ADMINISTRATION LAW

MODULE – 1

The concept of Administrative Law focuses on controlling the power of the government to prevent
abuse and arbitrary use of authority. This is because a strict separation of powers between the three
branches of government—executive, legislature, and judiciary—is not entirely possible in practice.

Separation of Powers (SoP):

The idea of separation of powers was developed by Montesquieu in his work Spirit of the Laws. He
proposed three main principles for an ideal system of governance:

1. One branch should not be a part of the other.

2. No branch should influence another branch.

3. No branch should perform the functions of another.

The U.S. Constitution is built on these principles, with its first three articles outlining the roles of the
legislative (Article I), executive (Article II), and judicial (Article III) branches. The ultimate goal of this
separation is to uphold the Rule of Law, which means that no one, not even the government, is
above the law.

However, in reality, it's difficult to maintain strict separation of powers. For example, in India during
the Emergency from 1972 to 1977, the legislature made only 302 laws, while the executive (which
should not be primarily making laws) created 25,515 laws in the form of rules and regulations. This is
an example of delegated legislation, where the executive makes rules that have the power of law,
though the Constitution does not explicitly allow the executive to make laws.

Need for Administrative Law:

Because strict separation of powers isn’t feasible, Administrative Law exists to regulate how the
government exercises its power. Without these checks, the concentration of power can lead to
corruption and arbitrariness, which violates the Rule of Law.

For instance, in certain situations, the executive branch not only makes laws (legislative function) but
also enforces them (executive function) and sometimes even decides disputes (judicial function). If
only courts handled disputes, the judicial process could become slow and overloaded. To prevent
delays, the executive sometimes handles adjudicatory (dispute-resolving) functions. This shows how
strict separation of powers isn’t followed strictly in practice.

The role of administrative law is to:

 Ensure that the government does not exceed its authority.

 Prevent abuse of power by providing guidelines on how the government should act.

 Control arbitrary actions through regulations and rules, especially when the executive
performs legislative or judicial functions.

In simpler terms, administrative law is like a system of rules that keeps a check on the government’s
actions. Since the government’s powers grow over time, administrative law also grows to adapt to
new challenges and ensure the government stays within the limits of the law.

Checks and Balances vs. Separation of Powers:

While separation of powers tries to keep each branch of government separate, checks and balances
allow each branch to have some influence over the others. For instance, the legislature can check the
executive’s powers by passing laws, while the judiciary can review laws to ensure they are
constitutional.

Conclusion:

In summary, while the separation of powers is a key principle in preventing the concentration of
power, it cannot be strictly applied. Therefore, Administrative Law plays an important role in
checking the government’s power and ensuring that it operates within the boundaries of the law,
helping to maintain the Rule of Law.

Sources of Administrative Law are the various ways through which administrative law principles are
created and shaped. Here are the key sources explained simply:

1. Precedents (Judicial Decisions)

Precedents are legal principles established through court decisions. In administrative law, precedents
are significant because they don’t just interpret existing laws—they create new principles to ensure
that government power is exercised fairly and within the bounds of law. Judicial decisions establish
important rules for how the government should act, particularly to maintain Rule of Law.

For example, in the landmark case of Ridge v. Baldwin, the House of Lords (HoL) established that all
administrative actions, even if not explicitly required by law, must comply with the principles of
natural justice—basic fairness and fair procedures (such as giving someone a chance to be heard
before being dismissed from their job). This case created a major principle that applies to all
administrative decisions today.

2. Constitution of India

The Constitution of India also provides important principles that overlap with administrative law,
particularly:

 Article 14 (Right to Equality): Ensures that the government treats everyone fairly and does
not act arbitrarily.

 Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): Protects individuals from unfair actions by the
government that could affect their life or personal freedom.

 Article 32: Allows individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly if their fundamental
rights are violated.

These constitutional provisions are the foundation for many administrative law principles because
they restrict the government's power and protect citizens' rights.

3. Statutes (Legislation)

In some countries like the UK, US, and EU, there are specific laws or statutes that govern
administrative law. Although India does not have a single statute for administrative law, many laws
indirectly influence how administrative power is used. For example, various laws give government
departments the power to create rules and regulations, known as delegated legislation.

4. Committee and Commission Reports

Reports by expert committees and commissions also shape administrative law. These reports often
suggest reforms or improvements in how government power should be controlled, providing
recommendations that help evolve administrative law.

Delegated Legislation and Important Cases:

Delegated Legislation refers to laws or rules made by the executive (government departments or
agencies) under the authority given by the legislature (Parliament). This is important because, while
the legislature is supposed to make laws, the executive often needs to make detailed rules and
regulations for specific areas.

Re Delhi Laws Act Case (1951):

This case is crucial in Indian administrative law. After independence, there was confusion over the
validity of delegated legislation. In the case of Jatindra Nath Gupta v. Province of Bihar, the idea of
delegated legislation was questioned, causing chaos as many government-made rules were
challenged.

To resolve this, the President referred the issue to the Supreme Court under Article 143 (which
allows the President to seek the Court’s advice). The Supreme Court held that delegated legislation
is constitutionally valid, but certain key legislative functions cannot be delegated. This remains the
law today—basic legislative powers must stay with Parliament, but Parliament can delegate the
creation of specific rules to the executive.

INTRODUCTION –

Administrative Law: Overview and Key Features

1. Definition: Administrative law governs the activities and functions of government and public
administration. It deals with the powers, duties, and regulations that control government
actions, ensuring legality, fairness, and accountability.

2. Context and Necessity:

o Administrative law fills the gap where the Constitution, though providing a broad
structure of governance, is not detailed enough to regulate the day-to-day functions
of the executive or administration.

o While the Constitution provides the framework and fundamental principles for
governance, administrative law offers the specific rules, procedures, and guidelines
necessary for managing government functions effectively.

o This need arises because the Constitution alone cannot anticipate or regulate all
aspects of government actions, necessitating the development of administrative law.

3. Distinction from Constitutional Law:

o Constitutional law establishes broad principles like the separation of powers,

fundamental rights, and governance structures, but it does not address the detailed
regulation of administrative functions.
 o Administrative law, on the other hand, focuses on government operations at a
granular level, providing specific rules and regulations for the functioning of various
government agencies and departments.

4. Character of Administrative Law:

o Executive-Focused: Administrative law primarily concerns itself with the executive

branch of the government, though the executive often performs functions that
overlap with both the legislative (rule-making) and judicial (dispute resolution)
domains.

o It governs how the executive implements and enforces laws and performs its
responsibilities, ensuring that administrative actions are lawful, reasonable, and fair.

o Administrative law is not concerned with the internal workings of the legislature
(law-making) or judiciary (adjudication), except where the executive takes on these
roles.

5. Functions of the Executive:

o The executive not only implements laws but also exercises certain legislative and
judicial powers through mechanisms like delegated legislation (rules and regulations
created by the executive) and quasi-judicial functions (administrative tribunals
resolving disputes).

6. Codification:

o In India, administrative law is not fully codified or consolidated into a single statute.
Instead, it is developed through a combination of constitutional provisions, judicial
interpretations, rules, regulations, and guidelines issued by administrative
authorities.

o In contrast, many foreign jurisdictions have increasingly codified administrative law

into specific statutes, creating comprehensive legal frameworks to regulate
government functions.

7. Conclusion:

o Administrative law is essential for ensuring that government power is exercised

properly and within legal bounds. While the Constitution establishes the overarching
system of governance, administrative law ensures the practical and procedural
regulation of government actions, particularly those of the executive branch.

o It provides mechanisms for citizens to challenge government actions, seek redress,

and hold the executive accountable, thereby maintaining the rule of law in public
administration
Sources Of Administrative Law

1. Precedent
2. Constitution
3. Statues
4. Committee and commission report

When administrative law is viewed as a body of general principles, its evolution through judicial
precedents becomes essential, particularly in shaping the scope and boundaries of executive power.
Here's an analysis of how precedents form the core of administrative law, with a focus on the Delhi
Laws Act case:

1. Role of Judicial Precedents in Administrative Law

 Precedents: Judicial decisions play a fundamental role in the development of administrative

law. Courts interpret, clarify, and apply principles that regulate the functions of the
executive. These interpretations form the body of administrative law, particularly in common
law countries like India, the UK, and the US.

 The courts' power to review the legality of executive actions, set limits on delegated powers,
and ensure the separation of powers are core elements derived from judicial precedents.

2. The Delhi Laws Act Case (1951)

 This landmark case in India addressed crucial questions about the scope of delegated
legislation and the extent to which the executive can exercise legislative powers.

 Three legal questions were brought before the Supreme Court (SC) concerning the
constitutional validity of certain provisions in three statutes:

o Section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act

o Section 2 of the Parsi Act

o Section 2 of the Ajmer Merwara Laws Act

Key Findings:

 The SC ruled that delegated legislation—where the legislature delegates certain law-making
powers to the executive—was constitutionally valid.

 However, the court distinguished between essential legislative functions and non-essential
functions:

o Essential functions, such as determining the policy or object of a law, cannot be

delegated to the executive. These core decisions must remain with the legislature.

o Non-essential functions, like implementing or detailing how the law is executed,

could be delegated.

Key Issues Addressed:

 What are Essential Legislative Functions?

o The SC did not conclusively define all essential legislative functions but provided
guidance through its interpretation.
 o Repealing or amending laws was identified as an essential function of the
legislature. The executive cannot perform these tasks, as they form the core of the
legislative process.

o However, the court left the question of what constitutes essential functions open for
future judgments, thus reinforcing judicial supremacy in determining these
boundaries.

 Future Adjudication on Essential Functions:

o Subsequent judicial decisions further clarified the scope of essential legislative

functions, such as:

 Determining the policy or object of an act: The executive cannot alter or

define the core objectives of a law.

 Taxation: The power to impose taxes is a legislative function that cannot be

delegated to the executive.

 Retrospective legislation: The power to enact laws that operate

retrospectively is an essential legislative function.

 Jurisdiction and defining offences: The creation of criminal offences and the
determination of jurisdictional matters are also deemed essential legislative
functions that cannot be delegated.

3. Impact of the Delhi Laws Act Case

 The Delhi Laws Act case played a pivotal role in shaping the doctrine of delegated legislation
in India and established important principles that continue to govern the division of powers
between the legislature and the executive.

 The case highlights the judicial supremacy in reviewing and limiting the delegation of
legislative powers to the executive, ensuring that the separation of powers is respected.

4. Conclusion

 Precedents such as the Delhi Laws Act case form the backbone of administrative law in
India. Through judicial interpretation, courts have clarified the boundaries of executive
authority and the permissible scope of delegated legislation.

 These precedents evolve over time, as courts continue to interpret and apply principles,
particularly in cases involving executive overreach or violations of essential legislative
functions. The Supreme Court’s role in defining these limits remains crucial in maintaining
the balance of powers and ensuring that administrative actions comply with constitutional
principles.

The cases of Ridge v. Baldwin and A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India have had a monumental impact
on the development of administrative law, particularly with respect to the application of the
principles of natural justice in administrative and quasi-judicial functions.

1. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) - Magna Carta of Administrative Law

 Ridge v. Baldwin is often referred to as the "Magna Carta" of administrative law principles.
The case is significant because it established that the principles of natural justice must be
applied not only to quasi-judicial functions but also to administrative actions.

  The case involved Ridge, who was a senior police officer and Chief Constable of Brighton
in the UK. In 1957, he was charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice, along with several
other police officers. While others were convicted, Ridge was acquitted, but the judge
criticized his performance and management, saying he had been negligent in his duties as
Chief Constable.

  Following this, the Watch Committee—a local government body responsible for
overseeing the police force—held a meeting and decided to dismiss Ridge from his position
without giving him an opportunity to defend himself. The Committee did not provide Ridge
with any formal reasons for his dismissal, nor did they allow him to explain or respond to
the allegations made against him.

 Key Holding:

o Before 1961, the principles of natural justice, like the right to a hearing (audi alteram
partem), were confined to judicial and quasi-judicial functions. However, Ridge v.
Baldwin expanded this doctrine, stating that the principles of natural justice should
apply even to administrative functions where a decision could adversely affect a
person’s rights or interests.

 The case firmly established that the executive could not act arbitrarily and must respect
basic procedural fairness.

2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)

 This case is often considered a cornerstone of administrative law in India. It extended the
principles of natural justice to administrative actions in the Indian context, building on the
legacy of Ridge v. Baldwin.

 Background: The case involved the selection process for senior positions in the Indian Forest
Service (IFS), a highly prestigious government service. A Selection Board was constituted to
recommend suitable candidates for promotion to senior positions in the service.

  One of the members of the Selection Board, Mr. H.L. Deka, was also a candidate for the
same position he was involved in selecting. Even though Deka did not actively participate in
the decision-making process when his name was being considered, his presence on the
Board raised concerns about bias and the fairness of the selection process.

  A.K. Kraipak, one of the candidates who was not selected, challenged the selection
process in court, arguing that the entire process was tainted by the conflict of interest and
procedural unfairness due to Deka’s dual role as a candidate and a member of the Selection
Board..

 Key Holding:

o The Supreme Court of India ruled that administrative actions must also adhere to
the principles of natural justice, especially the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa
sua – "no man shall be a judge in his own cause").
 o The decision blurred the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial
functions, asserting that all administrative actions affecting individual rights must
comply with the principles of natural justice.

 Significance for India: The A.K. Kraipak case is essential because it entrenched the concept
that even administrative bodies must act fairly, ensuring procedural safeguards against bias
and arbitrariness.

3. State of Orissa v. Dr. Bina Pani Dei (1967)

 This case, which predates A.K. Kraipak, established an important precedent in Indian law by
holding that principles of natural justice must be followed even in administrative decisions.
In this case, the Supreme Court held that an administrative decision determining the age of a
person must be based on a proper hearing, affirming that fair procedure is a constitutional
right.

 The Bina Pani case laid the groundwork for later decisions, including A.K. Kraipak,
reinforcing the idea that administrative actions should not be arbitrary and must follow due
process.

Dr. Binapani Dei was an employee of the State of Orissa, serving as a medical officer. The
dispute arose regarding her date of birth:

 Dr. Binapani Dei had declared her date of birth as April 10, 1907, in official records.
 However, the Orissa State Government later initiated an inquiry into her date of
birth, suspecting that the recorded date was incorrect.
 Based on this inquiry, the government unilaterally determined her date of birth as
April 16, 1902, without providing Dr. Binapani an opportunity to be heard or present
her case. This administrative decision had serious consequences as it meant she would
reach the age of superannuation earlier and face premature retirement.


4 Thomas Bonham v. College of Physicians (1610)

This case, also known as Dr. Bonham’s Case, is a landmark in the development of the rule
against bias in English common law, introduced by Lord Edward Coke. The case was
instrumental in shaping one of the foundational principles of natural justice, nemo judex in
causa sua, which means "no one should be a judge in their own cause." The rule addresses the
dangers of pecuniary bias and conflicts of interest in decision-making processes.

Background:

 Dr. Thomas Bonham, a physician, practiced medicine in London without a license from the
College of Physicians. The College fined and imprisoned him, claiming he violated their
rules.

 Dr. Bonham challenged this in court, arguing that the College of Physicians had a conflict of
interest because they had the power to both regulate medical practice and profit from the
fines they imposed.

Lord Edward Coke’s Judgment:

 Lord Coke ruled that the College of Physicians had acted as a judge in their own cause,
meaning they stood to gain financially from their decisions. This was inherently biased and
unfair.

 He declared that "no one ought to be a judge in his own cause," establishing the nemo
judex in causa sua principle.

 Additionally, Coke suggested that even an Act of Parliament (the law that gave the College
its powers) could be held invalid if it was against common right and reason—a
controversial idea at the time, suggesting the common law could override statutory law in
cases of fairness and justice.

Significance:

 This case laid down a foundational rule for the modern concept of judicial review and
natural justice.

 It continues to influence cases where pecuniary bias or conflicts of interest are present,
ensuring that decisions are made impartially, especially when the deciding body has a
stake in the outcome.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)

The Wednesbury case is one of the most important judgments in administrative law regarding
the control of discretionary powers exercised by public authorities. The case established the
Wednesbury test of reasonableness, which is used to determine whether an administrative
decision is lawful.

Background:

 The Wednesbury Corporation granted a license to Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd.
to operate a cinema, but imposed a condition that no children under the age of 15 would
be admitted to the cinema on Sundays.

 The cinema company challenged this condition, arguing that the Corporation's decision
was unreasonable.

Lord Greene's Judgment:

 Lord Greene, delivering the judgment, ruled that courts would not interfere with an
administrative decision unless it was found to be "so unreasonable that no reasonable
authority could ever have come to it."

 This formed the basis of the Wednesbury principle or Wednesbury unreasonableness,

which is a standard for judicial review of administrative decisions.

Wednesbury Test of Reasonableness:

 A decision can be overturned if it is found to be:

o Irrational or arbitrary: The decision is so unreasonable that no sensible person

could have made it.

o Outside the scope of power: The authority exceeded the legal limits of its powers.
 Courts do not substitute their own judgment for that of the public authority but intervene
when there is a clear abuse of discretion.

Significance:

 The Wednesbury principle remains central to judicial review of administrative decisions. It

serves as a safeguard to ensure that public authorities exercise their powers rationally and
fairly.

 It protects against arbitrary decision-making, ensuring that public bodies act within their
legal limits and follow reasonable standards of governance.

The Role of the Constitution in Administrative Law

The Constitution of India plays a key role in regulating administrative law, particularly in
controlling the arbitrariness of executive decisions and preventing the abuse of power.

Key Constitutional Provisions:

 Article 14 (Right to Equality): Ensures that all citizens are treated equally before the law.
Any arbitrary or discriminatory decision by the executive can be challenged as a violation
of this article.

 Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): Ensures that the procedures followed by the
state in depriving a person of their life or liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Arbitrary decisions affecting an individual's rights or liberty can be reviewed under this
article.

Constitution as a Check on Executive Power:

 The executive branch of the government, including administrative authorities, is subject to

constitutional limitations. The courts ensure that executive decisions are made in
accordance with the law and within the bounds of the Constitution.

 Any decision found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory can be challenged and

overturned by the courts.

Indirect Influence of the Constitution on Administrative Law:

 The Constitution provides a framework that indirectly shapes administrative law. It ensures
that executive authorities exercise their powers in a manner that upholds fairness, non-
arbitrariness, and reasonableness.

 By safeguarding against arbitrary use of discretion, the Constitution promotes

transparency, accountability, and due process in administrative governance.

Conclusion:

The cases of Thomas Bonham and Wednesbury Corporation highlight foundational principles
of natural justice and reasonableness in administrative law, both of which are essential to
judicial review. In India, the Constitution reinforces these principles by ensuring that executive
actions are fair, just, and in line with constitutional mandates, protecting individual rights
against arbitrary state power.
Conclusion

The evolution of administrative law has been significantly shaped by judicial precedents like
Ridge v. Baldwin, A.K. Kraipak, and others. These cases emphasize the importance of applying
natural justice principles in administrative actions, ensuring procedural fairness and
accountability. They also underscore the role of the judiciary in controlling executive discretion,
preventing bias, and upholding constitutional rights.

CONSTITUTION

The Constitution of India plays a pivotal role in shaping and regulating administrative law by
ensuring that the executive's actions are checked against constitutional provisions. Here’s a
detailed explanation:

a. Arbitrariness in Executive Decisions Regulated by the Constitution:

The Constitution serves as a watchdog over the executive's power, ensuring that the executive
does not act arbitrarily or outside its defined powers. If any executive decision is found to be
arbitrary, it can be challenged and reviewed by the judiciary on the basis of various
constitutional provisions.

 Article 14 (Right to Equality) is crucial in preventing arbitrariness. It mandates equality

before the law and equal protection of laws, implying that all actions of the state, including
the executive, must be reasonable and non-discriminatory. Any arbitrary or unreasonable
decision can be struck down as unconstitutional under Article 14.

 Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) ensures that no person can be deprived of their
life or liberty except by following a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law. If
an administrative action affects the life or liberty of an individual in an arbitrary manner, it
violates Article 21.

Thus, the Constitution provides mechanisms for individuals to challenge executive arbitrariness
through judicial review.

b. Constitution as a Source of Administrative Law Principles:

The Constitution not only restricts the arbitrary actions of the executive but also provides a
source of administrative law principles. Several constitutional provisions set the standards for
how the executive and administrative authorities should function.

 Rule of Law: A key constitutional principle that underpins administrative law is the Rule of
Law, which means that the government is bound by law and cannot act outside the legal
framework. Every administrative action must conform to this principle.

 Separation of Powers: Although the executive has the power to implement laws, the
judiciary has the power to interpret laws and review the actions of the executive, ensuring
there is no overreach or abuse of power.

These constitutional principles create a framework for administrative law, ensuring that the
actions of the executive are accountable and just.
c. Direct and Indirect Influence of Constitutional Principles on Administrative Law:

Many constitutional principles, either directly or indirectly, influence administrative law. Some
important examples include:

 Natural Justice: Constitutional interpretations by the courts have extended principles of

natural justice (fair hearing, rule against bias) to administrative actions. This means even
administrative authorities must follow fair procedures, especially when they make decisions
that affect individuals' rights.

 Judicial Review: The Constitution, through its various articles, has given the courts the power
to review the decisions of administrative bodies to ensure that their actions are not
arbitrary, biased, or irrational. The courts ensure that administrative decisions comply with
constitutional values like fairness, reasonableness, and justice.

d. Key Articles of the Constitution of India Relevant to Administrative Law:

 Article 14 – Right to Equality: Ensures that all persons are treated equally under the law, and
any arbitrary or discriminatory action by the executive can be challenged on the grounds of
equality.

 Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Provides that no person can be deprived of
life or personal liberty except according to fair and reasonable procedures established by law.
Administrative decisions that affect personal liberty must adhere to this standard of fairness.

 Article 32 and Article 226 – Right to Constitutional Remedies: These articles provide
individuals with the right to approach the Supreme Court or High Courts if their fundamental
rights are violated. These courts also have the power of judicial review to strike down any
arbitrary administrative action that violates constitutional rights.

 Article 300A – Right to Property: Ensures that no person can be deprived of their property
except by the authority of law, thereby regulating any arbitrary executive decision that seeks
to dispossess someone of their property.

 Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 36-51): Though not enforceable by courts, these
principles provide guidance to the executive and the judiciary to ensure that policies and
decisions are just and aimed at promoting social welfare.

Conclusion:

The Constitution of India forms the backbone of administrative law by providing a framework
that curbs arbitrariness and unfettered discretion in executive actions. Through judicial review
and constitutional remedies, individuals are protected from the misuse of executive power,
ensuring that the administrative functions of the state are in line with principles of fairness,
equality, and justice.
Statutes Governing Administrative Law

1. Comparison of Administrative Law Legislation in the US, England, and India:

a. United States: In the US, administrative law is heavily governed by specific legislation, with
one of the most prominent being the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946. This act
outlines the procedures federal agencies must follow when rule-making, adjudicating disputes,
or issuing licenses. It ensures that administrative agencies provide due process, transparency,
and follow legal procedures.

Additionally, the Federal Tort Claims Act (1946) allows individuals to sue the federal government
for tortious acts committed by government employees in the course of their duties. This is a
critical legislative provision that holds the government accountable for wrongful acts.

In the US, administrative law is therefore largely statutory, with detailed legislative frameworks
regulating the conduct, powers, and procedures of administrative authorities.

b. England: England has several specific pieces of legislation that directly regulate administrative
law:

 Rule Publication Act, 1983: This legislation mandates that rules, laws, and by-laws made by
the executive (delegated legislation) must be published. It ensures transparency in the law-
making process by making it compulsory to publish delegated legislation.

 Statutory Instruments Act, 1946: This act grants general authority to the executive to create
laws. It sets out the scope, extent, and procedures for executive law-making, and these
statutory instruments act as substantive law.

 Tribunals and Enquiries Act, 1958: Regulates tribunals and inquiries, ensuring that
adjudication processes follow established standards, particularly with respect to procedural
fairness.

 Crown Proceedings Act, 1947: This allows individuals to bring claims against the Crown
(government) in civil matters, removing the old notion that "the King can do no wrong" and
holding the government accountable for wrongful acts.

c. India: Unlike the US or UK, India does not have a single comprehensive legislation governing
administrative law. Instead, administrative law in India has been developed through a
combination of statutes and judicial decisions. However, there are several important statutes
that regulate administrative practices:

 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Establishes tribunals to adjudicate disputes between

central government employees and the government concerning their rights and liabilities. It
reduces the burden on courts by providing a specialized adjudicatory mechanism.

 Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013: This act aims to curb maladministration by providing a
mechanism for public accountability and redressal. While it deals with grievances related to
corruption, it extends beyond that by addressing hardship caused by maladministration.
 General Clauses Act, 1897: This act provides interpretative tools for administrative
proceedings. It helps in understanding how various terms used in administrative legislation
should be interpreted and applied.

 Right to Information Act, 2005: Ensures transparency in administration by allowing citizens

to access information held by government authorities. It enforces the idea that fairness in
administration is a right, and governmental decisions and activities must be open to scrutiny.

 Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003: Established the Central Vigilance Commission
(CVC), a statutory body to combat corruption in government agencies. The CVC has
oversight powers and can monitor the activities of various investigative agencies to ensure
clean governance. The CVC's role and powers were largely shaped by the Supreme Court's
ruling in Vineet Narain v. Union of India.

2. Judicial Evolution and Statutory Changes:

In India and other common law countries, administrative law was initially developed mainly
through judicial decisions. Courts have played a crucial role in interpreting constitutional
principles and extending them to administrative actions, especially in the absence of
comprehensive legislative frameworks.

However, there have been instances where judicial decisions have overturned or modified
statutory provisions related to administrative law. For example:

 The Tribunals and Inquiries Act (UK) allows the right to legal representation before tribunals
based on the relevant statutes. The statutes may restrict legal representation in certain
cases.

However, judicial decisions have expanded this principle. For example, in Pett v. Greyhound
Racing Association, Lord Denning emphasized that in administrative cases, the right to legal
representation is fundamental and must be available across all administrative adjudications. This
established that even if a statute is silent on the right to legal representation, the courts may
interpret this right as essential to the principles of natural justice.

3. Administrative Law in the United States:

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 1946: This is the primary legislation governing
administrative law in the US. It outlines the procedure administrative agencies must follow when
they perform rule-making or adjudicatory functions. It establishes a detailed framework for
how agencies conduct hearings, issue orders, and make decisions, ensuring that due process is
followed.

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 1946: This act allows individuals to sue the federal government
for wrongful acts committed by its employees, which is essential for ensuring government
accountability. It helps to balance the immunity enjoyed by the government and provides
recourse for citizens affected by government actions.

In the US, therefore, administrative law is heavily codified, and legislative frameworks like the
APA provide comprehensive guidelines for how administrative bodies function.
4. India’s Administrative Law Efforts:

India has made several attempts to codify administrative law through legislation. However,
administrative law in India still heavily relies on judicial interpretations. Some key legislative
efforts include:

 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Provides a forum for resolving disputes between the
central government and its employees, helping to reduce the burden on traditional courts.

 Lokpal Act, 2013: This legislation aims to combat maladministration and provides a legal
mechanism for the public to hold the government accountable. It differs from the
Prevention of Corruption Act by addressing broader administrative issues beyond
corruption.

 Right to Information Act, 2005: Ensures transparency in government activities and

administrative actions, giving the public the right to access information held by the
government.

These legislative mechanisms have been crucial in shaping administrative law in India, although
judicial decisions continue to play a significant role in interpreting and expanding the scope of
these laws.

Conclusion:

While the US and UK have detailed legislative frameworks governing administrative law, India
has a mix of legislative and judicial developments. Statutes like the Administrative Tribunals Act
and the Right to Information Act have been significant in regulating administrative actions, but
judicial precedents continue to play a crucial role in shaping administrative law in India.

COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION

The notes you’ve shared provide an overview of several important aspects of administrative law
in different countries, including key statutes, committees, and judicial systems. Here's a
simplified breakdown:

Key Statutes in Administrative Law:

United States:

 Administrative Procedure Act, 1946: Governs how federal administrative agencies propose
and establish regulations, including adjudicatory procedures.

 Federal Tort Claims Act, 1946: Allows private individuals to sue the U.S. government for
certain tortious acts.

United Kingdom:

 Rule Publication Act, 1983: Requires the publication of delegated legislation made by the
executive.
 Statutory Instruments Act, 1946: Provides the framework for the creation and regulation of
statutory instruments (delegated legislation).

 Tribunals and Enquiries Act, 1958: Regulates how tribunals operate and adjudicate disputes.

 Crown Proceedings Act, 1947: Establishes the conditions under which the Crown
(government) can be sued in civil cases.

India:

 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Sets up tribunals to adjudicate disputes between

government employees and the government.

 Lokpal Act, 2013: Addresses maladministration by establishing an ombudsman (Lokpal) to

investigate corruption complaints against public officials.

 Right to Information Act, 2005: Ensures transparency and fairness in government by

allowing citizens to request information from public authorities.

 Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003: Establishes the CVC to oversee corruption cases in
government bodies.

Reports of Committees and Commissions:

United Kingdom:

 Donoughmore Committee on Minister's Powers: Examined delegated legislation and its

limits, recommending parliamentary controls like the Select Committee on Statutory
Instruments.

 Franks Committee on Tribunals and Enquiries: Recommended reforms in administrative

tribunals, leading to the Tribunals and Enquiries Act, 1958, which regulated the functioning
of tribunals in the UK.

India:

 Committee on Subordinate Legislation: Reviews and scrutinizes delegated legislation.

 Cinematograph Act: Created the Censor Board but controversially ousted judicial review of
its decisions. Judicial review, however, can only be ousted by legislation, not by delegated
law.

Judicial Systems and Administrative Law:

Germany:

 Federal Administrative Courts: Separate from civil and criminal courts, these courts
specifically handle administrative disputes, functioning as specialized courts. They have a
three-tier system:

1. Administrative Courts

2. Higher Administrative Courts

3. Federal Administrative Court

 The Federal Constitutional Court handles constitutional disputes, but does not serve as an
appellate court for administrative matters.

United States:

 Administrative law is substantially found in legislation, and the judicial review of

administrative actions is mainly governed by statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act.

Additional Insights:

 Administrative law has developed significantly through judicial decisions, though legislative
attempts to overturn judicial rulings are rare.

 Delegated legislation in the UK and India is subject to certain limitations and controls, with
parliamentary committees playing an essential role in oversight.

 Influential academic figures like AV Dicey and SP Sathe have shaped administrative law
discussions in the UK and India, respectively.

MODULE 2 – essential doc

Doctrine of Separation of Powers
1. Definition: The Doctrine of Separation of Powers refers to the division of government
responsibilities into three distinct branches: legislature, executive, and judiciary. Each
organ operates independently and performs its functions separately.
2. Three Organs of Government:
o Legislature: Responsible for making laws.
o Executive: Responsible for implementing and enforcing laws.
o Judiciary: Responsible for interpreting laws and administering justice.
3. Historical Background:
o Creator of the Principle:
 Aristotle: First introduced the concept of separation of powers in
ancient philosophy.
 Bodin: Popularized the principle in France.
 Locke: Further developed the idea in the UK, emphasizing the
importance of governmental separation.
o British Perspective: The British system favored the rule of law, characterized
by parliamentary supremacy and the role of the House of Lords, which
influenced the administration. In this system, ministers were also members of
Parliament, suggesting a less strict separation.
4. French Legal System: Article 12 of the French Constitution explicitly provides for the
separation of powers, reflecting a formal commitment to the principle.
 5. Montesquieu:
o Introduced the concept of separation of powers in his work Esprit des Lois
(Spirit of Laws).
o His ideas formed the foundation of the U.S. Constitution, emphasizing the
importance of dividing governmental powers to prevent tyranny.
6. Three Principles of Separation of Powers: a. No Person Should Belong to More Than
One Organ:
o Example: Ministers should not serve as members of Parliament to ensure clear
distinctions between roles.
b. One Organ Should Not Control Another:
o Example: The judiciary must maintain absolute independence from the
executive and legislative branches to ensure impartiality in legal matters.
c. One Organ Should Not Exercise the Functions of Another:
o Example: Each organ must perform only its designated functions to maintain
the integrity of the governmental structure and avoid conflicts of interest.
Summary
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers is fundamental to ensuring a balanced and fair
governmental system. By clearly delineating the roles and responsibilities of each branch, it
aims to prevent the concentration of power and protect individual liberties. This principle has
been influential in shaping modern democratic systems, especially in the context of the U.S.
Constitution and various international legal frameworks.
Doctrine of Separation of Powers: Simplified Explanation
1. Concept Overview:
o The Doctrine of Separation of Powers is a principle that divides government
responsibilities into three distinct branches: the legislature (makes laws), the
executive (enforces laws), and the judiciary (interprets laws). This division is
intended to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power.
2. Impossibility of Complete Separation:
o Complete separation of powers is more of an ideal than a practical reality.
Even in the U.S. Constitution, there are overlaps. For example, some executive
officials are also involved in legislative processes (like the President's ability
to veto legislation).
o This overlap shows that while each branch has its functions, they often interact
and influence each other.
3. Main Principle:
 o The core idea is that no one organ should exercise the functions of another.
For example, judges should not make laws, and lawmakers should not enforce
laws. This keeps each branch accountable and prevents the misuse of power.
4. Ideal vs. Reality:
o In theory, for a state to function properly, there should be a complete
separation of powers, meaning no individual or group should belong to more
than one branch. This ideal aims to protect democracy and individual rights.
5. Administrative Law’s Role:
o Given the practical impossibility of strict separation of powers,
administrative law becomes crucial. It helps create a balance between the
branches by:
 Allowing the executive to create detailed rules and regulations based
on laws passed by the legislature (delegated legislation).
 Providing a framework for how agencies operate, ensuring they do not
overstep their authority.
 Establishing checks and balances through judicial review, where courts
can review the actions of administrative agencies to ensure they
comply with the law and respect individual rights.
6. Finding Balance:
o The practical application of the separation of powers requires a balance
between the three branches. Administrative law helps maintain this balance by
clarifying the roles and responsibilities of each branch and providing
mechanisms for oversight and accountability.
Summary
While the strict separation of powers is an ideal that cannot be fully realized in practice, the
Doctrine serves as a guiding principle for democratic governance. Administrative law plays a
key role in achieving a workable balance between the legislative, executive, and judicial
branches, ensuring that power is distributed and that no single branch becomes too dominant.
This balance is essential for protecting individual rights and maintaining a fair and effective
government.
Separation of Powers in the United States: Simplified Explanation
1. Constitutional Framework:
o Article 1: Legislative powers are vested in the U.S. Congress, which consists
of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
o Article 2: The executive power is held by the President, Vice President, and
other officers.
o Article 3: Judicial powers are vested in the judiciary, which includes the
U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts.
2. Strict Separation of Powers:
o The U.S. Constitution is based on the strict separation of powers principle
proposed by Montesquieu. Each branch has its own distinct functions and
responsibilities.
3. Judicial Interpretation:
o In Kilbourn v. Thompson, Justice Frankfurter argued that strict separation
of powers would make modern governance impossible. This highlights the
practical difficulties of adhering strictly to this doctrine.
o Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that the separation of
powers is a fundamental principle of the Constitution that should not be
diluted.
4. Fundamental Principle:
o The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that separation of powers is
essential. For example, in Field v. Clerk, the Court reiterated that this doctrine
is a fundamental principle in the U.S.
5. Impossibility of Complete Separation:
o While the Constitution outlines clear separations, in practice, strict
separation is impossible:
 Legislative and Executive: Congress (both the House of
Representatives and the Senate) influences the executive branch by
approving presidential nominations, controlling the budget, and
holding impeachment powers.
 Legislative and Judiciary: The Senate confirms judicial appointments
and can impeach judges.
 Judiciary and Legislative: The judiciary has the power to declare
laws unconstitutional.
 Executive and Judiciary: Supreme Court justices are nominated by
the President, who can also have their actions declared unconstitutional
by the judiciary.
6. Examples of Overlap:
o Presidential Powers: The President has the authority to pardon individuals,
which is a judicial function.
o Veto Power: The President can reject legislation passed by Congress,
showcasing a legislative function performed by the executive.
o Budget Control: The President is responsible for formulating the federal
budget in consultation with Congress, demonstrating collaboration between
branches.
 7. Legislative Functions:
o Congress has judicial powers, such as expelling and punishing its members.
This illustrates that the legislature also engages in judicial functions.
8. Presidential Veto and Legislative Control:
o The President's veto power can temporarily halt legislative actions, indicating
a significant degree of control over the legislative process.
9. Judicial Review:
o The judiciary has the authority to exercise judicial review, allowing it to
oversee and control actions by both Congress and the President, thereby
maintaining a check on their powers.
Conclusion
The U.S. Constitution establishes a framework for the separation of powers among the
legislative, executive, and judicial branches. However, in practice, this separation is not
absolute. The interplay and checks among the branches illustrate the complexity of
governance and the necessity for balance in a functioning democracy. This balance is crucial
to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful and to ensure accountability within
the government.
Separation of Powers in the United Kingdom: Simplified Explanation
1. Rule of Law:
o The United Kingdom strongly adheres to the Rule of Law, which means that
laws apply equally to all individuals and institutions, including the
government. This principle is fundamental to ensuring justice and
accountability in the legal system.
2. Role of Administrative Law:
o In the UK, administrative law serves as an important mechanism to enforce
the Rule of Law. It governs the activities of public authorities and ensures that
they act lawfully, fairly, and reasonably in their decision-making processes.
Through judicial review, individuals can challenge the actions of
administrative bodies, thereby protecting their rights.
3. Separation of Powers:
o Unlike the strict separation of powers seen in the United States, the UK does
not have a formal constitution that clearly delineates the functions and powers
of its three branches: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.
o The UK system is characterized by a more flexible and interdependent
approach:
 Legislature: Comprises Parliament, which consists of the House of
Commons and the House of Lords. Parliament makes laws and holds
the government accountable.
  Executive: The government is formed by the political party (or
coalition) that holds the majority in the House of Commons. The Prime
Minister and the Cabinet are part of this branch, making the executive
accountable to Parliament.
 Judiciary: The courts interpret and apply the law. While they are
independent, their functions can sometimes overlap with the executive
and legislative branches, particularly in areas of judicial review.
4. Imperfect Separation:
o The UK’s approach to separation of powers is not strict. Members of the
government (executive) can also be members of Parliament (legislature),
leading to a blending of functions. This arrangement facilitates accountability
but blurs the lines between the branches of government.
o Judicial powers are exercised independently by the courts, but they can also
review legislative acts and executive decisions to ensure compliance with the
law.
5. Conclusion:
o The UK's model of separation of powers is characterized by collaboration and
oversight among the branches rather than a rigid separation. Administrative
law plays a critical role in maintaining the Rule of Law by holding public
authorities accountable and protecting citizens' rights, demonstrating the
importance of balance and flexibility in governance.
Separation of Powers in India: Simplified Overview
1. Lack of Strict Separation:
o India does not have a strict separation of powers like some other countries.
While there are discussions around the need for such separation, the Indian
Constitution does not explicitly enforce it.
2. Constitutional Assembly Proposals:
o During the drafting of the Constitution, certain members, including K.T.
Shah, Sri Hanumanthaiyya, and Qazi Sayed Karimuddin, proposed the
inclusion of provisions for separation of powers.
o These proposals were ultimately rejected by the Constituent Assembly, which
decided that strict separation was not necessary for India's governance.
3. Article 50:
o Dr. B.R. Ambedkar suggested the insertion of Article 50, which is the only
provision in the Constitution that addresses the concept of separation of
powers.
 o Article 50 states that the state should take steps to separate the judiciary from
the executive in the public service. However, this separation is not enforced
strictly.
4. Basic Structure Doctrine:
o Although separation of powers is not explicitly defined, it has been recognized
as part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This means it is considered
essential for the governance of the country and is often referred to in
constitutional interpretation.
5. Executive and Legislative Overlap:
o Article 53 states that the President of India is the executive head. However,
Article 79 makes the President a part of the legislature, as no bill can become
law without the President's assent.
o The President also performs legislative functions through ordinance-making
powers and has rule-making powers under Article 309 regarding service
matters.
o Article 357 allows the President to take over law-making powers in specific
situations, showcasing the overlap of functions between the executive and
legislative branches.
6. Judicial Functions of the President:
o The President also has judicial responsibilities, such as deciding cases of
disqualification of Parliament members under Article 103 and exercising the
power of pardon under Article 72.
7. Creation of New States:
o According to Article 3, the President initiates the process for the formation of
new states or alteration of boundaries, which involves law-making activities
that blur the lines between the executive and legislative branches.
8. Judiciary's Role:
o The judiciary also engages in legislative and executive functions. For instance,
the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to create rules for the
administration of justice and can govern their procedures. They also have
powers related to appointments and other administrative functions.
9. Case Law:
o In Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab (1955), the Supreme Court
recognized the intertwined nature of the functions of the different branches of
government, emphasizing that a strict separation is impractical.
Conclusion
While India recognizes the concept of separation of powers, it operates in a more flexible
manner, allowing overlap among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This
structure is designed to ensure governance efficiency and accountability, while still aiming to
maintain the Rule of Law and protect citizens' rights.
Separation of Powers in Indian Constitutional Law: Key Cases
1. Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab (1955)
 The Supreme Court in Ram Jawaya Kapoor reaffirmed that India does not follow
the doctrine of separation of powers in a strict sense. Although the powers of the
executive, legislature, and judiciary are distinct, they are not rigidly separated. The
executive has the power to act in areas where the legislature is competent to legislate,
even in the absence of legislation, without necessarily violating the doctrine of
separation of powers.
2. In Re: Delhi Laws Act (1951)
 The Supreme Court, in this case, also held that separation of powers is not strictly
applied in India. The judgment observed that while the three organs of government
are distinct, some overlap is permissible under the Constitution. The Ram Jawaya
Kapoor case later reiterated this principle.
3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
 This landmark case raised the question of whether separation of powers forms part
of the basic structure of the Constitution.
 The court held that while the Constitution can be amended under Article 368,
amendments must not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. The judgment
established the basic structure doctrine but did not provide an exhaustive list of
features that constitute the basic structure.
 Some judges in the Kesavananda Bharati case considered separation of powers as
part of the basic structure, though it was not explicitly listed.
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
 In this case, the Supreme Court provided more clarity by holding that separation of
powers is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution while determining the
constitutionality of the 39th Constitutional Amendment.
 This was a significant attempt to define the features of the basic structure, affirming
that legislative, executive, and judicial functions should remain distinct and not
encroach upon each other.
5. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015)
 In the NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) case, the Supreme
Court struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment, which sought to alter the
process of judicial appointments, on the grounds that it violated the principle of
separation of powers. The court emphasized that judicial independence, protected by
separation of powers, is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
6. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010)
  This case dealt with the constitutionality of the Companies (Amendment) Act,
2002, which proposed the creation of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The Supreme Court
used the doctrine of separation of powers to invalidate certain provisions of the
Amendment Act that allowed the executive to interfere with judicial functions,
deeming it a violation of the basic structure.
Conclusion
In Indian constitutional law, while the separation of powers is a recognized principle, it is not
applied in a strict sense. The basic structure doctrine, as established in Kesavananda
Bharati, has been used by the Supreme Court to protect this principle, particularly when
constitutional amendments or laws infringe upon the functional autonomy of the three
branches of government. Cases like Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and SCAORA v.
UOI have affirmed that separation of powers forms a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution and thus cannot be violated by amendments or legislation.
RULE OF LAW
S Rule of Law: Key Aspects and Importance
1. Why Rule of Law?
o The Rule of Law ensures that governmental actions are conducted according
to law rather than based on the arbitrary whims of individuals. It is a safeguard
against the abuse of power, ensuring that both the government and individuals
are subject to legal norms.
2. Administrative Law as a Tool to Achieve the Rule of Law
o Administrative law provides the framework for controlling the powers of the
executive and ensuring that they act within the boundaries of the law. It helps
maintain the Rule of Law by providing mechanisms for reviewing executive
actions, thus preventing abuse or arbitrary decisions by public authorities.
3. English Perspective on the Rule of Law
o The English legal system places a strong emphasis on the Rule of Law as a
foundational principle. Historically, English jurists, like Sir Edward Coke,
argued that the Rule of Law should be the final aim of any constitution,
ensuring that law prevails over individual discretion or authority.
o In England, the Rule of Law is seen as the main governing principle of the
constitution, promoting fairness, equality before the law, and accountability.
4. Origin of the Rule of Law: French Influence
o The concept is influenced by the French phrase "La Principe de Légalité",
meaning government based on principles of law, not of men. This
emphasizes that the government’s actions must be conducted in accordance
with established laws, rather than personal or political preferences.
5. Sir Edward Coke’s Contribution
 o Sir Edward Coke, an English jurist, is credited with developing the Rule of
Law doctrine in the 17th century. He insisted that even the King is subject to
the law and that the courts have the power to review and invalidate unlawful
actions of the government. Coke’s work laid the foundation for the principle of
judicial review.
6. Purpose of the Rule of Law
o The Rule of Law aims to prevent arbitrariness and authoritarian actions by
ensuring that all actions taken by public authorities are governed by
established legal principles.
o It guarantees that all individuals, including those in power, are subject to the
same legal standards, thus ensuring fairness and justice in the functioning of
society.
7. Key Elements of the Rule of Law
o Equality before the law: No one is above the law, and everyone is subject to
the same legal framework.
o Accountability: Public authorities and officials are held accountable for their
actions through legal means.
o Legal Certainty: Laws should be clear, publicized, and applied consistently.
o Fairness in the application of the law: Laws must be applied impartially and
fairly to prevent discrimination or bias.
Conclusion
The Rule of Law is a fundamental principle that underpins modern constitutional
democracies, ensuring that power is exercised within the constraints of established laws.
Administrative law plays a crucial role in achieving and maintaining the Rule of Law by
providing checks and balances on governmental actions, thus safeguarding citizens' rights
and preventing arbitrary or authoritarian rule.
A.V. Dicey’s Three Principles of Rule of Law
A.V. Dicey, a prominent British jurist, formulated three key principles in his work Law and
the Constitution that form the foundation of the classical doctrine of the Rule of Law. These
principles emphasize the supremacy of law, equality before the law, and the importance of a
legal framework to protect rights. Here’s a breakdown of each principle:
1. Supremacy of Law
 No Arbitrary Power: Dicey emphasized that there should be supremacy of regular
law, as opposed to the exercise of arbitrary power by the state or its officials.
Governmental powers must be defined and limited by established laws, which
prevents the risk of authoritarianism or arbitrary rule.
 Limitation on Discretionary Power: Dicey was against any form of wide
discretionary power vested in administrative authorities, as discretion often leads to
 arbitrariness. He believed that discretionary power could undermine the Rule of
Law by allowing authorities to act based on personal judgment rather than established
legal norms.
 Government by Law: A country must be governed through regular law, and all
governmental actions must conform to the law. Dicey argued that discretion must be
minimal, and actions taken by public officials should be strictly regulated by legal
provisions, ensuring that the law reigns supreme.
2. Equality Before the Law
 Equal Subjection to the Law: Dicey’s second principle holds that all individuals,
regardless of their rank or class, must be equally subject to the ordinary law of the
land, and ordinary courts must administer that law. He rejected the idea of special
privileges for certain classes or individuals.
 No Special Courts or Laws: According to Dicey, the existence of special laws and
special courts would violate the principle of equality before the law. He maintained
that all persons should be governed by one set of laws and tried in the same courts to
maintain the rule of equality.
 Equal Protection of the Law: Dicey believed that all people should have equal
protection under the law, and any divergence from this, such as creating separate
legal regimes or systems of justice, would undermine the fundamental equality before
the law.
3. Predominance of Legal Spirit (Judicial Supremacy)
 Protection of Rights Through Judicial Decisions: Dicey argued that individual
rights and freedoms were not created by the constitution but by the courts. The
judiciary plays a crucial role in enforcing the law and safeguarding citizens’ rights. If
a legislature or government violates rights, the courts act as the protector of these
rights.
 Role of the Judiciary in Protecting Rights: Even if rights are abrogated through
legislative acts or constitutional amendments, Dicey maintained that the judiciary is
the authority responsible for reinstating those rights and ensuring that the rule of law
prevails.
 Judicial Independence and Supremacy: The courts’ role is central to Dicey’s
concept of the rule of law, as they ensure that legal principles are upheld, and any
actions or laws that violate individual rights can be struck down by an independent
judiciary.
Other Aspects of Dicey’s Rule of Law Doctrine
 Criticism of Administrative Law and Tribunals: Dicey was against the concept of
administrative law and tribunals because they introduced a different legal system
for specific cases or people. He believed that only ordinary courts and ordinary law
should exist to maintain fairness and equality under the rule of law.
  Government Function Focus: Dicey’s doctrine of the rule of law primarily focuses
on government functions and how they are constrained by legal principles. It does
not deal with personal laws or social regulations but instead ensures that government
authority operates under the legal framework.
 Modern Need for Administrative Law: While Dicey emphasized the rule of law
through ordinary laws and courts, in modern governance, administrative law has
become necessary due to the complexity of government functions. Administrative
law ensures that executive actions are checked, thus indirectly supporting the rule of
law in the absence of strict separation of powers.
4. Modern Concept of Rule of Law
 The modern concept of the rule of law has evolved to include due process,
accountability, access to justice, and human rights protections, reflecting more
comprehensive legal safeguards beyond Dicey’s classical formulation.
 International law and global human rights frameworks have also influenced the
modern understanding of the rule of law, emphasizing fair trials, transparency, and
the right to legal recourse.
Conclusion
A.V. Dicey’s doctrine of the Rule of Law continues to be influential in shaping legal theory
and constitutional law. His insistence on the supremacy of law, equality before the law, and
judicial protection of rights are cornerstones of a democratic society. However, modern
governance has adapted the rule of law to accommodate administrative functions and other
legal mechanisms that ensure justice, fairness, and the protection of rights in a more complex
legal and political landscape.
MODULE 3 – Delegated Legislation
Delegated Legislation

Delegated legislation refers to laws or regulations that are created by an authority (usually the
executive) under powers delegated to it by a legislative body. This delegation of law-making
powers enables the executive to fill in details and address specific areas under the broader
framework of an Act passed by the legislature.
2. Reasons for Growth of Delegated Legislation
The growth of delegated legislation is primarily due to the increasing complexity of
governance and the necessity for detailed regulation that legislatures are unable to provide
efficiently. Here are some common reasons:
1. Increasing legislative workload: Legislatures often do not have enough time to
discuss and pass detailed legislation due to the growing number of functions they
must perform.
2. Technical complexity: Many areas of law, such as finance, health, and technology,
require specialized knowledge, making it practical for experts within the executive to
draft detailed rules.
3. Flexibility: Delegated legislation allows the executive to respond swiftly to new
situations, especially in areas requiring frequent updates or emergency measures.
4. Experimentation: Delegated legislation provides room for experimentation and
adjustments without the need to amend the principal Act.
5. Local requirements: The executive can tailor regulations to the specific needs of
different regions, which is difficult to do in primary legislation.
6. Relieving the burden on the legislature: Delegating law-making powers allows
parliament to focus on more important matters.
3. Donoughmore Committee (Committee on Ministers’ Powers)
The Donoughmore Committee was established in the UK in response to concerns about the
growing powers of the executive, highlighted by Lord Hewart's book, "The New
Despotism."
a. Lord Hewart’s Concerns in "The New Despotism"
 Lord Hewart argued that during the 19th century, an executive autocracy was
emerging, where the executive was exercising uncontrolled power, leading to a
domination of legislative functions.
 His concerns were focused on the danger of excessive delegated legislation, where
the executive had too much autonomy to create rules and regulations without
sufficient parliamentary oversight.
b. Impact of "The New Despotism"
  The book's concerns led the British Parliament to appoint the Donoughmore
Committee, which investigated the growth of delegated legislation and recommended
ways to ensure greater parliamentary control over such legislation.
4. Six Reasons for the Growth of Delegated Legislation (as identified by the
Donoughmore Committee)
a. Pressure upon Parliamentary Time
 Lack of time: The legislature does not have sufficient time to pass detailed laws.
Even if Parliament were to sit for 365 days a year, it would still be unable to make all
the laws needed.
b. Increased Functions of Government
 Growing complexity: The functions of the government have increased significantly,
necessitating the delegation of law-making powers to handle substantive, detailed
regulations that the legislature cannot address adequately.
c. Skeleton Legislation
 Framework laws: Legislatures often pass skeleton legislation, which contains
general principles. The executive fills in the details, supplying what is often referred
to as the "flesh and blood" to make the law fully functional.
d. Quality of Legislation
 Efficiency: The sheer volume of legislation that needs to be created requires
delegation to ensure that high-quality, detailed laws are made. If the legislature
attempted to create all the detailed laws itself, it would be overburdened.
e. Executive's Ability to Respond Quickly
 Speed and flexibility: The executive can make quick changes or adaptations to laws
through delegated legislation, which is often required in a rapidly changing world.
f. Volume of Legislation
 A study conducted by Prof. Upendra Baxi during the period 1973-1977 in India
showed that while the legislature made only 302 laws, the executive made over
25,414 delegated legislations, showing the immense volume of delegated laws
necessary to keep governance functional.
This analysis by the Donoughmore Committee highlights how modern governance
necessitates delegated legislation, while also stressing the need for oversight to prevent
unchecked executive power.

4b. Technical Expertise for Law-Making (as highlighted by the Donoughmore

Committee)
i. Need for Specialized Knowledge
  Law-making today requires an understanding of various complex fields, such as
economics, science, technology, and the environment. Legislators may not always
possess the technical expertise necessary to address these subjects adequately.
ii. Specialized Knowledge in Different Fields
 Diverse fields such as medicine, energy, and trade require expertise. In these areas,
specific technical knowledge is necessary to craft effective and detailed legislation,
which the executive—through its departments and specialized personnel—can
provide.
iii. Complex Subject Matter
 Certain areas of legislation involve highly technical subject matter, making it
impractical for the legislature to draft detailed laws. For example, laws related to
nuclear energy or environmental protections require expert insight that goes beyond
the generalist nature of legislative bodies.
iv. Energy Sector Legislation
 Different sectors such as petroleum, solar, wind, electrical, and nuclear energy
demand varying kinds of legislation. Since these areas require technical expertise,
the legislature often cannot provide comprehensive and detailed laws on its own, and
thus relies on the executive to fill in the specifics.
v. Legislative Qualifications and Limitations
 Legislators may not always have the technical qualifications or detailed understanding
of specialized fields. As a result, they often create laws with general provisions,
leaving the details to be filled in by the executive through delegated legislation.
vi. Import and Export Legislation
 In areas like import and export, the rapidly changing nature of global trade may
require constant adjustments, which the legislature is not always equipped to
handle with detailed laws. This is another area where delegated legislation is
necessary to ensure quick responses and appropriate regulations.
vii. Legislature vs. Executive in Law-Making
 Legislatures are not in session permanently, and there is a constitutional mandate
for periodic changes in the legislature. On the other hand, the executive is permanent
and can continuously manage day-to-day governance, including delegated legislation.
viii. Executive Expertise
 The executive, especially in large governments like the Government of India,
consists of various departments staffed by experts in specific fields. These
individuals possess the necessary specialized knowledge to draft detailed regulations
under the framework set by legislative bodies.
The delegation of law-making powers to the executive is, therefore, not just a matter of
convenience but a necessity to ensure that laws are technically sound and responsive to the
complexity of modern governance.
Flexibility in Legislation (as highlighted by the Donoughmore Committee)
i. Need for Flexibility in Law-Making
 Legislation often requires flexibility, as rigid laws may not effectively respond to
evolving situations. Instead of going through the lengthy process of passing a new
law, delegated legislation allows for quicker adjustments.
ii. Rigid Legislative Process
 The traditional law-making process in the legislature can be slow and cumbersome,
often lacking the necessary flexibility to adapt to rapidly changing situations.
iii. Notice and Procedures in Parliament
 In legislative bodies like the Lok Sabha (LS) and Rajya Sabha (RS), various
procedural requirements, such as giving notice to members and following strict
formalities, slow down the law-making process, making it less adaptable.
iv. Time-Consuming Procedures
 Many parliamentary procedures contribute to the slowness of the legislative process.
Making changes to laws through regular legislative sessions can take significant time,
which may not be suitable for situations requiring immediate action.
v. 24-Hour Parliamentary Sessions
 Given the number of laws required, Parliament would need to sit 24 hours a day to
address all issues through full legislative processes. This is impractical, so delegating
powers to the executive becomes a solution.
vi. Example: Essential Commodities Act
 Essential Commodities Act: Parliament passed this Act to regulate critical resources.
However, the executive is empowered to make adjustments or changes to the law to
respond to varying situations like shortages or surpluses in essential goods.
vii. Adapting to Changing Situations
 Delegated legislation allows the executive to adapt laws quickly to new situations,
such as emergencies, economic shifts, or sudden crises, which would otherwise be
difficult under rigid legislative procedures.
viii. Flexibility in Adapting Laws
 Flexibility is vital in law-making because it enables quicker and easier changes to
adapt to different situations. Delegated legislation provides this flexibility, ensuring
laws can be fine-tuned or updated without needing a full legislative process every
time.
ix. Achieving Flexibility through Delegated Legislation
  Delegated legislation is the primary means of achieving the required flexibility in
governance. It empowers the executive to modify laws as needed to address evolving
circumstances, ensuring governance remains responsive and efficient.
x. Economic Regulations and Market Fluctuations
 Economic factors like market fluctuations, inflation, and deflation demand swift
responses. Delegated legislation allows regulatory bodies to quickly adjust
import/export policies, inflation controls, and other economic regulations to stabilize
the situation.
In short, delegated legislation introduces much-needed flexibility into the legislative process,
enabling quick responses and changes to laws when necessary, especially in dynamic sectors
like the economy, health, and public safety.
4o

Different Forms of Delegated Legislation

he Central Act refers to a law passed by the Union Parliament of India, and in some cases,
it delegates law-making powers to the Union Executive (government ministers, agencies,
etc.) through a parent act. This is an example of delegated legislation, where the broad
framework of a law is set by Parliament, and the Union Executive is authorized to create
detailed rules or regulations under that framework.
Example 1: Defence of India Act
 Section 3 of the Defence of India Act: This was a law passed by Parliament to
address defense and security matters.
 The Union Executive was given the power to make further rules under this law.
These were called the Defence of India Rules, and they were created by the
executive under the authority given by the Central Act (Defence of India Act).
 The Parliament delegated the authority through the parent act, and the executive
implemented the specific rules required to enforce the law effectively.
Example 2: All India Services Act
 Section 3 of the All India Services Act: This law gives the Union Executive the
authority to make rules regarding the All India Services.
 The Union Executive exercises its law-making power by creating specific rules under
this Act, which guide the functioning of services like the Indian Administrative
Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), etc.
In both cases, Parliament passes a Central Act (parent act) and then delegates the rule-
making authority to the Union Executive to manage detailed and technical aspects, ensuring
flexibility and swift adaptation to changing circumstances.
n some instances, Parliament passes a law, but instead of giving the Union Executive the
power to make further rules or regulations, the law delegates that authority to the State
Executive. This is also a form of delegated legislation, but the State Executive is
empowered to handle the specific and detailed rule-making process.
Example 1: Opium Act
 Section 8 of the Opium Act: While this Act is a Parliamentary law, it delegates the
power to make detailed rules to the State Executive. The State Executive is
responsible for crafting the specific regulations under the framework of the Opium
Act.
 Here, the lawmaking power is delegated to the states, which allows for rules that
may vary based on the specific needs and conditions of different states.
Example 2: Muslim Waqf Act
 Section 2 of the Muslim Waqf Act: This is another example where a Parliamentary
law gives the State Executive the authority to make detailed rules regarding the
management of Waqf properties.
 The State Executive is responsible for creating rules that help implement the
provisions of the Act, based on the circumstances and requirements of each state.
Key Point:
 In both cases, the Parliamentary law (Central Act) establishes a broad framework,
but the delegated law-making power is given to the State Executive. This allows the
state governments to make detailed, region-specific rules under the authority of the
parent Act, making the law more adaptable to local conditions.
This form of delegation is important in a federal structure like India’s, where states may need
the flexibility to enact rules that suit their unique circumstances.
In some cases, Parliament passes a law that delegates rule-making powers to both the Central
(Union) Executive and the State Executive. This allows both levels of government to enact further
laws and regulations, depending on their jurisdiction.

Example 1: Administrative Tribunals Act

 Section 35 of the Administrative Tribunals Act: This section gives the Union Executive the
power to make rules regarding the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), enabling it to
create detailed regulations.

 Section 36 of the same Act: This section delegates the rule-making power to the State
Executive, allowing them to create regulations for State Administrative Tribunals (SATs).

 This division ensures that both central and state tribunals are governed by specific rules set
by the respective executives.

Example 2: Essential Commodities Act

 Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act: This section gives both the Union Executive and
State Executives the authority to make rules. The Union Executive may regulate essential
commodities at a national level, while the State Executive can implement rules based on
local conditions.
Key Points:

 Parliamentary laws can delegate rule-making powers to both the Union and State
executives.

 This ensures that laws are implemented efficiently across both central and state levels,
allowing for flexibility and coordination between the two.

This approach allows for comprehensive and balanced law-making, ensuring that national and
regional needs are both addressed through delegated legislation.

4o

In certain instances, Parliament creates statutory bodies through legislation and delegates law-
making powers to these bodies. These statutory bodies are authorized to enact further detailed
regulations and rules under the framework established by the original Act.

Example 1: Advocates Act

 Section 49 of the Advocates Act: This section establishes the Bar Council of India as a
statutory body.

 The Act provides the Bar Council with the authority to make rules regarding various aspects
of legal practice and the profession of advocacy. This includes rules about the conduct of
lawyers, the admission of advocates, and the functioning of the Bar Council itself.

Example 2: RBI Act

 The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Act is another example of a Parliamentary law that
establishes the Reserve Bank of India as a statutory body.

 Under this Act, the RBI is empowered to make rules and regulations related to the monetary
and financial system of India. This includes aspects like currency issuance, regulation of
banks, and monetary policy.

Example 3: Banking Regulation (BR) Act

 The Banking Regulation Act (BR Act) also grants the RBI the authority to make further rules
concerning the regulation of banking companies. This enables the RBI to create specific
guidelines for banks to ensure a stable and efficient banking system in India.

Key Points:

 Statutory bodies are established by Parliamentary laws, which delegate further rule-making
powers to these bodies.

 This delegation allows statutory bodies like the Bar Council of India and RBI to create
detailed regulations tailored to their specific areas of jurisdiction and expertise.

 This framework enhances the ability of statutory bodies to function effectively and respond
to the complexities of their respective sectors.

In the context of state legislation, the State Legislature has the authority to enact laws, which often
includes granting the State Executive the power to make delegated legislation. This delegation
allows the executive branch of the state government to create detailed regulations and rules
necessary for implementing the legislation effectively.

Example: Gujarat Agriculture Markets Committees Act

 The Gujarat Agriculture Markets Committees Act is an example of a state law enacted by
the Gujarat State Legislature.

 Under this Act, the state government (the State Executive) is empowered to make further
regulations and rules necessary for the administration of agricultural markets within the
state.

 This delegation allows the state executive to handle operational details and adapt regulations
based on local agricultural conditions, ensuring the effective management of markets and
support for farmers.

Key Points:

 The State Legislature has the legislative competence to enact laws relevant to the state’s
needs and issues.

 The State Executive is granted law-making power through these state laws, allowing it to
create delegated legislation that operationalizes the legislative framework.

 This system enhances the capacity of the state government to respond effectively to specific
regional needs while maintaining compliance with the overarching legislative intent
established by the State Legislature.

n many cases, state legislatures establish statutory bodies and delegate further law-making
powers to them. These statutory bodies are then responsible for creating detailed rules and
regulations within the framework of the legislation that created them.

Example: GNLU Act, 2003

 The Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) Act, 2003 is an example where the Gujarat
State Legislature enacted legislation that established GNLU as a statutory body.

 Under this Act, GNLU is empowered to make further rules and regulations on various aspects
related to its functioning, including academic matters, admission processes, and governance
structures.

 The detailed laws and operational guidelines established by GNLU allow it to effectively
manage its affairs and adapt to the evolving educational landscape.

Key Points:

 The State Legislature delegates further law-making powers to statutory bodies like GNLU to
ensure that these entities can create specific regulations tailored to their unique functions
and requirements.

 This delegation enables statutory bodies to operate more efficiently and effectively, as they
can respond to specific challenges and developments in their respective fields without
needing constant legislative approval.
  By allowing statutory bodies to make detailed rules, the legislature can focus on broader
policy issues while leaving the operational details to specialized institutions.

Case law -

The case of Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram (AIR 1975 SC 1331) is significant in understanding the
nature and scope of delegated legislation in India. Here are the key points from the case and the
associated concepts:

Key Points from the Case:

1. Types of Delegated Legislation:

o The court recognized that delegated legislation includes various forms, such as rules,
regulations, orders, and byelaws. All these elements fall under the broader umbrella
of delegated legislation, enabling the executive to fill in the details of the laws
enacted by the legislature.

2. Definition and Scope:

o It is ultimately up to the parent act passed by the legislature to determine the

specific terminology or definitions to be used for what constitutes delegated
legislation. The parent act defines the scope and authority for creating such
legislation.

3. Title and Classification:

o The title of the delegated legislation (whether it be rules, regulations, etc.) is derived
from what the parent act decides. Therefore, the nature of the delegated legislation
is closely tied to the legislative framework established by the parent act.

4. Lack of Distinction in India:

o In the Indian context, there is a notable absence of a formal distinction or

classification of delegated legislation based on title. While other jurisdictions might
adopt specific classification systems, India has not seen a systematic approach to
categorizing delegated legislation in this manner.

5. Possibility of Title-Based Classification:

o The court acknowledged that a title-based classification of delegated legislation

could have been implemented in India, but such an effort was not made. This
absence means that all forms of delegated legislation are treated more uniformly,
regardless of their title or specific designation.

Conclusion:

The Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram case emphasizes the flexibility and breadth of delegated
legislation in India, illustrating how it is primarily guided by the legislative framework established
by the parent act. This case also highlights a gap in the classification system, suggesting that
while such distinctions could be beneficial, they have not yet been realized in Indian law.

ON THE BASIS OF PURPOSE –

The Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act (BMPO Act), enacted in 1949, serves as an illustrative
example of how the power to extend the life of a legislative act can be delegated to the executive.
Here are the key points regarding the BMPO Act and its provisions:

Key Points:

1. Legislative Life Span:

o The BMPO Act was initially enacted with a specified life span of two years, meaning
that it was set to expire in 1951 unless further action was taken.

2. Executive Power to Extend:

o The Act included provisions that empowered the executive to extend its life. This is
an example of delegated legislation, where the legislature grants the executive the
authority to make decisions regarding the implementation and duration of a law.

3. Conditions for Extension:

o The executive has the authority to extend the life of the Act up to a maximum of
three times, with each extension allowing for an additional period of six months.

o This means that the Act could potentially be extended for a total of eighteen
additional months beyond its initial expiration, assuming all extensions are
exercised.

4. Mechanism:

o The mechanism for extension reflects a balance between legislative intent and
executive flexibility. The legislature initially determines the lifespan of the Act, while
the executive is given the discretion to assess the need for continuity based on
prevailing circumstances.

5. Implications:

o The delegation of this power allows the executive to respond dynamically to public
order situations, enabling the government to maintain control without requiring new
legislative approval for each extension.

o However, this also raises concerns regarding the potential for executive overreach
and the necessity for oversight to ensure that extensions are justified and not
excessively prolonged.

Conclusion:

The Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act exemplifies how legislative frameworks can incorporate
provisions for the extension of their life through executive action. This approach allows for
adaptability in governance while simultaneously emphasizing the need for checks and balances in
the exercise of such powers.

The Minimum Wages Act is a key piece of legislation in India that exemplifies how delegated
legislation can be used to enhance the applicability and effectiveness of the law. Here’s a breakdown
of how the Act utilizes delegated legislation for inclusion purposes:

Key Points:
 1. Purpose of Delegated Legislation:

o Delegated legislation allows the executive to include specific entities or subject

matters under the applicability of the Act. This flexibility ensures that the law can be
adapted to changing circumstances and needs without requiring a complete
legislative overhaul.

2. Applicability Under the Minimum Wages Act:

o Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act specifies the original scope of the Act,
detailing which industries, institutions, and persons are subject to its provisions. This
initial list is contained in a Schedule appended to the Act.

3. Schedule of the Act:

o The Schedule lists various industries and institutions that, when they employ
individuals as workers, are required to pay minimum wages. This framework helps
ensure that workers receive fair compensation for their labor.

4. Executive Power to Add:

o The executive possesses the authority to add more industries, institutions, or

persons to the Schedule through delegated legislation. This means that if new
industries emerge or existing industries expand, the executive can include them
within the ambit of the Act without needing a new law.

5. Impact of Inclusion:

o When industries or institutions are included in the Schedule via delegated

legislation, they become obligated to pay minimum wages. This expands the
protection afforded to workers by ensuring that more entities are held accountable
for fair wage practices.

6. Dynamic Nature of the Law:

o The ability to include new entities through delegated legislation demonstrates the
dynamic nature of labor law in India. It allows for timely adjustments in response to
economic developments, ensuring that the law remains relevant and effective in
protecting workers' rights.

Conclusion:

The Minimum Wages Act illustrates the significance of delegated legislation in broadening the
applicability of a law. By granting the executive the power to include additional industries and
institutions, the Act ensures that more workers are protected under minimum wage provisions, thus
enhancing the overall effectiveness of labor law enforcement. This mechanism reflects the
importance of adaptability in legislation to meet the needs of a changing workforce and economic
landscape.

Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation

Case- k

M Sure! Here's a simplified explanation of the Queen v. Burah case:

Key Concepts:

 Delegated Legislation: When a higher authority (like a legislature) gives power to another
person or body (like a governor) to make or extend laws.

 Conditional Legislation: A type of delegated legislation where the authority (like a governor)
doesn't create new laws but is allowed to apply existing laws to new areas under certain
conditions.

What Happened:

1. Background:

o During British rule in India, the Governor General's Council (GG Council) was
responsible for making laws.

o In 1869, the GG Council passed a law (Act No. 18 of 1869) that removed the power
of ordinary courts to deal with criminal and civil cases in the Garo Hills.

o Instead, these powers were given to special officers appointed by the Lieutenant
Governor.

2. Section 9 of the Act:

o This section gave the Lieutenant Governor the power to extend the same law
(which applied to the Garo Hills) to other areas, like the Khasi and Jaintia Hills.

3. What Led to the Case:

o In the Khasi Hills, a man named Mr. Burah killed someone.

o He was tried by the officer appointed by the Lieutenant Governor and sentenced to
death.

o Mr. Burah challenged the death sentence in the Calcutta High Court, saying the law
under which he was tried was invalid.

4. Calcutta High Court's Decision:

o The High Court agreed with Burah, saying that the GG Council (which made the law)
was not allowed to give away its law-making power to someone else (in this case,
the Lieutenant Governor).

o This legal principle is known as delegatus non potest delegare – meaning a delegate
(GG Council) cannot pass on its power to another (Lieutenant Governor).

o The High Court said the law was invalid, and so was the death sentence.

5. Appeal to the Privy Council:

o The case was then taken to the Privy Council (a higher court in Britain).

o The Privy Council disagreed with the High Court and said:

 The GG Council was not a delegate of the British Parliament – it had full
powers to make laws in India.
  Therefore, the GG Council had the right to give the Lieutenant Governor the
power to extend the law to new areas (like the Khasi Hills).

 The Privy Council explained that this wasn’t really “delegating” law-making
power but just allowing the Lieutenant Governor to apply the existing law to
different places.

 This is called conditional legislation – the Governor isn’t making a new law,
just applying an existing law based on certain conditions.

Final Outcome:

 The Privy Council said that the law was valid and delegated legislation was allowed.

 They reversed the High Court's decision, meaning the original law (removing the courts'
power in Khasi and Jaintia Hills) was valid, and so was the trial of Mr. Burah.

Summary:

The case is important because it showed that delegated legislation (when a higher authority gives
law-making powers to another) is allowed and that the Governor General's Council had the right to
give power to the Lieutenant Governor to apply laws to different areas, a concept known as
conditional legislation.

n the United States, the initial stance on delegated legislation (when the legislative body gives
authority to another branch to make rules or laws) was rooted in the principle of separation of
powers, which is a key concept in the U.S. Constitution. Here's a simplified breakdown:

Key Concepts:

1. Separation of Powers: The U.S. Constitution separates government powers into three
branches:

o Legislative (Congress): Makes laws.

o Executive (President): Enforces laws.

o Judicial (Courts): Interprets laws. This division is found in Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the
U.S. Constitution.

2. Delegatus Non Potest Delegare: A Latin principle meaning "a delegate cannot further
delegate." In this context, it means that Congress, as the law-making body, cannot give its
law-making powers to someone else (like the executive branch).

Early U.S. Supreme Court View:

 Delegated legislation was initially rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court because it violated
these principles. The idea was that only Congress has the authority to make laws, and it
cannot hand over that power to the Executive or another branch.

Field v. Clark (1892):

 In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed whether Congress could delegate certain
powers to the President.
  The Court ruled that delegated legislation (where Congress gives power to another branch)
was unconstitutional because it went against:

1. Separation of powers: Lawmaking is strictly for Congress.

2. Delegatus non potest delegare: Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to
another body or branch.

Justice Frankfurter’s View:

 Justice Frankfurter argued that delegated legislation is invalid in the U.S., based on the
doctrine of separation of powers. He believed that the powers of the government should
remain clearly distinct, meaning the legislature should not hand over law-making authority
to the executive branch.

Strict Separation of Powers:

 In the U.S., there is a strict division of powers between the branches of government.

 It was initially believed that there was no need for delegated legislation because each
branch had specific roles:

o Congress makes the laws, and only it should have that power.

o The Executive enforces the laws, but it shouldn't create them.

Conclusion:

In the early U.S. legal system, the idea of delegated legislation was not allowed due to the strict
separation of powers. It was firmly believed that Congress, as the legislative body, should hold
exclusive law-making power, and this power could not be delegated to another branch like the
executive. This principle is closely tied to the Constitution's framework of government, ensuring each
branch stays within its defined roles.

4o

In the case following Field v. Clark, the U.S. Supreme Court shifted its stance on delegated
legislation, particularly highlighted in the case of Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935). Here's a
simplified explanation:

Key Developments:

1. Context:

o On July 11, 1933, under Section 9(c) of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA),
the President was given the power to regulate or prohibit the interstate
transportation of petroleum. Violating these regulations could lead to
imprisonment or fines.

o This presidential order, a form of delegated legislation, was challenged in the

Supreme Court.

2. Comparison with Field v. Clark:

o In Field v. Clark (1892), the Court outright rejected delegated legislation, stating that
Congress cannot delegate its law-making powers.
 o In Panama Refining, however, the Supreme Court examined the merits of delegated
legislation instead of immediately dismissing it.

3. The Question Before the Court: The Supreme Court had to decide:

o Does the delegated legislation reflect a clear legislative policy?

o Does Congress provide a standard for the executive to follow when making laws?

o Did the executive need to make any specific findings before acting under this
delegated authority?

4. Findings of the Court: The majority opinion found that:

o No clear legislative policy was set by Congress.

o No standards were provided for the executive to follow.

o The executive was not required to make any findings before taking action.

o As a result, the delegated legislation in this case was deemed invalid because it
lacked these crucial elements.

5. The Court's Three-Question Test:

o After Panama Refining, the Court established a test to determine the validity of
delegated legislation:

1. Is there a legislative policy prescribed by Congress?

2. Is there a standard for the executive to follow?

3. Are there findings or reasons required from the executive for action?

If these criteria weren't met, the delegation of power would be considered unconstitutional.

6. Dissent by Justice Cardozo:

o Justice Cardozo took a more liberal view:

 He argued that the test laid out by the majority was unnecessary.

 Instead, the key issue was whether Congress retained control over the
delegated powers.

 As long as Congress could amend, repeal, or modify the delegated

authority, the delegation of power to the executive was acceptable.

 The court shouldn't need to check for legislative policy or standards in every
case. What mattered was that Congress could correct or control the
executive's actions if needed.

 He upheld the delegated legislation as valid, as long as Congress retained

ultimate control.

Conclusion:
The Panama Refining case marked a turning point in the U.S. Supreme Court's approach to
delegated legislation. While the majority ruled that such legislation should be carefully scrutinized
using a three-question test, Justice Cardozo argued for a more flexible approach, focusing on
Congress's ability to control the executive's actions. Over time, the Court gradually adopted a more
liberal stance on delegated legislation, moving away from strict application of the three-question
test.

4o

PNJ NOTES

Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ): A Detailed Explanation

Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ) are a set of unwritten, universal rules that aim to ensure fairness,
equity, and justice in decision-making processes, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative.
The key idea behind these principles is to prevent arbitrariness and uphold fairness in legal
proceedings or actions affecting individual rights.

Even if a statute is silent on the need for natural justice, courts may still require it because it is an
inherent part of rule of law, ethical legal practices, and a core feature of fair play. PNJ is often
treated as an implicit part of every legal framework unless explicitly excluded by legislation, which
itself must be subject to judicial scrutiny.

Ethical-Legal Concept:

Natural justice is based on the following foundational principles of law:

1. Rule of Law: Every individual is entitled to a fair process, and decisions must be made based
on rational, legal principles.

2. Natural Law and Universal Law: These concepts reflect the inherent rights that all human
beings are entitled to by virtue of their humanity. It is based on fairness, reason, and justice,
and these ideas go back to philosophers like Aristotle and Cicero.

3. Divine Justice and Universal Justice: These notions refer to justice that transcends man-
made laws, reflecting an ultimate moral code of right and wrong.

4. Fair Play in Action: PNJ ensures that everyone is treated equally and given a chance to be
heard before decisions are made that could affect their rights or obligations.

Functional Dimensions of PNJ:

The Principles of Natural Justice initially applied to judicial and quasi-judicial functions, but over
time, their scope has expanded significantly to include administrative actions as well.

1. Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Functions:

Traditionally, PNJ was limited to courts and bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions. In such cases,
the body or tribunal making decisions had to:

 Provide parties an opportunity to present their case.

 Ensure that the decision-maker was impartial.

Key case laws:

 Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning: In this case, the decision-making process
of a quasi-judicial body was scrutinized for failing to follow PNJ.

 Bapurao v. State (1956) and Kishan Chand v. Commissioner of Police (1961): These cases
further emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities are required to observe PNJ.

 Nakkuda Ali v. MFDES. Jayaratne (1951) AC 66: Here, the decision of an administrative
authority was challenged due to a lack of procedural fairness.

2. Applicability to Administrative Actions:

The Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) case revolutionized the application of PNJ. In this case, the principles of
natural justice were applied to administrative actions for the first time. The key facts of the case are:

 Facts of Ridge v. Baldwin (1964):

o Under Section 191(4) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882, a watch committee
had the authority to dismiss constables.

o Ridge, a chief constable, was dismissed without being given a fair hearing.

o The House of Lords held that the dismissal was void because natural justice was
violated. Even though the statute didn't specifically require a hearing, the court said
that Ridge had the right to be heard before a decision was made.

This case established the principle that administrative bodies, just like judicial bodies, must follow
PNJ. When an individual's rights or status are at stake, they must be given an opportunity to present
their case and defend themselves.

Core Principles of Natural Justice:

1. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (No one should be a judge in their own cause):

o This principle prevents bias or conflict of interest.

o The decision-maker should not have any personal interest in the case they are
deciding.

o It ensures impartiality in decision-making. For example, if a judge is related to one of

the parties involved, they must recuse themselves to avoid bias.

2. Audi Alteram Partem (Hear the other side):

o This principle ensures that each party is given an opportunity to be heard before a
decision is made.

o The party affected by the decision must have a fair chance to present their case or
defense.

o In administrative and disciplinary matters, this principle guarantees that no one can
be condemned or penalized without being given a chance to explain or defend
themselves.

Why PNJ is Required Even If Statute is Silent:

PNJ is considered an essential part of due process. Even when a statute does not explicitly require
natural justice, courts assume it to be implicit for several reasons:

1. Inherent Fairness: Justice must be seen to be done. If someone is affected by a decision,

they must have a fair chance to be heard, regardless of whether the statute mentions it.

2. Rule Against Arbitrary Decision-making: Ensuring procedural fairness helps prevent arbitrary
or unjust decisions by decision-making authorities.

3. Judicial Review: Courts often interpret statutes in a way that includes PNJ. They might strike
down or invalidate decisions where natural justice has not been followed, even if the law
does not expressly require it.

For instance, in Ridge v. Baldwin, the statute did not specifically mention a hearing before dismissal,
but the court held that the right to be heard was implied, as dismissing an individual without
allowing them to present their case would be unjust.

Conclusion:

The Principles of Natural Justice are embedded in the legal system to protect individuals from unjust
decisions. They ensure fairness, transparency, and impartiality in decision-making processes, both in
judicial and administrative spheres. Even when statutes are silent, courts often impose these
principles to uphold justice and fairness, ensuring that decisions impacting individual rights are made
in accordance with basic ethical standards.

the Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) case is important because it clarified that even in administrative actions,
where authorities like government bodies make decisions, the Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ)
must be followed to ensure fairness.

Facts of the Case:

 Under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882, a watch committee had the power to dismiss a
constable if they thought he wasn’t doing his job properly or was unfit for the position.

 In this case, the Chief Constable of Brighton (Ridge) and two other constables were
prosecuted in a criminal trial for conspiracy. Although they were acquitted (found not guilty)
by the court, the judgment still made negative comments about them.

 As a result, the Watch Committee dismissed Ridge from his job without giving him a chance
to defend himself or explain his side of the story.

Court Decisions:

 The Court of Appeal initially said the committee didn’t need to follow the Principles of
Natural Justice because their action was considered administrative (i.e., related to
management or day-to-day decisions) rather than judicial (related to legal proceedings).
Therefore, they believed no hearing was necessary.

 But, when the case went to the House of Lords (the highest court at that time), the decision
was reversed. The House of Lords said that even in administrative actions, if a person’s job or
rights are at stake, natural justice principles should apply. This means that Ridge should have
been given a chance to explain himself before being dismissed.

Key Concept:
The ruling in Ridge v. Baldwin made it clear that fairness is essential, even in routine administrative
decisions. When someone's rights, job, or reputation are on the line, they must be:

 Informed about the reasons for the decision.

 Given an opportunity to present their side of the story (be heard).

This case extended the application of natural justice principles to administrative actions and not just
legal or quasi-legal matters.

In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970), the Supreme Court of India dealt with the application of the
Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ), particularly focusing on nemo judex in causa sua (no one should
be a judge in their own cause), which prevents personal bias in decision-making.

Facts of the Case:

 The case involved the selection process for promoting officers from the State Forest Service
to the Indian Forest Service (IFS). According to Regulation 3 of the Indian Forest Service
(Initial Recruitment) Regulations, a selection board was constituted to choose candidates for
the IFS. This board included:

1. Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC),

2. Inspector General of Forests, Government of India,

3. A senior officer of the Government of India,

4. Chief Secretary of the concerned State, and

5. Chief Conservator of Forests.

 One of the candidates for the selection, Naquishbund, was also serving as the Acting Chief
Conservator of Forests. He was part of the selection board that chose candidates for
promotion to the IFS.

 After the selection process, Naquishbund was selected for promotion to the IFS, while his
seniors, Basu, Baig, and Kaul, were not selected. This led to suspicions of bias in the
selection process.

Issue:

The selection process was challenged before the Supreme Court on the grounds that there was a
violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, particularly the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa
sua), as Naquishbund was both a candidate and a member of the selection board.

Supreme Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court held that the selection process violated the Principles of Natural Justice
because:

1. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (No one should be a judge in their own cause) was violated. Since
Naquishbund was personally involved in the selection process as both a decision-maker and
a candidate, this created a conflict of interest, raising the possibility of personal bias.
 2. Personal Bias: There was a clear possibility of bias because Naquishbund had an interest in
the outcome of the selection process, which could have influenced his decisions on the
selection board.

The Supreme Court emphasized that administrative actions must be conducted in a fair and
unbiased manner, and natural justice applies even in cases involving administrative or executive
decisions. The court struck down the selection and held that personal bias in administrative
processes undermines fairness and violates natural justice.

Significance:

This case broadened the scope of Principles of Natural Justice in India by applying them to
administrative actions. It reaffirmed the importance of ensuring that decision-makers in such
processes are free from bias and have no personal interest in the outcome.

In essence, this judgment underscored that even in administrative processes, individuals must be
given a fair chance and decisions must be made impartially, without any personal bias or conflict of
interest.

In the A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India case, the contentions from both sides, the petitioners and the
Union of India (UOI), revolved around the nature of the selection process and whether it required
compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ). The Supreme Court's decision clarified the
thin boundary between administrative and quasi-judicial functions, emphasizing the importance of
fairness in state actions.

Contentions of the Petitioners:

1. Quasi-Judicial Function: The petitioners argued that the Selection Board performed a quasi-
judicial function. They believed that since the board had the power to decide which officers
would be promoted, it had to follow the Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ). This included
ensuring that the process was fair and unbiased.

2. Interpretation of "Adjudge": They also pointed out that under Regulations 4 and 5, the
board was required to adjudge the suitability of candidates for promotion. They argued that
the word "adjudge" implied a judicial-like function, meaning the board was making
judgments similar to a court. Therefore, the board was required to comply with the PNJ.

Contentions of the Union of India (UOI):

1. Administrative Function: The UOI countered that the Selection Board was merely a
statutory body performing an administrative function, not a quasi-judicial one. They argued
that the board's role was not to decide the rights of individuals but simply to select suitable
candidates for the Indian Forest Service (IFS).

2. No Requirement for PNJ: According to the UOI, since the board was not making decisions
about anyone’s legal rights, there was no requirement for the Principles of Natural Justice to
be applied in the selection process.

3. Meaning of "Adjudge": The UOI contended that the word "adjudge" in the regulations did
not imply a judicial function but simply meant finding candidates "worthy of selection."

Supreme Court's Judgment:

The Supreme Court rejected the UOI's argument and held that:
  Thin Line Between Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Functions: The Court stated that the
dividing line between administrative power and quasi-judicial power is quite thin. Even in
administrative actions, if decisions affect individuals' rights or interests, natural justice
principles must be observed.

 Fairness and Rule of Law: The Court emphasized that the Rule of Law loses its significance if
state bodies (such as the selection board) are not held to a standard of fairness and justice.
Even when carrying out administrative tasks, authorities must ensure their decisions are fair,
unbiased, and follow natural justice principles.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided that the Principles of Natural Justice applied in this case
because the selection process had a direct impact on the careers and rights of individuals, making it
more than just a routine administrative function. This judgment extended the scope of natural
justice to include many administrative actions, ensuring fairness in processes that affect individuals'
rights.

In State of Orissa v. Dr. Bina Pani (1967), the Supreme Court of India expanded the application of the
Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ) to administrative decisions, establishing that even administrative
actions must comply with these principles when they result in civil consequences for individuals. This
case revolved around the rule against bias and fairness in decision-making.

Facts of the Case:

 Dr. Bina Pani joined the Orissa Medical Service as a Civil Surgeon and mentioned her date of
birth (DOB) as April 10, 1910 when she joined.

 Initially, under the service rules, the retirement age was 56 years, which was later increased
to 58 years by the Orissa government.

 An anonymous letter was sent to the Accountant General alleging that Dr. Bina Pani had
provided an incorrect DOB when she joined the service, enabling her to extend her service
beyond the allowed retirement age.

 In response, the Orissa government conducted a confidential inquiry. The Mitra Committee
was formed to investigate the allegation.

 The committee found discrepancies in Dr. Bina Pani’s DOB as recorded in her school, college,
and service records.

 Based on the committee's findings, without giving Dr. Bina Pani an opportunity to respond to
the evidence, the Orissa government ordered her termination from service.

High Court and Supreme Court Involvement:

 The High Court struck down the termination order on the grounds that Dr. Bina Pani was not
given a chance to see the report or defend herself, violating the Principles of Natural Justice.

 The State of Orissa appealed the decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the
termination was an administrative action and that administrative decisions were not
required to comply with the PNJ.
Supreme Court's Decision:

The Supreme Court rejected the State of Orissa's argument and held that:

1. Even Administrative Orders Require Compliance with PNJ: The Court ruled that
administrative orders that have civil consequences (i.e., that affect a person’s rights or
interests, such as employment) must be consistent with the Principles of Natural Justice,
including giving the affected party a fair chance to be heard.

2. Rule Against Bias (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua): The Court reaffirmed the fundamental
principle that no person should be a judge in their own cause and decisions must be made
free from bias. This principle, traced back to Thomas Bonham v. College of Physicians and
often quoted as "justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done" (Lord
Hewart, R v. Sussex), emphasizes that decision-makers must act without prejudice.

3. Opportunity to Defend: Dr. Bina Pani was not given the opportunity to respond to the
findings of the Mitra Committee or present her side of the case. The failure to provide her
with this opportunity was a clear violation of the PNJ.

The rule against bias, known as Nemo Judex in Causa Sua ("no one should be a judge in their own
cause"), is a core principle of natural justice that ensures decisions are made impartially and without
prejudice. The rule prevents a person from being a decision-maker in a situation where they have a
conflict of interest. This concept can be classified into three main types of bias:

1. Pecuniary Bias:

 Definition: This occurs when the decision-maker has a financial interest in the outcome of
the case or decision. Any financial stake, no matter how small, disqualifies a person from
acting as a judge in the matter.

 Key Principle: As explained by Griffith and Street in Principles of Administrative Law, "a
pecuniary interest, however slight, will disqualify" a decision-maker, even if there is no
evidence that the decision was actually influenced by the financial interest. The mere
existence of a financial stake is enough to cause disqualification.

 Example: If a judge owns shares in a company involved in a case, even if the value of the
shares is minimal, they cannot preside over that case as it creates a conflict of interest.

2. Personal Bias:

 Definition: This type of bias arises when the decision-maker has a personal relationship with
one of the parties involved, such as friendship, hostility, or family ties. The personal
relationship can lead to either favoritism or prejudice.

 Key Principle: The decision-maker should not be involved if they are likely to be influenced
by personal relationships, ensuring that the decision is free from any personal motivations or
emotions.

 Example: If a judge is a close friend or relative of one of the parties in a legal dispute, their
impartiality could be questioned, even if they believe they can remain fair. In such cases, the
judge should recuse themselves.

3. Departmental Bias / Policy Bias / Subject Matter Bias:

  Definition: This occurs when the decision-maker belongs to a department, organization, or
agency that has a particular policy, interest, or preconceived view on the subject matter of
the case. The concern is that the decision-maker may favor a predetermined policy stance
rather than objectively evaluating the specific case.

 Key Principle: Departmental or policy bias arises when the decision-maker's affiliations lead
to a predisposition or prejudice in favor of a certain outcome, often aligned with their
department's policies or interests.

 Example: A government official from the Ministry of Environment making decisions on a case
involving environmental policies may have a bias towards upholding stringent environmental
regulations, which could affect the fairness of the decision.

In all these types of bias, the central concern is to preserve impartiality and ensure that justice is not
only done but is seen to be done. When any form of bias exists, the decision-maker is disqualified
from the case, as the principles of natural justice demand fairness and transparency in decision-
making processes.

Bonham's Case (1610): Thomas Bonham v. College of Physicians, Cambridge University is a landmark
case that significantly contributed to the development of the rule against pecuniary bias and laid
early foundations for judicial review in England.

Facts:

Dr. Thomas Bonham, a doctor who graduated from Cambridge University, was fined by the College of
Physicians for practicing medicine in London without obtaining a license from the College. Under the
statute passed by the British Parliament, the College had the power to issue fines and imprison those
practicing without a license. The statute also stipulated that half of the fines collected would be
given to the King and the other half to the College itself.

Legal Issue:

Dr. Bonham challenged the fine, arguing that the College of Physicians was acting both as a
prosecutor and judge in the case, which violated the principle of impartiality due to the pecuniary
interest involved. Since the College stood to gain financially from imposing fines, it had a direct
financial interest in finding individuals guilty and collecting fines, thus breaching the rule of Nemo
Judex in Causa Sua (no one should be a judge in their own case).

Decision by Chief Justice Edward Coke:

Chief Justice Edward Coke ruled in favor of Dr. Bonham, holding that the College of Physicians was
disqualified from making such decisions because of pecuniary bias. Since the College had a financial
interest in the outcome, the decision was not impartial. Coke emphasized that no one should be
allowed to act as both judge and beneficiary in the same case.

J. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa (1984) 4 SCC 103, the Supreme Court of India struck down the
selection process for school and college books due to pecuniary bias. The Government of Orissa had
constituted a committee to select books for educational institutions using central funds. The
committee members, who had their own books under consideration, participated in the decision-
making process and selected their books for purchase. The Supreme Court held that this amounted
to pecuniary bias since the members had a financial interest in the outcome, violating the principles
of fairness and natural justice.

Personal Bias in Case Law:

1. D.K. Khanna v. Union of India (1973):

o Facts: The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) formed a selection committee to
promote state officers to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). The son-in-law of a
candidate was a member of the selection committee, and the father-in-law of the
member was one of the candidates selected for promotion.

o Judgment: The selection process was invalidated on the grounds of personal bias, as
the relationship between the member and the candidate created a conflict of
interest.

2. Kirti Deshmankar v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 388:

o Facts: An admission committee member from the Medical Council had a personal
connection with a candidate. The candidate was the daughter-in-law of a board
member, who was part of the selection committee.

o Judgment: The Supreme Court invalidated the selection on the grounds of personal
relationship bias, emphasizing that such personal connections compromise the
integrity of the selection process.

3. Manak Lal v. Prem Chand:

o Facts: Manak Lal, an advocate, faced a professional misconduct complaint. The Bar
Council appointed a committee for the inquiry, and the chairman of the committee
was a close friend of the complainant, Dr. Prem Chand.

o Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down the disciplinary action, recognizing the
chairman’s friendship with the complainant as a form of personal friendship bias.

4. Rawjee v. State of Andhra Pradesh:

o Facts: The Chief Minister ordered the nationalization of certain bus routes allegedly
out of vengeance against private bus operators who were his political rivals.

o Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the nationalization order was motivated by
personal hostility and struck it down, as it was made not for public benefit but out
of personal revenge.

5. Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar:

o Facts: Mineral Development Ltd. (MDL) had a 99-year mining license under the
Mines Act. The Bihar government canceled the license, allegedly due to personal
hostility between the Revenue Minister and the MDL owner. The minister had filed a
defamation case against the owner, and they were political opponents.

o Judgment: The Supreme Court found that personal hostility between the minister
and the owner led to the cancellation, and the decision was struck down on this
ground.
These cases illustrate different forms of personal bias, including relationships, friendships, and
hostility, each of which can undermine the fairness of decision-making processes. The judiciary has
consistently upheld that any decision influenced by such biases is invalid and contrary to natural
justice principles.

Judge Witness Combination- - n State of U.P. v. Mohammed Nooh (AIR 1958 SC 86), the Supreme
Court addressed the issue of a judge-witness combination in a departmental inquiry.

Case Summary:

 Facts: Mohammed Nooh, a police constable, failed his Hindi test and was therefore ineligible
for promotion training at the Police Training College. Allegedly, he created a fake letter to
qualify for the training. The government ordered a departmental inquiry, appointing Deputy
Superintendent of Police (DySP) Mr. B.N. Bhalla as the inquiry officer.

 Inquiry Process: During an informal inquiry, Mr. Bhalla heard from a witness, Mr. Khaleel,
who suggested that Nooh and his friend, Mr. Shariful Hasasan (a typist), fabricated the
qualification letter. However, when formally summoned to testify, Khaleel denied the
incident, resulting in a lack of direct evidence against Nooh.

 Judge-Witness Combination: Despite the absence of evidence, Mr. Bhalla took on the role of
a witness himself, relying on his informal inquiries and his own statements to establish the
case against Nooh. This led to the termination of Nooh's service based on Bhalla's findings.

Judicial Proceedings:

 The High Court and Supreme Court agreed that there was a violation of the principles of
natural justice (PNJ) due to the judge-witness combination, as it undermined the fairness of
the inquiry. The inquiry officer should not be a witness in the same proceeding, as it
compromises impartiality and the integrity of the decision-making process.

 Supreme Court's Decision: While both courts recognized the violation, the Supreme Court,
in a minority judgment, struck down the High Court's ruling. The minority opinion
emphasized that while there was a procedural flaw, it did not necessarily warrant the
nullification of the inquiry's outcome, as other evidences and circumstances may have
supported the conclusion reached by Mr. Bhalla.

Majority and Minority decision.

In State of U.P. v. Mohammed Nooh (AIR 1958 SC 86), the Supreme Court's majority and minority
decisions emphasized the principles of natural justice, particularly in the context of the judge-witness
combination, which undermined the integrity of the inquiry process.

Majority Decision:

1. Disregard for Natural Justice:

o The majority opinion asserted that Shri B.N. Bhalla's role as both the inquiry officer
and a witness constituted a grave violation of the rules of natural justice and fair
play. The Court stated, "we find ourselves in agreement with the High Court that the
rules of natural justice were completely discarded and all canons of fair-play were
grievously violated."
 o It concluded that any decision arrived at through such a flawed process could not be
considered valid or binding (Para 8).

2. Prospective Application of the Constitution:

o The majority emphasized the Constitution's prospective nature, stating, “Our

Constitution is prospective in its application and has no retrospective operation
except where the contrary has been expressly provided for” (Para 17).

o It noted that although the dismissal order was null and void due to the disregard of
natural justice, the High Court could not retroactively correct errors made by inferior
tribunals before the Constitution came into effect. This would lead to unlimited
retroactive application of Article 226, which the majority found problematic.

3. Acceptance of Appeal:

o Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, agreeing
with the majority that the prior decisions lacked validity due to the procedural
irregularities.

Minority Decision:

1. Broad Interpretation of Justice:

o The minority opinion argued against imposing narrow restrictions on the powers of
the High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Article 136. It
posited that these powers should be used to ensure justice and uphold the rule of
law.

o The minority judgment stressed the importance of a liberal interpretation of justice,

advocating for a system that focuses on human values rather than technicalities. The
judge expressed, “I see no reason why any narrow or ultra-technical restrictions
should be placed on them” and emphasized the need for a common-sense approach
to justice.

Subsequent Case: Ratan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Har Ram Higher Secondary School
(1993)

In the Ratan Lal Sharma case, the Supreme Court further reinforced the principle against the judge-
witness combination:

 Case Facts: A committee was appointed to investigate allegations of misappropriation of

funds by the school principal. One member of the committee was also a witness against the
principal.

 Supreme Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down the decision against the principal,
reiterating that the combination of roles creates a conflict of interest and undermines the
fairness of the inquiry process.

Conclusion

These decisions collectively highlight the critical importance of adhering to principles of natural
justice in administrative proceedings. The judge-witness combination is particularly contentious, as
it directly impacts the perceived fairness and integrity of the decision-making process. The
divergence in the majority and minority opinions in State of U.P. v. Mohammed Nooh illustrates the
ongoing tension between strict adherence to procedural rules and a more flexible, justice-oriented
approach.

AUDI ALTERM PARDAM

1, Notice –
The principle of Audi Alteram Partem, which translates to "hear the other side," is a
fundamental tenet of natural justice, emphasizing the necessity of providing individuals with
an opportunity to respond before any administrative action is taken against them. Here’s a
detailed analysis of the case law surrounding this principle:
Key Principles
1. Right to Notice:
o The provision of notice is critical; without it, any administrative decision is
rendered void ab initio (from the beginning).
o The Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy (2003) 4 SCC 557 case illustrates this by
emphasizing that denial of notice and an opportunity to respond can vitiate
administrative decisions.
2. Clarity and Specificity:
o Notices must be clear, specific, and unambiguous. They should detail:
 The time and place of the hearing.
 The nature of the hearing.
 A statement of charges.
 Any other relevant materials that provide a reasonable opportunity
for the individual to respond.
3. Detailed Requirements for Notice:
o Municipal Board v. State Transport Authority (AIR 1965 SC 458) establishes
that any order made without giving notice is void from the outset.
o NR Co-op Society v. Industrial Tribunal (AIR 1967 SC 1182) further confirms
that notices must adhere to the aforementioned clarity and specificity
requirements.
Case Law Illustrations
1. State of U.P. v. S.R. Sharma (1960):
 o The Supreme Court found that proceedings initiated based on a notice stating
"fraud" without detailing the specifics of the alleged fraud did not satisfy the
requirements of proper notice.
2. G. Kondala Rao v. Registrar, Sri Venkateshwara University, Thirupathi (1995):
o A notice stating the charge as "malpractice in the exam" without specific
details about the alleged malpractice was deemed inadequate. The court
ruled that there was no proper notice, invalidating the action taken against
the student.
3. Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation (1960):
o The notice contained charges that were different from those upon which the
punishment was based. Consequently, the court struck down the decision,
affirming that proper notice was not provided.
4. Municipal Council Nangal & Ors v. Aruna Saini (2017) 4 SCC 645:
o A mere 24 hours' notice was deemed insufficient. The court reiterated that
the notice must provide adequate time for the parties involved to prepare for
the proceedings.
U.S. Comparison
 In the United States, similar principles are enshrined in Section 5(a) of the American
Administrative Procedure Act, which mandates that individuals are entitled to notice
of proposed rules or actions, as well as an opportunity to respond.
Conclusion
The principle of Audi Alteram Partem is crucial for ensuring fairness in administrative
proceedings. The discussed cases collectively underscore the necessity for clarity, specificity,
and sufficient time in notices issued prior to any adverse action. Failure to comply with these
requirements can lead to the invalidation of administrative decisions, reinforcing the legal
obligation to uphold natural justice principles in administrative actions.

2. Disclosure of Evidence to the Party-

The principle of Disclosure of Evidence to the Party is closely tied to the doctrine of Audi
Alteram Partem. This principle reinforces the idea that parties involved in administrative or
judicial proceedings must have access to evidence against them to ensure fairness and allow
for a proper defense. Here’s an analysis of relevant case law surrounding this principle:
Key Principles
1. Right to Know Evidence:
 o A party must be informed of the evidence that will be used against them in
any administrative or judicial proceeding. This transparency is essential for
the party to prepare an adequate defense.
2. Violation of Audi Alteram Partem:
o Non-disclosure of evidence constitutes a violation of the principle of Audi
Alteram Partem, undermining the fairness of the proceedings.
Case Law Illustrations
1. State of Orissa v. Dr. Bina Pani:
o In this case, the Supreme Court held that the report of the Dr. Mitra
committee was not disclosed to Dr. Bina Pani before a decision was made
regarding her case. The court concluded that this non-disclosure constituted a
violation of the Audi Alteram Partem principle, emphasizing the necessity for
parties to be aware of evidence that could affect the outcome of proceedings.
2. Partha Sarathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh:
o Mr. Parthasarathy, a clerk in the PWD department, was subject to an inquiry
conducted by his direct superior, Deputy Director Mr. Manvi, who had
previously made critical complaints about him. The inquiry process was
flawed as Mr. Manvi acted as both a complainant and a witness. Furthermore,
various documents presented during the inquiry were not disclosed to
Parthasarathy. The Supreme Court invalidated the termination order against
him on two grounds:
 Nemo Judex in Causa Sua: This principle asserts that no one should be
a judge in their own cause, highlighting the conflict of interest in
having Mr. Manvi oversee the inquiry.
 Audi Alteram Partem: The court ruled that Parthasarathy's right to
know the evidence against him was violated, rendering the inquiry
and subsequent termination unlawful.
3. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax (AIR 1955 SC 65):
o In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of evidence disclosure by
the income tax authorities. The records produced by the authorities were not
disclosed to Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills. The court held that this lack of
disclosure violated the Mills' right to know the evidence against them,
reinforcing the necessity for transparency in proceedings.
Conclusion
The cases discussed illustrate the critical importance of disclosing evidence to the parties
involved in any inquiry or legal proceeding. The violation of the principles of Audi Alteram
Partem and Nemo Judex in Causa Sua not only undermines the fairness of the process but
also has significant implications for the legitimacy of the decisions made. Ensuring that all
evidence is made available to the parties is essential for upholding justice and the rule of
law.
The opportunity to rebut adverse evidence-

The principle of the opportunity to rebut adverse evidence is a fundamental aspect

of the doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem, ensuring that parties have a fair chance to
defend themselves against any allegations or evidence presented against them. This
principle comprises two critical components: Cross-Examination and Right to Legal
Representation. Below is an overview of these principles, illustrated by key case law.
1. Cross-Examination
Cross-examination is a vital mechanism for challenging the credibility and reliability
of evidence presented against a party. It allows the accused to question witnesses
and contest their testimonies.
Key Cases:
 R v. Gaming Board (1970): This English case established that cross-examination is
essential for ensuring fairness in proceedings.
 State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammed (AIR 1967 SC 122): The
Supreme Court recognized that when evidence is presented in the form of an
affidavit and there is no adverse evidence within that affidavit, the necessity for
cross-examination may be diminished. Thus, cross-examination is not an absolute
requirement in every scenario.
 Hira Nath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College: This case noted that in educational
institutions, where cross-examination might lead to further harassment or distress
for the party involved, it may be excluded to protect the individual's well-being.
 UP Ware Housing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan (AIR 1980 SC 2117): The Supreme
Court ruled that denying a party the opportunity to cross-examine a witness
constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the decision
invalid.
 Palani Swami v. K. Dhanpalan (2017) 4 SCC 713: The Supreme Court emphasized
that the denial of cross-examination of a witness is a serious flaw that undermines
the fairness of proceedings and held that such a decision was invalid.
2. Right to Legal Representation
The right to legal representation is another essential component of the Audi Alteram
Partem principle, ensuring that parties have the opportunity to be assisted by legal
counsel during proceedings.
Key Cases:
 Pett v. Greyhound Racing Association (1968) 2 All ER 545: Lord Denning emphasized
the importance of legal representation in ensuring fairness in administrative
proceedings.
 S.6(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, USA: This provision underscores the
necessity of legal representation, highlighting its importance in administrative
contexts.
  C.L. Subramaniam v. Collector, Customs: The Supreme Court recognized the right to
legal representation as an essential element of the principles of natural justice,
reinforcing the notion that parties should have the means to defend their interests
effectively.
 The Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar: This case further affirmed the
significance of allowing legal representation, ensuring that parties can adequately
address the charges against them.
Conclusion
The opportunity to rebut adverse evidence, through cross-examination and the right
to legal representation, is integral to the principles of natural justice and the doctrine
of Audi Alteram Partem. These principles serve to uphold the fairness and integrity of
judicial and administrative processes, ensuring that individuals are not unjustly
deprived of their rights without an opportunity to defend themselves. The case law
discussed highlights the importance of these principles in safeguarding justice and
fairness in various contexts.

no evidence should be taken in the absence of the other party

The principle that no evidence should be taken in the absence of the other party is a
cornerstone of the doctrine of Audi Alteram Partem (hear the other side). This principle
ensures that all parties involved in a legal proceeding have the opportunity to be present
during the presentation of evidence against them, thereby allowing them to contest that
evidence effectively.
Key Principle
 No Evidence in Absence of Other Party: Evidence must be presented in a manner that
allows both parties to participate. This is vital to maintaining fairness and integrity in
judicial and administrative processes.
Key Case Law
1. Hira Nath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College (AIR 1973 SC 1260):
o In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the principle of evidence being
taken in the absence of the other party. The court noted that in exceptional
circumstances, a departure from this principle might be warranted,
particularly when the failure to do so would lead to retaliation and
harassment.
o The court concluded that since the party had been provided with a gist of the
evidence, it could allow the taking of evidence in the absence of the other
party. This case is an example of a rare exception to the general rule.
2. S.P. Paul v. Calcutta University:
 o In this case, the court emphasized that evidence should be taken in the
presence of both parties. The decision reiterated the importance of allowing
both parties to be present during the evidence presentation to ensure
fairness in the proceedings.
3. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chandrasekhara (AIR 1988 SC 1309):
o This case further reinforced the principle that evidence must be presented in
the presence of both parties. The Supreme Court reiterated that the absence
of one party during the taking of evidence could compromise the fairness and
integrity of the proceedings, highlighting the necessity for both parties to
have an equal opportunity to engage with the evidence being presented.
Conclusion
The principle that no evidence should be taken in the absence of the other party is
fundamental to ensuring a fair and just legal process. The cases discussed illustrate the
importance of this principle while also noting the exceptional circumstances under which
deviations may occur, as seen in Hira Nath Mishra. However, the overarching emphasis
remains on the necessity of both parties being present during evidence presentation to
uphold the integrity of judicial and administrative proceedings.
right to present one’s case and evidence
D The right to present one’s case and evidence is a fundamental aspect of the principle of Audi
Alteram Partem (hear the other side). This principle ensures that all parties involved in a legal
proceeding are afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their arguments and evidence, whether
through oral or documentary means.

Key Principle

 Right to Present the Case and Evidence: Every party must be given a fair chance to present
their case, including the submission of relevant documents and oral arguments. This right is
crucial for maintaining fairness and justice in legal proceedings.

Key Case Law

1. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax (AIR 1955 SC 65):

o In this landmark case, the Supreme Court addressed the importance of providing a
reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

o The Income Tax Tribunal failed to give the assessee a fair opportunity to produce
relevant books of account, which were essential for their defense.

o The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Tribunal, emphasizing that the right
to present one's case includes the ability to submit relevant evidence and
documentation. The ruling underscored the necessity for authorities to ensure that
all parties have the opportunity to be heard effectively.

Conclusion
The right to present one’s case and evidence is integral to the principle of Audi Alteram Partem. As
demonstrated in the Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills case, the failure to provide a reasonable opportunity
to present relevant evidence can lead to a decision being quashed. This principle not only promotes
fairness in legal proceedings but also reinforces the rule of law, ensuring that all parties can
participate meaningfully in the adjudicative process.

6,7 AND EXCEPTIONS ARE LEFT