
of habeas corpus when no other remedy is available.
These writs are issued by the supreme court in order to protect only the fundamental
rights of the citizens but the High court is empowered to issue these writs for the
protection of other rights also. Judicial Intervention or control is restrictive in nature
which narrows down the scope of its application. Although Judicial Control is one of
the most essential parts of the structure of Constitution, it comes with certain
limitations as well.

LACHES

The doctrine of laches is particularly important in ensuring fairness in judicial

proceedings by avoiding situations where a delay in action would unfairly prejudice
the opposing party. The burden of proving that laches applies lies with the defendant,
who must show that the plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing the action and that
this delay resulted in prejudice.
 Meaning of Doctrine of Laches
The doctrine of laches is an equitable principle that prevents a claimant from pursuing
a legal remedy after an unreasonable delay in asserting their rights. Rooted in the
Latin maxim “Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt,” which translates to
“the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights,” the doctrine essentially
bars claims when a party has waited too long to initiate legal action. Unlike statutory
limitations, which impose a fixed deadline, the doctrine of laches is flexible,
depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Purpose of the Doctrine of Laches
The primary purpose of the doctrine of laches is to promote fairness in legal
proceedings by ensuring that claims are brought within a reasonable period of time.
This serves several key objectives:
1. Preventing Prejudice to the Defendant: When a plaintiff delays in bringing a claim,
it may become difficult for the defendant to present a fair defence. Evidence may
have been lost or destroyed, witnesses may have died or moved away, and memories
may have faded. The doctrine of laches prevents a plaintiff from taking advantage of
these circumstances.
2. Encouraging Diligence: The doctrine of laches encourages plaintiffs to act quickly in
asserting their rights, ensuring that legal disputes are resolved in a timely manner.
This helps to preserve the integrity of the legal process and ensures that justice is
served.
3. Promoting Judicial Efficiency: Courts are inundated with cases, and the doctrine of
laches helps to reduce the burden on the judicial system by ensuring that only timely
claims are heard. This allows courts to focus on cases where the parties have acted
promptly and in good faith.

Elements of the Doctrine of Laches

For the doctrine of laches to apply, certain key elements must be established by the
defendant. These elements may vary slightly depending on the jurisdiction, but they
generally include the following:
Unreasonable Delay
The plaintiff must have unreasonably delayed in bringing the claim. What constitutes
an “unreasonable” delay will depend on the circumstances of each case, including the
nature of the claim, the conduct of the parties, and the availability of evidence.
Knowledge of Rights
The plaintiff must have known about their rights at the time of the delay. If the
plaintiff was unaware of their legal rights, the doctrine of laches may not apply.
However, if the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of their claim and failed to act, this
element would be satisfied.

Prejudice to the Defendant

The defendant must demonstrate that the delay has caused them significant prejudice.
This could include the loss of evidence, the unavailability of witnesses, or other
factors that make it difficult or impossible for the defendant to mount a fair defence.
No Statutory Limitation Bar
While the doctrine of laches is an equitable defence, it typically cannot be invoked if a
statute of limitations bars the claim. However, in some cases, the doctrine may apply
 even if the statute of limitations has not yet expired, particularly where the delay is
egregious and unjustifiable.

Landmark Cases on Doctrine of Laches

The application of the doctrine of laches has been established through various
landmark cases across different jurisdictions. Some of the most notable cases include:
1. Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd (1874) (UK): This is one of the earliest cases that
clearly articulated the principles underlying the doctrine of laches. The court stated
that where there has been unreasonable delay and that delay prejudices the defendant,
the claim may be barred by laches.
2. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (2014) (U.S.): This case clarified the
limitations of the doctrine of laches in copyright law, holding that laches cannot bar
claims for damages within the statutory period but can be used to limit equitable
relief.
3. Haryana State Handloom & v. Jain Shool Society (2003) (India): This case
demonstrates the application of laches in the Indian legal system, where a writ
petition was dismissed due to an unreasonable delay of 17 years in challenging a
government order.
4. Fisher v. Brooker (2009) (UK): In this case, the House of Lords ruled that laches did
not bar a copyright claim where the delay did not result in significant prejudice to the
defendant.

Criticisms and Limitations of the Doctrine of Laches

While the doctrine of laches serves an important function in promoting fairness in
legal proceedings, it is not without its critics. Some of the key criticisms and
limitations of the doctrine include:
1. Subjectivity: One of the main criticisms of laches is that it is highly subjective.
Because the doctrine is based on principles of fairness and equity, its application can
vary widely depending on the judge’s interpretation of what constitutes an
unreasonable delay or prejudice to the defendant.
2. Uncertainty: The flexible nature of laches can create uncertainty for both plaintiffs
and defendants, as there is no fixed time frame for when a claim may be barred. This
can make it difficult for parties to predict the outcome of cases involving laches.
3. Inconsistent Application: The doctrine of laches is applied inconsistently across
different jurisdictions and even within the same jurisdiction. This inconsistency can
undermine the principle of legal certainty and fairness.
4. Limited Applicability: Laches is primarily an equitable defence and is not available
in cases involving statutory claims or legal remedies. This can limit its usefulness in
certain types of litigation.

Conclusion
The doctrine of laches plays an important role in ensuring fairness in legal
proceedings by preventing plaintiffs from asserting their rights after an unreasonable
delay. While it is distinct from the statute of limitations, both legal concepts share the
goal of promoting the timely resolution of disputes and preventing prejudice to the
defendant. Laches is a flexible, equitable defence that requires courts to consider the
specific facts and circumstances of each case, ensuring that justice is served on a case-
by-case basis.
 Public Interest Litigation

Introduction
 The expression ‘Public Interest Litigation’ has been borrowed from American
jurisprudence, where it was designed to provide legal representation to previously
unrepresented groups like the poor, the racial minorities, unorganised consumers,
citizens who were passionate about the environmental issues, etc.
 Public interest Litigation (PIL) means litigation filed in a court of law, for the
protection of “Public Interest”, such as Pollution, Terrorism, Road safety,
Constructional hazards etc. Any matter where the interest of public at large is
affected can be redressed by filing a Public Interest Litigation in a court of law.
 Public interest litigation is not defined in any statute or in any act. It has been
interpreted by judges to consider the intent of public at large.
 Public interest litigation is the power given to the public by courts through judicial
activism. However, the person filing the petition must prove to the satisfaction of
the court that the petition is being filed for a public interest and not just as a
frivolous litigation by a busy body.
 The court can itself take cognizance of the matter and proceed suo motu or cases
can commence on the petition of any public spirited individual.
 Some of the matters which are entertained under PIL are:
o Bonded Labour matters
o Neglected Children
o Non-payment of minimum wages to workers and exploitation of casual workers
o Atrocities on women
o Environmental pollution and disturbance of ecological balance
o Food adulteration
o Maintenance of heritage and culture
Genesis and Evolution of PIL in India: Some Landmark Judgements
 The seeds of the concept of public interest litigation were initially sown in India
by Justice Krishna Iyer, in 1976 in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai.
 The first reported case of PIL was Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of
Bihar (1979) that focused on the inhuman conditions of prisons and under trial
prisoners that led to the release of more than 40,000 under trial prisoners.
 o Right to speedy justice emerged as a basic fundamental right which had
been denied to these prisoners. The same set pattern was adopted in subsequent
cases.
 A new era of the PIL movement was heralded by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the
case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India.
o In this case it was held that “any member of the public or social action group
acting bonafide” can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts (under
article 226) or the Supreme Court (under Article 32) seeking redressal against
violation of legal or constitutional rights of persons who due to social or
economic or any other disability cannot approach the Court.
o By this judgment PIL became a potent weapon for the enforcement of “public
duties” where executive action or misdeed resulted in public injury. And as a
result any citizen of India or any consumer groups or social action groups can
now approach the apex court of the country seeking legal remedies in all cases
where the interests of general public or a section of the public are at stake.
o Justice Bhagwati did a lot to ensure that the concept of PILs was clearly
enunciated. He did not insist on the observance of procedural technicalities and
even treated ordinary letters from public-minded individuals as writ petitions.
 The Supreme Court in Indian Banks’ Association, Bombay & Ors. vs. M/s
Devkala Consultancy Service and Ors held :- “In an appropriate case, where the
petitioner might have moved a court in her private interest and for redressal of the
personal grievance, the court in furtherance of Public Interest may treat it a
necessity to enquire into the state of affairs of the subject of litigation in the
interest of justice.” Thus, a private interest case can also be treated as public
interest case.
 M.C Mehta vs. Union of India: In a Public Interest Litigation brought against
Ganga water pollution so as to prevent any further pollution of Ganga water.
Supreme Court held that petitioner although not a riparian owner is entitled to
move the court for the enforcement of statutory provisions, as he is the person
interested in protecting the lives of the people who make use of Ganga water.
 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan: The judgement of the case recognized sexual
harassment as a violation of the fundamental constitutional rights of Article 14,
Article 15 and Article 21. The guidelines also directed for the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,
2013.
Factors Responsible for the Growth of PIL in India
 The character of the Indian Constitution. India has a written constitution which
through Part III (Fundamental Rights) and Part IV (Directive Principles of State
Policy) provides a framework for regulating relations between the state and its
citizens and between citizens inter-se.
 India has some of the most progressive social legislations to be found anywhere
in the world whether it be relating to bonded labor, minimum wages, land ceiling,
environmental protection, etc. This has made it easier for the courts to haul up the
 executive when it is not performing its duties in ensuring the rights of the poor as
per the law of the land.
 The liberal interpretation of locus standi where any person can apply to the
court on behalf of those who are economically or physically unable to come
before it has helped. Judges themselves have in some cases initiated suo moto
action based on newspaper articles or letters received.
 Although social and economic rights given in the Indian Constitution under Part
IV are not legally enforceable, courts have creatively read these into fundamental
rights thereby making them judicially enforceable. For instance the "right to life"
in Article 21 has been expanded to include right to free legal aid, right to live with
dignity, right to education, right to work, freedom from torture, bar fetters and
hand cuffing in prisons, etc.
 Judicial innovations to help the poor and marginalised: For instance, in
the Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the Supreme Court put the burden of proof on the
respondent stating it would treat every case of forced labor as a case of bonded
labor unless proven otherwise by the employer. Similarly in the Asiad Workers
judgment case, Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that anyone getting less than the
minimum wage can approach the Supreme Court directly without going through
the labor commissioner and lower courts.
 In PIL cases where the petitioner is not in a position to provide all the necessary
evidence, either because it is voluminous or because the parties are weak socially
or economically, courts have appointed commissions to collect information on
facts and present it before the bench.
Who Can File a PIL and Against Whom?

 Any citizen can file a public case by filing a petition:

o Under Art 32 of the Indian Constitution, in the Supreme Court.
o Under Art 226 of the Indian Constitution, in the High Court.
o Under sec. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of Magistrate.
 However, the court must be satisfied that the Writ petition fulfils some basic
needs for PIL as the letter is addressed by the aggrieved person, public spirited
individual and a social action group for the enforcement of legal or Constitutional
rights to any person who are not able to approach the court for redress.
 A Public Interest Litigation can be filed against a State/ Central Govt.,
Municipal Authorities, and not any private party. The definition of State is the
same as given under Article 12 of the Constitution and this includes the
Governmental and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of
each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or
under the control of the Government of India
Significance of PIL
 The aim of PIL is to give to the common people access to the courts to obtain
legal redress.
 PIL is an important instrument of social change and for maintaining the Rule of
law and accelerating the balance between law and justice.
 The original purpose of PILs have been to make justice accessible to the poor
and the marginalised.
 It is an important tool to make human rights reach those who have been denied
rights.
 It democratises the access of justice to all. Any citizen or organisation who is
capable can file petitions on behalf of those who cannot or do not have the means
to do so.
 It helps in judicial monitoring of state institutions like prisons, asylums, protective
homes, etc.
 It is an important tool for implementing the concept of judicial review.
 Enhanced public participation in judicial review of administrative action is
assured by the inception of PILs.
Certain Weaknesses of PIL
 PIL actions may sometimes give rise to the problem of competing rights. For
instance, when a court orders the closure of a polluting industry, the interests of
the workmen and their families who are deprived of their livelihood may not be
taken into account by the court.
 It could lead to overburdening of courts with frivolous PILs by parties with
vested interests. PILs today has been appropriated for corporate, political and
personal gains. Today the PIL is no more limited to problems of the poor and the
oppressed.
 Cases of Judicial Overreach by the Judiciary in the process of solving socio-
economic or environmental problems can take place through the PILs.
 PIL matters concerning the exploited and disadvantaged groups are pending for
many years. Inordinate delays in the disposal of PIL cases may render many
leading judgments merely of academic value.

Conclusion
 Public Interest Litigation has produced astonishing results which were
unthinkable three decades ago. Degraded bonded labourers, tortured under trials
and women prisoners, humiliated inmates of protective women’s home, blinded
prisoners, exploited children, beggars, and many others have been given relief
through judicial intervention.

RES JUDICATA
Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or decided and
etymologically, it means “a matter adjudged”. Simply, it means that the issue before a
court has already been decided by another court and between the same parties. Hence,
the court can dismiss the case as it means “bar re-litigation” of such cases between the
same parties that had been earlier decided by another court. It applies to both civil and
criminal legal system. This principle seeks to promote the fair administration of
justice but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources and time of the
judicial system. This is just to prevent the court from giving multiplying judgments,
so a prevailing plaintiff may not recover damages from the defendant twice for the
same injury.
The doctrine of Res Judicata is based on three Roman maxims:

(a) Nemo debet lis vaxari pro eadem causa;

(b) Interest republicae ut sit finis litium; and

(c) Re judicata pro veritate occipitur.

The pre-requisites necessary for Res Judicata:

1. Must be a final judgement.

2. Judgement must be on the merits.
3. The claims must be the same in the first and second suits.
4. The parties in the second action must be the same as those in the first one, or
need to be
represented by a party to the prior action.

Nature of Res Judicata

It tries to bring in natural and fair justice to the parties and that too by barring the
other party to file a multiple number of suits either for justice or for harassing the
other party. It includes two related concepts: claim preclusion, and issue preclusion
(also called collateral estoppel).
Although it does not restrict the appeals process and these are considered as the
appropriate manner by which the judgement can be challenged rather than trying to
start a new trial, thereby once the appeals process is exhausted or waived, Res
Judicata will apply even to a judgment that is contrary to law.

Scope of Res Judicata

The scope has been decided in the case of Gulam Abbas v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
[1] the court incorporated the rules as evidence as a plea of an issue already tries in an
earlier case and held that res judicata is not exhaustive and even if the matter is not
directly covered under the provisions of the section it will be considered as a case of
res judicata on general principles.

Res Judicata can be waived-

In the case of P.C. Ray and Company Private Limited v. Union of India,[2] held that
the plea of res judicata may be waived by a party to the proceeding. This principle
belongs to the procedure and either party can waive the plea. Only in those cases the
court can deny the question of Res Judicata when it has not been raised in the
proceedings.

Criticism to Res Judicata

Res judicata can also be applied to judgment that may be contrary to law. It includes
matters not only those of bar but also those matters which should be litigated. Most of
the equity cases involve res judicata and do not get beyond collateral estoppel. As it
raises the difficulty of overlapping more than the failure to litigate issues.

Failure to Apply

When the court fails to apply Res Judicata and renders a divergent verdict on the same
claim or issue and if the third court faces the same issue, it will apply a “last in time”
rule. It gives effect to the later judgment and it does not matter about the result that
came differently in the second time. This situation is typically the responsibility of the
parties to the suit to bring the earlier case to the judge’s attention, and the judge must
decide how to apply it, whether to recognize it in the first place.

Conclusion

This doctrine is of wider ambit and it applies even to the public interest litigation. It
applies not only to the civil suits but also to the criminal proceedings. It basically tries
to promote the fair administration of justice and saves the time and resources of the
justice system.

INTRODUCTION
Discretion means the liberty to act according to one’s pleasure,
or at one’s own will. Administrative discretion thus means the
authority vested in the Executive, the public officials who
administer the government, to perform certain functions, make
certain decisions at their own judgment, and exercise certain
powers.[1] It is a common tendency in modern democracies to
confer discretionary power on the government or administrative
officers.[2] In order to ensure that the operation of such
discretion does not disrupt the authenticity of any normally
functioning democracy, it is necessary that there is a body that is
established or which keeps a check on the functioning of the
administrative discretion. Justice Douglas once stated: “where
discretion is absolute, man has always suffered…Absolute
discretion…is more destructive of freedom than any of man’s
other inventions.”
THE NEED OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCRETION
The act of the legislature to grant discretionary power to the
Executive is clearly based upon the reliance placed upon the
power of judgment of that authority. The legislature thus directly
eliminates a direct attack on the exercise of the discretionary
power unless a right of appeal to the courts is expressly provided
by the legislature. But the absence of such provision, one that
provides for appeal does not mean the immunization of the
exercise of discretion from judicial review. In the words of Prof. H.
W.R. Wade,
“If the state is to care for its citizens from the cradle to the grave,
to protect their environment, to educate them at all stages, to
provide them with employment, training, houses, medical
services, pensions and in the last resort food, clothing and
shelter, it needs a huge administrative apparatus. Relatively little
can be done by merely passing Acts of Parliament and leaving it
to the courts to enforce them. There are far too many problems
of detail and far too many matters which cannot be decided in
advance. No one may erect a building without planning
permission, but no system of general rules can prescribe for
every case. There must be discretionary power.”[3]

JUDICIAL CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE

DISCRETION
The necessity to grant various discretionary powers to the
administration also requires to devise systems to control their
exercise so as to prevent their abuse. A system of checks and
balances based on a broad distribution of governmental functions
into a three-way classification: legislative functions, which
concerns the making of laws, administrative functions, which
concerns the execution of laws and judicial functions, which
concerns the application of laws after facts have been
ascertained correctly, is generally imputed to
Montesquieu. Judicial control of administrative power is required
to prevent abuse or non exercise of power by government or
executive organ.
Although there are no specific provisions in the Constitution of
India containing this unbending separation of powers on the
American pattern, it is generally accepted that such a separation
of functions in a broad sense does prevail in our Constitution.[4]
One of the basic principles that our judiciary has to keep in mind
while exercising its control is that it can never go into the merits
of the decision but has to, rather, decide upon the legality of the
decision.[5] There are various grounds on which the judiciary will
have to intervene in the exercise of discretionary power for
judicial control administrative discretion. These grounds include:
(i) Abuse of discretionary power:
When discretionary power is conferred on authority, it must be
exercised in accordance with the law. As Markose put it, “when
the mode of exercising a valid power is improper or
unreasonable, there is an abuse of power.” There are certain
circumstances from which abuse or excess of discretionary power
can be inferred. These may be acting without jurisdiction,
exceeding jurisdiction, an arbitrary action, mala fide actions,
improper motive, unreasonableness, non-observance of principles
of natural justice, etc.
(ii) Non-exercise of discretion:
judicial control administrative discretion, as non-exercise of
discretion arises either
(a) When the authority delegates his power to a subordinate
without any statutory authority, or

(b) When someone acts under dictation from superiors without

any statutory authority.
The proper test of deciding whether a delegation is valid or not is
to see if the authority who delegates had the power to so
delegate. If they did, then the action is valid and justified, but if
they did not, the action should be invalid and unlawful.[6]
The Rule of Law:

The rule of law is a principle that holds everyone, including the government,
accountable to the law. It ensures that all individuals are treated equally under the law
and that no one is above the law. The rule of law is an essential component of a
democratic society and is necessary to prevent abuse of power by the government.

The Balance between Administrative Discretion and the Rule of Law:

Administrative discretion and the rule of law are often seen as being in conflict with
each other. Administrative discretion allows officials to make decisions based on
individual circumstances, while the rule of law requires decisions to be made based on
established legal principles. However, it is possible to balance administrative
discretion and the rule of law.

Mala fide

It means with bad intention, not in good faith. The term mala side used by courts is a
broad term,

in the case of Jai Chand v.State of West Bengal,[2] the Supreme Court observed
that exercise the power of mala fide does not mean to imply any element on turpitude
is attached to it as in the case of mala fide. In the procedure of decision-making, mala
fide is allowed. Malice may be either a fact or the law. The case that motives behind
an administrative action is personal animosity, spite, personal benefit to the authority
itself or friends.

Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab[3]

The appellant, a surgeon in the employment of State Government, was granted leave
preparatory to retirement, but it was revoked and he was suspended under disciplinary
action was started against him on the charge that he had accepted Rs. 16 bribe from
the patient before going on leave. The appellant alleged these charges and had been
initiated at the instance of the chief minister to wreak the personal grudge against him
because he had refused to yield to their illegal demands of his. The Supreme Court
held that exercise of power to be mala fide.

G. Sadanadan v. State of Kerala[4]

H. The DSP (Civil Supplies Cell) passed a detention order against those kerosene
dealers who will operate without a license and dealing in kerosene illegally. It was
alleged that DSP was acting mala fide because his brother was a competitor in the
same business. The DSP did not file a counter affidavit in court against his charges.
The court quashed the action.