1

SCHOOL OF LAW

SUBJECT:- ADMINISTATIVE LAW

TOPIC:- DOCTRINE OF ULTRA VIRES

SESSION:- 2024-25

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Rashmi Gupta Rudrakshika Bhadouria

Assistant Professor B.A.LL.B.(Hons)

220117
 2

TABLE OF CONTEXT

S.NO. TOPIC P.NO.

1 Introduction 3

2 Historical context 3

3 Concept of ultra vires in administrative law 4

4 Malafied exercise of power 5

5 Judicial remedies 5

6 Application in Indian admin law 8

7 Modern trends 10

8 conclusion 12
 3

INTRODUCTION

In the dynamic world of Administrative Law, where public authorities exercise vast powers
daily, the need for a principle that restrains misuse of such power becomes crucial. The
Doctrine of Ultra Vires, meaning "beyond the powers", stands as a cornerstone to ensure
that administrative bodies act within the limits set by law. Whenever an authority acts
outside the scope of its legal power, the action is declared ultra vires and is rendered void
and unenforceable.

Administrative bodies are creatures of statute; they possess no inherent powers. Their
authority is strictly derived from, and limited by, enabling legislations. Without the Doctrine
of Ultra Vires, there would be a dangerous possibility of unchecked administrative
overreach, threatening individual rights and the Rule of Law itself.

Originally developed in corporate law to restrict companies to their stated objectives, the
doctrine soon became vital in public administrative law as governments grew more
complex and expansive. In modern governance, with its delegation of functions to specialized
agencies, Ultra Vires acts as a critical judicial tool to prevent arbitrariness, safeguard citizen
rights, and uphold constitutional principles.

In India, the doctrine has been deeply woven into the constitutional fabric through Articles
14, 19, and 21, emphasizing non-arbitrariness, fairness, and due process. Indian courts have
firmly asserted that all public power must be exercised within legal limits, reinforcing the
doctrine’s continued importance in ensuring accountable governance.

Thus, the Doctrine of Ultra Vires is not just a technical principle; it is a lifeline for
democratic legitimacy, ensuring that power remains a means of public service, not
domination.
This assignment will explore the doctrine’s historical development, types, key judicial
interpretations, evolving modern dimensions, and its vital role in maintaining the supremacy
of law over power.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
 4

The Doctrine of Ultra Vires, meaning "beyond the powers", originated in corporate law in
the 19th century. It was first used to limit a company’s activities to its chartered powers. In
Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. v. Riche (1875), the House of Lords established
that any act beyond the company’s authorized purpose was ultra vires and therefore invalid.
This principle helped protect both investors and the public from unauthorized corporate
actions.

As the state’s role in governance expanded, the doctrine migrated into administrative law.
With the rise of the welfare state and growing governmental agencies, courts began applying
Ultra Vires to prevent administrative bodies from exceeding the powers granted by
enabling statutes. In the UK, judicial review emerged as a mechanism to ensure
administrative actions remained within legal limits. This transition was significant in
establishing that executive actions must comply with statutory authority.

In India, after Independence, the doctrine was incorporated into constitutional law to ensure
executive accountability. The Supreme Court emphasized Ultra Vires in judicial reviews,
especially in landmark cases like S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) and Maneka Gandhi
v. Union of India (1978), which expanded the scope of judicial oversight on public
authorities. The principle was crucial in safeguarding fundamental rights against arbitrary
administrative actions.

Today, the doctrine continues to evolve, ensuring that administrative discretion is exercised
within the boundaries of the law, promoting justice, fairness, and accountability in
governance.

CONCEPT OF ULTRA VIRES IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

The concept of Ultra Vires in Administrative Law refers to actions taken by administrative
bodies or public authorities that exceed or act beyond the powers granted to them by law or
statute. Derived from Latin, meaning "beyond the powers", the doctrine ensures that
administrative agencies, which are created through delegated legislation, operate strictly
within the confines of their legal authority. If an administrative body engages in actions that
fall outside the scope of the powers conferred upon it by its enabling statute, such actions are
deemed ultra vires and are invalid. This concept is a critical safeguard in judicial review,
where courts examine whether public authorities have stayed within their prescribed limits.
 5

The principle of Ultra Vires serves to uphold the rule of law, ensuring that administrative
discretion is not exercised arbitrarily and that public bodies remain accountable to the law. It
acts as a check against the potential abuse of power, ensuring that any action taken by public
authorities is legal, rational, and within the scope of their authority.

MALAFIDE EXERCISE OF POWER

Malafide exercise of power refers to the abuse or misuse of power by an administrative

body or public official with illegitimate intent or for purposes other than what the power was
originally granted for. In administrative law, when power is exercised malafide, it indicates
that the official or authority is acting with an improper motive, such as to harass, oppress, or
achieve personal or political gain, rather than in the public interest or in accordance with the
law. Courts will intervene in cases of malafide action because it violates the principles of
fairness, reasonableness, and justice that must guide administrative decisions. The malafide
exercise of power is considered invalid and can be quashed by the courts, as it contradicts
the rule of law and undermines the legitimate functioning of government authorities. Courts
also emphasize that even if the decision made is within the authority of the public body, if the
exercise of that power is driven by improper motives, it constitutes an unlawful action.

JUDICIAL REMEDIES AGAINST ULTRA VIRES ACTS

When administrative actions are deemed Ultra Vires (beyond the powers granted by law),
judicial remedies come into play to safeguard the rule of law, public interest, and individual
rights. Courts provide these remedies to prevent abuse of power and ensure that public bodies
remain within their legal limits. Here are the primary judicial remedies against Ultra Vires
acts:

1. Writ of Certiorari

 Definition: The writ of certiorari allows the court to quash a decision or order made
by a public authority or administrative body if it is found to be Ultra Vires or
exceeding its legal authority.
 6

 Purpose: This remedy is used when a court finds that an administrative action has
violated the limits of power set out by the enabling statute or has been exercised in
an unlawful manner.
 Application: It is typically invoked when a person or body seeks to challenge the
legality of a decision, order, or proceeding that is beyond the authority of the
administrative body. For example, in R. v. Home Secretary, ex parte Venables
(1997), the UK courts quashed an administrative decision that went beyond the
statutory powers granted to the Home Secretary.

2. Writ of Prohibition

 Definition: The writ of prohibition is issued to prevent an administrative body from

continuing an action that is outside its legal jurisdiction or exceeding its authority.
 Purpose: This writ serves as a preventive measure to stop public authorities from
taking any further steps in an Ultra Vires act.
 Application: It is used when an authority is about to make a decision or take action
that is beyond its powers, ensuring that it does not violate legal bounds. For
example, if a regulatory authority attempts to pass a rule or regulation beyond the
powers granted to it, a writ of prohibition could prevent that rule from being enforced.

3. Writ of Mandamus

 Definition: The writ of mandamus commands a public authority to perform a duty

that it is legally obligated to do but has failed or refused to perform.
 Purpose: This writ is not used to correct an Ultra Vires action but is invoked when a
public body fails to act within its prescribed authority or refuses to carry out a
statutory duty.
 Application: For instance, if an administrative body has the authority to grant a
license but refuses to do so without proper reasoning, the court can issue a writ of
mandamus compelling the body to carry out its duty. This remedy ensures that
public authorities do not neglect their legal obligations.
 7

4. Writ of Quo Warranto

 Definition: The writ of quo warranto is used to challenge a person’s right to hold a
public office or position if they have exceeded their authority or were appointed in
an unlawful manner.
 Purpose: It serves to check that public officials hold office in accordance with the
law and that their powers are not exercised unlawfully.
 Application: If a public official is found to be exercising powers outside the scope of
their legal authority, or if they were appointed in violation of statutory requirements,
the writ of quo warranto can be issued to question their right to hold office and
remove them from power. This remedy thus ensures that public officials act within
the framework of law.

5. Injunctions

 Definition: An injunction is an order from the court that prohibits an administrative

body from taking or continuing an Ultra Vires act, or that requires them to act in a
certain way to comply with their statutory duties.
 Purpose: Injunctions can be used in administrative law to restrain unlawful actions
or compel authorities to act in accordance with the law.
 Application: In cases where the administrative body’s actions might cause irreparable
harm or continue to violate legal provisions, a court may issue an injunction to either
halt the unlawful action or compel the authority to perform its legal duty.

6. Declaration of Unconstitutionality

 Definition: In some cases, a court may declare an administrative act or decision as

unconstitutional or Ultra Vires if it exceeds the powers granted by the Constitution
or the enabling legislation.
 8

 Purpose: This remedy is used to invalidate actions that are not just beyond the
statutory authority but are also in violation of constitutional principles.
 Application: A declaration of unconstitutionality can be applied if an administrative
action infringes upon fundamental rights or constitutional provisions, as seen in
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the Supreme Court invalidated
actions that violated personal liberty under Article 21.

APPLICATION IN INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

In India, the doctrine of Ultra Vires plays a crucial role in ensuring that administrative actions
remain within the bounds of constitutional and statutory authority. It is an essential tool for
judicial review in safeguarding against arbitrary and illegal actions by public authorities. Here's
how the doctrine is applied in Indian administrative law:

1. Judicial Review under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution

 Article 32 of the Indian Constitution guarantees Fundamental Rights and gives individuals
the right to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of these rights.
 Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcing legal rights and protecting
citizens against any Ultra Vires actions by public authorities.
 Application: Under these provisions, courts in India review the actions of administrative
authorities to ensure they are in accordance with their legal powers. For instance, the
Supreme Court has invoked the Ultra Vires doctrine to quash illegal orders or actions of
the government that violate constitutional provisions or statutory limits.

2. Ultra Vires and Delegated Legislation

 Delegated legislation refers to laws made by an authority or body other than the legislature,
based on powers given by a statute.
 Application: Indian courts have consistently used the Ultra Vires doctrine to assess whether
delegated legislation is made within the limits of the enabling statute. If such legislation
exceeds the powers conferred, it is deemed invalid. For example, in Delhi Cloth & General
Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1983), the Supreme Court struck down rules that were
beyond the legislative authority granted under the Customs Act, 1962.
 9

3. Ultra Vires and Administrative Decisions

 Administrative decisions, whether in the form of rules, regulations, orders, or instructions, are
required to be within the scope of powers delegated to administrative bodies.
 Application: In India, if any public authority or administrative body makes decisions beyond
its legal mandate, those decisions can be challenged as Ultra Vires in the courts. For
instance, in the case of State of West Bengal v. The Union of India (1964), the Supreme
Court declared that actions or policies taken by an executive authority beyond its powers
would be treated as void.

4. Ultra Vires in the Context of Public Corporations and Authorities

 Public corporations, such as State Electricity Boards or Municipal Corporations, derive

their powers from the enabling legislation.
 Application: The actions of such authorities must stay within their statutory limits. If they act
beyond the powers conferred upon them, their actions will be considered Ultra Vires. For
instance, in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh
(1977), the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for public authorities to act within the
scope of powers given by the statute, asserting that any action outside those powers invalid.

5. Doctrine of Ultra Vires and the Rule of Law

 The doctrine of Ultra Vires is crucial for the rule of law in India, ensuring that public
authorities do not exceed their powers or abuse their discretion.
 Application: Indian courts use this doctrine to maintain checks and balances, ensuring that
the executive and administrative bodies do not encroach upon powers not granted to them.
The rule of law is protected by courts through judicial review to uphold accountability and
legality in administrative actions. This is especially significant in ensuring that fundamental
rights are not violated by any Ultra Vires actions.

6. Landmark Cases in India Reflecting the Doctrine of Ultra Vires

 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation
of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), stating that any Ultra Vires act by public
authorities violating this right would be struck down. The case emphasized that administrative
actions must not exceed the limits of the authority granted by law, or they will be deemed
invalid.
 10

 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): The case dealt with judicial review of administrative
actions and reaffirmed the principle that actions beyond the authority of the executive must
be struck down as Ultra Vires. It also laid down the principle that public interest and
individual rights must be upheld, even against administrative excesses.
 Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1982): In this case, the
Supreme Court upheld the importance of Ultra Vires doctrine by holding that any executive
act or administrative decision that exceeds its prescribed powers is invalid.

MODERN TRENDS AND BROADER EXPANSION OF ULTRA VIRES

Over time, the doctrine of Ultra Vires has evolved beyond the traditional confines of merely
reviewing the legality of administrative acts based on their statutory authority. The courts
have increasingly incorporated modern trends in administrative law to enhance the scope
of judicial review. These trends ensure that administrative actions not only remain within
the bounds of statutory powers but also adhere to principles of fairness, reasonableness,
and justice. The Doctrine of Proportionality and the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
have emerged as significant expansions of the traditional Ultra Vires concept.

Doctrine of Proportionality

 Concept: The Doctrine of Proportionality holds that administrative actions should

be proportional to the objective they are trying to achieve. If the administrative
action is disproportionate, meaning that the action is too broad, excessive, or harsh
relative to the objective, it can be deemed Ultra Vires.
 Purpose: This doctrine ensures that public authorities do not take drastic or
sweeping actions that go beyond what is necessary to achieve the goal. It is designed
to strike a balance between administrative discretion and the protection of individual
rights, preventing actions that are excessive in relation to the harm they seek to
prevent.
 Application: If an administrative body, while exercising its statutory powers, takes
disproportionate action that is either too broad or goes beyond what is necessary,
courts can declare such actions Ultra Vires. The courts assess whether the action
 11

serves the legitimate public interest and is not excessive in relation to the aim it
seeks to achieve.
 🧠 Case Law: Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001)
o The Supreme Court of India formally introduced the Doctrine of
Proportionality in Om Kumar v. Union of India (2001). In this case, the
Court held that when an administrative authority takes a decision, the means
used must be proportional to the end it seeks to achieve. In this case, the
Court examined whether the dismissal of an employee by the administrative
authority, without adequate procedural fairness, was proportional to the
conduct alleged.
o The Court concluded that administrative decisions must adhere to the
principles of proportionality, ensuring that the punishment or action taken by
the administrative authority does not exceed what is required for the objective
intended.

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

 Concept: The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation is based on the principle that

individuals or entities who have relied on consistent administrative practice or
promises made by public authorities have a right to expect that these expectations
will be fulfilled. If an administrative body arbitrarily deviates from these practices
without reasonable justification, such action may be Ultra Vires.
 Purpose: The doctrine ensures that administrative authorities are consistent in their
actions and respect past commitments or established practices. When public bodies
change their course of action, especially in ways that disadvantage individuals
who have relied on the earlier policy or practice, it can amount to an abuse of power
or an Ultra Vires act.
 Application: Courts can intervene when public authorities act in ways that contradict
established practices or previous assurances, especially when such actions affect
individuals' rights or interests. Courts assess whether the deviation from past practice
or promise was reasonable and justified by the public interest.
 🧠 Case Law: Navjyoti Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Union of India
(1992)
 12

o In the Navjyoti Cooperative Group Housing Society v. Union of India

(1992) case, the Supreme Court held that the cancellation of a priority list for
housing allotment, which had been created based on a previous promise or
practice, violated the principle of legitimate expectation.
o The Court found that the affected parties had legitimate expectations that
their position on the priority list would not be arbitrarily changed without due
process, especially considering their reliance on the previous assurances. The
Court ruled that the arbitrary cancellation of the list, without affording the
affected parties a hearing or proper justification, amounted to an Ultra
Vires act, as it undermined their legitimate expectations.

CONCLUSION

The doctrine of Ultra Vires is a cornerstone of administrative law, playing a pivotal role in
ensuring that public authorities and administrative bodies act within their legally conferred
powers. Over time, this doctrine has evolved from a basic tool for ensuring legal compliance
to a robust mechanism that also upholds justice, fairness, and the rule of law. Judicial
intervention in cases of Ultra Vires actions not only serves as a check on executive and
administrative power but also protects individuals and society from arbitrary, excessive, or
unlawful governmental actions.

The expansion of the Ultra Vires doctrine, particularly through the Doctrine of
Proportionality and the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, marks a significant
development in the legal landscape. These modern trends reflect the courts' commitment to
safeguarding individual rights, promoting fair administrative practices, and maintaining
the integrity of public administration. By introducing proportionality, courts ensure that
administrative measures are reasonable and necessary in achieving their objectives, while
the legitimate expectation doctrine protects individuals who rely on the consistency of public
authority decisions.

Ultimately, the Ultra Vires doctrine serves as a fundamental tool for ensuring that
administrative powers are not abused or misused. It acts as a guardian of justice, ensuring
that public authorities remain accountable to the law and do not exceed the limits of their
 13

powers. As Indian administrative law continues to evolve, the ongoing application and
expansion of this doctrine are crucial in protecting citizens' rights and maintaining the
democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution.

REFERENCE

1. https://www.jlsrjournal.in/judicial-control-doctrine-of-ultra-vires-in-administrative-law-by-
pratiksha-gautam-sakshi-nathani/

2. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-13453-the-doctrine-of-ultra-vires-a-
detailed-study.html

3. Constitution of India

4. Administrative Law in India, by M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, (7th ed., 2014)
14