1] Introduction: Sub-Delegation

Delegation and sub-delegation of powers are concepts that are commonly used in
administrative law to distribute decision-making authority within an organization or
government structure.
Meaning of “delegation” under Administrative Law
The term “delegation” refers to the granting of authority by an entity or authority to
another person or agency to perform certain tasks or exercises discretion on its behalf.
It does not imply a complete transfer or surrender of powers by the delegating person
or entity but rather involves conferring the authority to perform actions that the
delegating person would otherwise have to undertake themselves.
The person or entity granting the delegation retains a general control over the
activities of the delegate and does not divest themselves of their rights.
Scope of “delegation” under Administrative Law
It signifies the granting of authority or assigning of tasks to another party. The
delegation allows the delegate to act on behalf of the delegating person or entity
within the scope of the delegated authority.
The crucial factor is whether the authority exercises a substantial degree of control
over the actual exercise of discretion, to the point where it can be said that the
authority directs its own mind to the matter. If such control exists, then, in legal terms,
there is no “delegation,” and the maxim does not apply.
In summary, “delegation” refers to the granting of authority or assignment of tasks by
an entity or authority to another person or agency. It does not imply a complete
surrender of powers by the delegating entity. The application of the maxim depends on
whether the delegating entity exercises a significant degree of control over the
exercise of the delegated discretion, thereby directing its own mind to the matter.
Meaning of “sub-delegation” under Administrative Law
In administrative law, sub-delegation refers to the process by which a person or entity
that has been granted administrative powers or authority by a higher authority further
delegates some or all of those powers to another person or entity.
It involves the transfer of authority from the original decision-maker, known as the
delegating authority, to a third party, known as the sub-delegate, who then exercises
the delegated powers on behalf of the delegating authority.
This delegation allows for the efficient and effective administration of public affairs
by distributing the workload and decision-making responsibilities.

1
Objective and Need for Sub-delegation
The practice of sub-delegation, or further delegation of authority, is supported by
considering the following factors:
Power of Delegation: It is argued that when an authority delegates its powers to
another person or agency, it inherently includes the power of further delegation. This
means that the delegate has the authority to sub-delegate the assigned powers to
another person or agency.
This view is based on the principle that the delegate should have the flexibility to
distribute the workload and ensure efficient administration of the delegated powers.
Ancillary to Delegated Legislation: Sub-delegation is seen as an ancillary or
subsidiary process to delegated legislation. Delegated legislation refers to the laws or
regulations made by an authority other than the legislature, usually the executive,
under the powers delegated to them by the legislature.

2] QUASI JUDICIAL FUNCTION

Introduction:
Quasi-judicial bodies are administrative or non-judicial entities that possess the
authority to adjudicate disputes, make decisions, and impose penalties in specific
areas. Although not part of the traditional judicial system, they exercise powers akin to
courts, thereby providing a more efficient and focused mechanism for dispute
resolution. Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution empower the establishment
of such bodies.
Body:
Constitutional provisions related to Quasi-judicial bodies:
 Article 323A enables the creation of administrative tribunals to handle disputes
related to public services,
 While Article 323B allows both Parliament and State Legislatures to set up
tribunals for various areas such as taxation, land reforms, and industrial
disputes.
 These entities offer a specialized dispute resolution system, supplementing
the traditional judiciary.

2
Some concrete examples of quasi-judicial bodies in India are:
 Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT):
o CAT is a specialized tribunal established under the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, to adjudicate disputes related to recruitment and
service conditions of public servants.
o It was created to provide speedy and effective redressal for grievances of
government employees, thereby reducing the burden on traditional
courts.
 National Green Tribunal (NGT):
o Established under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, NGT is a
specialized body that deals with environmental disputes involving the
enforcement of legal rights related to the environment, pollution control,
and conservation of natural resources.
o The NGT is empowered to hear civil cases involving substantial
questions related to the environment and impose penalties on violators.
 Competition Commission of India (CCI):
o The CCI is a statutory body set up under the Competition Act, 2002, to
prevent practices that have an adverse effect on competition, promote
and sustain competition, protect consumer interests, and ensure freedom
of trade.
o The CCI has the authority to investigate anti-competitive practices,
impose penalties, and issue orders to regulate market competition.
Conclusion:
These bodies are essential for providing efficient, specialized, and focused dispute
resolution or decision-making mechanisms, complementing the traditional judicial
system in addressing the complexities of modern society.

3] Speaking Order in Administrative Law

The principles of natural justice are fundamental to ensuring fairness and transparency
in administrative and judicial proceedings. Two key maxims underpin these principles:
“Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa” (no one should be a judge in their own
cause) and “Audi alterem partem” (hear the other party).
These maxims ensure impartiality and the right to a fair hearing, respectively. The
concept of a speaking order, also known as a reasoned order, is often considered the
third limb of natural justice.

3
Meaning of Speaking Order
A speaking order is a decision or order that explicitly states the reasons for the
decision. It “speaks” for itself by detailing the rationale behind the adjudicating body’s
conclusion. This transparency is important for the affected parties to understand why
the decision was made and provides a basis for judicial review. In essence, a speaking
order tells its own story, ensuring that the decision-making process is transparent and
fair.
Characteristics of a Speaking Order
A speaking order must possess certain characteristics to fulfil its role effectively:
1. Adequate and Sufficient Reasons: The decision must contain enough reasons
to justify the conclusion. The reasons should be clear, logical and pertinent to
the case.
2. No Particular Form Required: There is no prescribed format for recording
reasons. The emphasis is on the substance rather than the form.
3. Applicability to Public and Private Law: Speaking orders are relevant in
both public and private law contexts, ensuring fairness and transparency across
different types of legal proceedings.
Need for Speaking Orders
Speaking orders play a vital role in promoting fairness and transparency
in administrative law. Their necessity arises from several considerations:
1. Fairness in Administrative Powers: They ensure that the exercise of
administrative powers is fair and just.
2. Minimising Arbitrariness: By requiring reasons, speaking orders help reduce
arbitrary decision-making.
3. Right to Reasons: They uphold the right to know the reasons behind a
decision, an essential part of sound judicial review.
4. Good Administration Practice: They reflect best practices in administration
by ensuring that decisions are well-reasoned and transparent.
5. Satisfaction to Affected Parties: They provide the affected parties with the
rationale behind the decision, which can be important for acceptance and
compliance.
6. Effective Use of Right to Appeal: Knowing the reasons for a decision enables
the affected party to effectively exercise their right to appeal or seek further
redress.

4
 Case Laws on Speaking Orders

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978): The Supreme Court ruled that
administrative authorities must provide reasons for decisions affecting fundamental
rights, reinforcing the need for transparency and accountability
Union of India v. E. G. Nambudiri (AIR 1991 SC 1216): The absence of reasons
does not necessarily render an administrative order illegal if the authority is not
statutorily required to record reasons.
Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India (AIR 1984 SC 1271): The Court held that while
reasons need not be communicated, they must exist and be recorded to ensure the
decision’s legality.
Conclusion
Speaking orders are integral to the principles of natural justice, ensuring that
administrative and judicial decisions are fair, transparent and accountable. By
requiring reasons to be recorded, speaking orders minimise arbitrariness,
uphold the right to reason and facilitate effective judicial review. They are an
important aspect of good governance and administration, reflecting a
commitment to fairness and the rule of law.

Through landmark judgements, the judiciary has reinforced the importance of

speaking orders, making them a cornerstone of administrative justice. As
administrative law continues to evolve, the role of speaking orders in
promoting transparency and accountability will remain vital.

Introduction
Tortious liability of the state refers to the legal responsibility of the government
or state entities for wrongful acts that cause harm to individuals or their
property. Unlike criminal liability, which involves offenses against the state,
tortious liability focuses on civil wrongs and the compensation of victims.
In many legal systems, the state enjoys certain immunities, but exceptions exist
where citizens can seek redress for injuries caused by the state’s actions. In this
post, we will discuss Tortious Liability of the state and the immunity of the
state in certain situations.
4] What is Sovereign Immunity?
Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that historically shielded the
government or sovereign entity from being sued without its consent. This
principle originated from the notion that the king or sovereign authority should
not be subjected to the jurisdiction of its own courts. While sovereign immunity
has ancient roots, its application has evolved over time, and many legal systems
have modified or waived it to a certain extent.

5
 Absolute vs. Qualified Sovereign Immunity:
 Absolute Immunity: Historically, sovereign immunity was absolute, providing
broad protection against lawsuits. This meant that the state could not be sued
without its consent, regardless of the nature of the claim.
 Qualified Immunity: In contemporary legal systems, many jurisdictions have
moved towards qualified immunity. This means that while the state retains a
level of protection, it can be sued in specific circumstances or for certain types
of claims. Qualified immunity is often subject to statutory provisions and
limitations.
Tortious Liability of the State
The concept of state tort liability has evolved over time. Traditionally, the state
enjoyed sovereign immunity, which shielded it from civil suits. However, as
societies developed and notions of accountability and justice advanced,
exceptions to sovereign immunity were introduced, allowing citizens to hold
the state accountable for certain wrongful acts.
Tortious liability of the state refers to the legal responsibility of the government
or state entities for civil wrongs, or torts, committed by their agents or
representatives. This liability allows individuals to seek compensation when
they suffer harm, injury, or property damage due to the negligent or intentional
actions of the state or its employees.
Historically, India adhered to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, but this has
been significantly modified. The government can be sued for its actions in
areas where it has expressly waived immunity, such as contract disputes or
certain tortious claims.
Article 300 of the Indian Constitution provides that the Government of India
and the governments of the states may sue or be sued by the name of the Union
of India and the States, respectively. This lays the foundation for the state’s
liability in civil cases.
Types of Tortious Liability
Tortious liability encompasses a variety of civil wrongs, or torts, for which an
individual or entity can be held legally responsible. Here are some common
types of tortious liability of state
1. Negligence:
Definition: The state can be held liable for negligence when its actions or
inactions fall below the standard of care, resulting in harm to individuals or
property.
Example: Failure to maintain public infrastructure leading to accidents.

6
2. Nuisance:
Definition: State activities that cause unreasonable interference with an
individual’s use and enjoyment of their property may lead to liability for
nuisance.
Example: Government construction projects causing excessive noise or
pollution.
3. Defamation:
Definition: The state can be held liable for making false statements that harm
the reputation of individuals or entities.
Example: Government officials making false statements about a private
citizen.
4. Assault and Battery:
Definition: Liability may arise if state employees engage in intentional harmful
actions, such as assault or battery.
Example: Excessive use of force by law enforcement officers.
5. False Imprisonment:
Definition: The state may be liable for wrongfully restraining the freedom of
an individual.
Example: Unlawful arrest or detention by government agents.
6. Breach of Statutory Duty:
Definition: Liability may arise when the state breaches a duty imposed by
statute, leading to harm.
Example: Failure to comply with safety regulations, resulting in injuries.
7. Environmental Tort:
Definition: Liability for harm caused by the state’s actions that result in
environmental pollution or degradation.
Example: Improper disposal of toxic waste by a government agency.
Landmark Cases on Tortious Liability of State
The Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa case is a landmark judgment in Indian
legal history that addressed issues related to custodial deaths and the liability of
the state for violations of fundamental rights. The case gained significance for
establishing the right to compensation for victims of custodial violence or their
legal heirs.

7
he primary legal issue in this case was whether the state could be held liable for
the custodial death of an individual. Nilabati Behera argued that her son’s
fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution were violated,
and sought compensation from the state for its failure to protect those rights.
The court held that the state is vicariously liable for the actions of its
employees, including the police. It stated that custodial violence is a serious
violation of human rights, and the state cannot plead sovereign immunity for
such actions.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India is a landmark case in Indian environmental law
that played a crucial role in shaping the legal framework for environmental
protection. The case involved issues related to the operation of industries in and
around the Taj Trapezium Zone, an ecologically sensitive area near the Taj
Mahal in Agra.
The primary legal issues in the case included the protection of the environment
and the cultural heritage of the Taj Mahal. M.C. Mehta argued that the
operation of industries within the TTZ was leading to air pollution and posed a
threat to the preservation of the monument.
The court emphasized the application of the public trust doctrine, asserting that
natural resources, including the environment, are held in trust by the state for
the benefit of the public, and the state is obligated to protect these resources.
State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati is a landmark judgment that laid the
foundation for the doctrine of sovereign immunity in India. It involved a fatal
accident caused by a government-owned bus in the state of Rajasthan. The
primary legal issue was whether the State could be sued for tortious acts
committed by its servants while performing governmental functions. The State
argued that it was immune from such lawsuits, relying on the principle of
sovereign immunity.
The Court held that the State is immune when its employees act in the
discharge of sovereign functions. Sovereign functions were broadly defined to
include activities that are essential for the normal functioning of the
government, such as maintenance of law and order and administration of
justice.
The Court clarified that the State could be vicariously liable for the acts of its
servants in certain situations, especially when they are acting in the course of
their employment.
The case of Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a
significant case in India that deals with the concept of sovereign immunity in
the context of governmental functions.

8
 The primary legal issue was whether the State could be held liable for the
tortious acts committed by its employees while engaged in governmental
functions. The State argued that it was immune from such liability based on the
principle of sovereign immunity.
The Court clarified that the State could be vicariously liable for the acts of its
employees if those acts are committed in the course of their employment and in
the discharge of governmental functions.
Conclusion
Tortious liability of the state represents a crucial aspect of government
accountability, balancing the rights of individuals with the need to protect the
state’s ability to function effectively. Legal frameworks continue to evolve to
address the complexities of holding the state accountable for its actions.

5] What is Public Interest Litigation and What is Its Importance?

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) means a case or petition filed before a court to
protect, safeguard or enforce public interest. Public interest means the interest or
right belonging to the society, a particular class of the community or a group of
people. PILs are filed to resolve a problem affecting the legal rights of a community or
the public at large.
PILs are filed in the courts to safeguard group interests, not individual interests. It
can be filed only in the Supreme Court of India or the State High Courts. PILs
have become a powerful tool to enforce the legal obligation of the legislature and
executive. The primary objective behind PILs is to provide justice to all and promote
the welfare of the people
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Meaning
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is not defined in any law, statute or act. It is filed
before the courts under the Constitution of India to protect public rights and
promote general welfare. The concept of PIL originated in India from the power of
judicial review. A PIL is filed in a court not by the aggrieved person but by a private
person interested in public welfare and betterment of society.
Anyone can file a PIL for any matter affecting the interest of the public, such as road
safety, pollution, construction hazards, terrorism, neglected children, atrocities on
women, exploitation of casual workers, bonded labour, non-payment of minimum
wages to workers, food adulteration, disturbance of ecological balance, maintenance
of heritage and culture, etc.
Importance of Public Interest Litigation

9
PIL is a vital tool to enforce the human rights of those people who do not have
access to them due to poverty or such other reasons. It also helps judicially monitor
state institutions like protective homes, prisons, asylums, etc. PIL aims to facilitate
common people to access the courts to seek redress in legal matters. It is a crucial
tool for social change, accelerating the attainment of justice and law and upholding
the rule of law.
PIL has been critical in bringing about political and social change in India and has
been instrumental in exposing and addressing various issues affecting the public. PIL
has been used to protect the rights of the marginalised, such as bonded labourers, slum
dwellers and prisoners and helped to improve their living conditions. It is used for
safeguarding group interests for which fundamental rights have been provided.
The original goal of PILs was to make justice available to the marginalised and
underprivileged. It aimed to make justice accessible to everyone. Later on, the scope
of PIL was expanded to implement the legal obligation of the executive and legislature
through judicial review.
PILs guarantee judicial review of administrative actions through increased public
participation. PILs have commonly been used to challenge the decisions of public
authorities by the parameters of judicial review, the lawfulness of a decision or action,
or to review a failure to act.
Who can file a Public Interest Litigation?
All Indian citizens or organisations can file a public interest litigation petition
before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India or the High
Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the person or
organisation filing the PIL petition must prove to the court that the PIL is being filed
for an issue concerning public interest and that it will benefit the public at large.
A PIL can only be filed against the Central Government, municipal governments or
State Government and not against individuals. The Parliament of India, each State's
Legislature, and all local or other authorities under the control of the government are
included in the definition of a government.
Process to file a Public Interest Litigation
Below are the steps to file a PIL:
Step 1: The person filing the PIL (known as the petitioner) must understand the issues
concerning people at large by researching and consulting all the individuals or groups
related to the issue.
Step 2: The petitioner must collect all the necessary information and documents as
evidence to support the PIL petition.

10
Step 3: Draft the PIL petition containing the name of the court, name and address of
the petitioner and opposite party (respondent), the article under which it is filed, facts
of the case (facts and information of the issue concerning public) and the relief sought
from the court.
Step 4: Send a copy of the PIL petition to the respondent.
Step 5: File the PIL petition with the Supreme Court or High Court along with the
proof of sending the petition copy to all the respondents. If the petitioner files the PIL
in High Court, he/she must submit two copies of the petition to the court and in the
case of the Supreme Court, the petitioner must submit five copies of the petition to the
court.
How much money is required to file a PIL in India?
The court fee for filing a PIL is Rs.50 per respondent. However, the expense of
arguing the case in front of the court depends on the advocate the petitioner chooses.
Public Interest Litigation Examples
PILs have played an important role in India’s polity. They are responsible for some
landmark judgements in India, such as the banning of triple talaq, opening the doors
of the Sabarimala and the Haji Ali shrines to women, legalising consensual
homosexual relations, legalising passive euthanasia, etc.
A few famous cases related to PIL are as follows:
1. Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar case: This case was the first reported
instance of PIL in India, which brought attention to the issue of inhuman
conditions of prisoners and undertrial prisoners.

2. Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan: This case is related to the issue of sexual
harassment in the workplace. As a result, the Vishaka Guidelines came into
effect, published in 1997, which provided employers with the definition of
sexual harassment, a list of preventative strategies, and information on filing
complaints of workplace sexual harassment

What is Audi Alteram Partem?

Audi Alteram Partem is a Latin phrase that translates to “hear the
other side.” It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that
ensures fairness in legal proceedings and administrative actions.
This principle requires that all parties involved in a dispute or
legal matter should have the opportunity to be heard and present
their case before a decision is made.

11
 It is based on the belief that a fair decision can only be reached
when all sides of an argument are considered and given a chance
to respond. Audi Alteram Partem in Administrative Law is
considered a cornerstone of the rule of law and is essential for
upholding justice and preventing arbitrary decisions.
Essential Elements of Audi Alteram Partem
The principle of audi alteram partem is a fundamental aspect
of natural justice and fair legal proceedings. Its essential
elements include:
 Notice
 Hearing
 Evidence
 Cross-examination
 Legal Representation

Notice
Notice is a fundamental element of natural justice, ensuring that parties are
informed of any action proposed against them. It provides individuals with the
opportunity to respond and defend themselves. Without proper notice, any
subsequent order or decision is considered void ab initio or void from the
beginning.
Hearing
Fair hearing is another crucial aspect of the principle of audi alteram partem,
ensuring that parties have the opportunity to present their case and be heard
before any decision is made. If an authority passes an order without giving the
affected party a fair hearing, the order is considered invalid.
Evidence
Evidence is a critical component of any legal proceeding and it must be
presented when both parties are present. The judicial or quasi-judicial authority
will base its decision on the evidence presented before it.
Cross-examination
Cross-examination is a vital aspect of the legal process, allowing parties to
challenge evidence presented against them without necessarily revealing the
identity of the person providing the evidence. While the court is not obligated
to disclose the identity of the person or the material against them, the
opportunity for cross-examination must be provided.
Legal Representation
Legal representation, while not always deemed essential for a fair hearing in
administrative proceedings, can significantly impact a party’s ability to
12
understand and effectively navigate the legal process. In certain circumstances,
the denial of the right to legal representation may constitute a violation of
natural justice.
Exceptions to Audi Alteram Partem
The rule of audi alteram partem in Administrative Law is not universally
applicable and may be excluded in certain circumstances where it would not
serve a meaningful purpose. This exclusion is not a deviation from the principle
of natural justice but rather a recognition that in some situations, the
requirement for a formal hearing may be unnecessary or impractical.
Conclusion
Audi Alteram Partem, as a principle of natural justice, embodies the essence of
fairness and due process in legal proceedings. Its concept revolves around the
fundamental idea that all parties should have the opportunity to present their
case and respond to allegations before a decision is made.
The essentials of Audi Alteram Partem in Administrative Law include the right
to notice, a fair hearing, the presentation of evidence, cross-examination and
legal representation. While there are exceptions to its application, such as in
cases of impracticability or legislative functions, Audi Alteram Partem remains
crucial in upholding justice, preventing arbitrary decisions and ensuring
transparency and fairness in legal systems worldwide.

5 Types of Bias Under Administrative Law

Any form of prejudice towards an issue or a party in the case, whether
conscious or unconscious, is called bias. This does not render the mind immune
to outside influences of any type.
This article examines the types of bias that can emerge in administrative law
and the significance of upholding the principles of natural justice.
Principles of Natural Justice
Natural justice is a crucial legal idea that assures fair and just decision-
making in administrative and judicial procedures. It is often referred to as
the notion of procedural fairness.
Decision-makers must act impartially, without prejudice, while considering the
rights and interests of all parties concerned.
According to this idea, any individual or entity affected by a decision must
have a chance to be heard, present their case, and reply to any criticisms
levelled at them.

13
 This idea is crucial for upholding justice, preventing the misuse of authority,
and preserving public confidence in the fairness of judicial and administrative
processes.
The two primary principles of natural justice are:
 ‘Nemo judex in causa sua‘ which means that no one should be allowed to be a
judge in their own case, emphasising the rule against bias.
 ‘Audi alteram partem‘ which means that the other party should be given a
fair opportunity to be heard, and no one should be condemned without a chance
to present their side of the case.
Additionally, a third principle, the rule against bias, underscores the necessity
of impartiality. This principle states that the decision-making authority should
avoid making judgments that are influenced by personal prejudices or biases. It
demands a fair and unbiased approach to reaching a decision.
Rule Against Bias
The rule against bias, also known as the rule of impartiality, is a
fundamental principle of natural justice that ensures decision-makers and
adjudicators are free from any personal, financial, or other biases that could
influence their judgment. The rule requires those responsible for making
administrative or legal decisions to act unbiased and impartially.
In practical terms, the rule against bias means that decision-makers should not
have any personal interest, prejudice, or connection to the parties involved in a
case.
A reasonable apprehension of discrimination can lead to the decision being
considered invalid and may necessitate a review or appeal.
The rule against bias is essential to maintain the integrity and credibility of
judicial and administrative processes, as it ensures that decisions are made
solely on the merits of the case and not influenced by any external factors that
could compromise fairness and justice.
5 Types of Bias
The five biases can be categorised as follows.
1. Personal Bias
When a decision-maker has a personal interest or connection to one of the
parties participating in the administrative procedure, it is said to have personal
bias. Due to this connection, the decision-maker may be influenced,
compromising fairness and impartiality in an administrative case.
2. Pecuniary Bias

14
Pecuniary bias can also be called financial bias. The term “pecuniary bias”
describes a circumstance in which the person making the judgement has a
financial stake in how the case will turn out.
This occurs when a decision-maker has a direct or indirect financial stake in the
outcome of the case. It may result in a conflict of interest and cast doubt on the
impartiality of the decision-maker’s judgement.
For example, having any kind of business relationship with one of the parties
involved in the case.
3. Subject Matter Bias
Subject matter bias occurs when the person making the judgement is interested
in the case’s subject matter, either directly or indirectly.
As a result, the decision-maker’s associations could influence how the issue is
decided.
4. Departmental Bias
Departmental bias is when administrative authorities show unfair favouritism
or prejudice towards particular groups or departments. It’s a problem because
they might treat some people better than others or make unfair choices.
5. Preconceived Notion Bias
Preconceived notion bias refers to a situation when the decision maker holds
any opinions or pre-existing beliefs about any issue or party involved in the
case.
It can significantly influence decision-making and lead to unfairness and
impartiality in administrative proceedings.
Conclusion
Bias in administrative law can have significant repercussions, undermining the
notions of natural justice and jeopardising the objectivity of decision-making
procedures.
Maintaining the principles of natural justice, which demand that all parties
concerned have the chance to be heard and respond to claims free from any
undue influence, depends on recognising bias and dealing with it.
The legal system may preserve public confidence, safeguard individual rights,
and guarantee that administrative judgements are made exclusively on the
merits of each case by abiding by these principles and avoiding bias.

Theory of Checks and Balances

15
 The theory of checks and balances is a principle of government that aims to
prevent any one branch or institution from becoming too powerful or abusing
its authority. It does so by dividing the power among different branches or parts
of the government, such as the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.
Each branch has some ability to check and balance the actions of the other
branches, creating a system of mutual accountability and shared responsibility.

Some examples of checks and balances are:

 The legislature can make laws, but the executive can veto them or the judiciary
can declare them unconstitutional.
 The executive can appoint judges, but the legislature can approve or reject
them.
 The judiciary can interpret the laws and the constitution, but the legislature can
amend the constitution or impeach the judges.
Checks and balances are the mechanisms which distribute power throughout a
political system – preventing any one institution or individual from exercising total

16
control. The words ‘checks’ and ‘balances’ are typically used together, but can be
thought of as referring to subtly different (though overlapping) things. Checks are the
mechanisms which allow political institutions to limit one another’s power – for
example by blocking, delaying or simply criticising decisions. Balances, meanwhile,
ensure that a wide variety of views and interests are represented in the democratic
process. This includes structures like federalism, or broader features of democratic
functioning such as the existence of multiple political parties.
The term ‘checks and balances’ is given more prominence in some countries than
others and is often particularly associated with the United States.
Legislative Checks:
● Over Executive: The legislative branch can check the power of the executive branch
(e.g., President) in several ways, such as by approving or rejecting presidential
appointments, confirming treaties, an impeaching and removing the President.
● Over Judicial: The legislature can also have an impact on the judicial branch by
confirming or rejecting judicial appointments and by having the authority to initiate
the process of amending the constitution.
Executive Checks:
● Over Legislative: The executive branch has the power to veto bills passed by the
legislature. While the legislature can override a veto with a supermajority vote, the
veto power gives the executive significant influence over the legislative process.
● Over Judicial: The President appoints federal judges, including Supreme Court
justices, with the advice and consent of the Senate. This allows the executive branch
to shape the composition of the judiciary. Judicial Checks:
● Over Executive and Legislative: The judiciary has the power of judicial review,
which allows it to interpret and, if necessary, invalidate laws and executive actions
that are deemed unconstitutional. This check on both the legislative and executive
branches is a significant power of the judiciary.
The idea of checks and balances is crucial because it upholds the rule of law,
safeguards individual liberties, and encourages responsible government. It does,
however, come with certain drawbacks, including the potential for obstruction, delay,
or conflict between the branches; the challenge of striking a balance between
accountability and efficiency; and the requirement for ongoing citizen participation
and vigilance.
The theory of checks and balances is essential in preventing the concentration of
power and ensuring that no single branch of government becomes too dominant. It
provides a system of accountability and transparency by allowing each branch to
monitor and influence the actions of the others.
Difference between conditional legislation and delegated legislation:

Aspect Conditional Legislation Delegated Legislation

Definition Legislation made by the legislature Legislation where the legislature

17
Aspect Conditional Legislation Delegated Legislation

delegates the power to make rules,

but becomes operative only upon
regulations, or bylaws to a subordinate
the fulfillment of certain conditions.
authority.

The legislature retains the primary Legislative powers are conferred on an

Authority to
authority but enacts laws contingent executive authority or subordinate body
Legislate
on specific conditions being met. to frame detailed rules or regulations.

Relates to conditional enactment of Relates to the detailed implementation

Focus
laws. and administration of laws.

Activation of the law depends on a Subordinate authority creates detailed

Key Feature
predefined condition being fulfilled. provisions under the parent act.

A law stating that certain provisions Rules and regulations framed by

Example will apply only after a notification by ministries or government departments
the government. under an enabling act.

The legislature retains more control, Supervision may be through

Control
as conditions are predetermined by parliamentary oversight or judicial
Mechanism
it. review.

To enable flexibility in applying laws To handle technical or administrative

Purpose
based on future circumstances. details of lawmaking.

Limited to conditions for enforcing Broader scope, covering rules, bylaws,

Scope
legislative provisions. notifications, and administrative details.

18