Powered by

Note 1

Definition of Administrative Law

Administrative law is a dynamic body of law that evolves with the expanding functions of
governments.
Dr. F.J. Port describes it as the collection of legal rules aimed at fulfilling public law,
involving both legislative and judicial aspects.
Sir Ivor Jennings defines it simply as the law relating to administrative authorities, but this
definition is criticized for its breadth and lack of distinction between administrative and
constitutional law.
Dicey outlines three components: the legal status of state officials, the rights of individuals
with public officials, and the enforcement procedures for those rights.
Kenneth Culp Davis emphasizes the procedural aspects of administrative law, focusing on
the powers and functions of administrative agencies. He excludes judiciary and legislature
from this definition.
The key components of administrative law include checks on power abuse, impartial
dispute resolution, protection of individual rights, and accountability of public power
holders.

Note 2

Nature and Scope of Administrative Law

Administrative law governs the activities of government agencies, covering rule-making,
adjudication, and enforcement.
It is considered a branch of public law that deals with regulatory frameworks in various
sectors such as police law, international trade, and environmental regulation.
The growth of administrative law corresponds with the rising complexity of societal and
governmental functions since the 20th century.
Taxation decisions are a common point of contention in courts, especially in civil law
countries with specialized administrative courts.

Note 3

Reasons for Growth of Administrative Law

The evolution of the state's role from a minimalistic approach to a welfare state has
necessitated a broader scope of administrative functions.
Urbanization due to the Industrial Revolution has led to increased demands for
infrastructure and services, thus prompting administrative law development.
Emergency situations often require rapid responses through administrative rules, which
are quicker to implement than legislative processes.
The judicial system's inadequacies—slow, costly, and complex—have resulted in the
establishment of specialized tribunals to address specific disputes more effectively.

Note 4
Key Concepts in Administrative Law
Administrative law includes:
Rule-making (quasi-legislative actions)
Rule-decision (quasi-judicial actions)
Rule-application (administrative actions)
Ministerial actions (pure administrative actions)
It emphasizes the procedural aspects of how official actions are taken, typically governed
by statutes or separate procedural codes.
Control mechanisms for administrative agencies include judicial, legislative, procedural,
executive, and social controls.

Note 5

Inadequacy of Legislative Process

The legislative process is described as inadequate, lacking both time and technique to
address all necessary details.
Detailed rules and procedures laid down often proved defective, exemplified by issues like
rate fixing.
Delegation of powers to administrative authorities is seen as necessary to overcome
these limitations.

Note 6

Scope for Experimentation in Administrative Process

There exists a significant scope for experimentation within administrative processes.
Unlike the rigidity of legislation, rules can be created, tested, and modified quickly based
on their effectiveness.
This flexibility allows for adaptive governance, enabling timely responses to emerging
issues.

Note 7

Avoidance of Technicalities in Administrative Law

Administrative authorities can bypass technicalities that often constrain traditional
judiciaries.
Administrative law adopts a functional approach rather than a theoretical or legalistic one.
Courts are bound by formal rules of evidence, while administrative tribunals can approach
cases more practically.

Note 8
Preventive Mechanisms in Administrative Law
Administrative authorities are empowered to take preventive measures such as licensing
and rate fixing, without waiting for disputes to arise.
This proactive approach can be more effective than punitive measures post-violation.
Example: The inspection and grading of meat serves consumer needs better than allowing
consumers to sue after injury occurs.

Note 9

Effective Enforcement by Administrative Authorities

Administrative authorities can enforce preventive measures effectively, including actions
like suspension, revocation, and cancellation of licenses.
They can also take steps such as the destruction of contaminated articles, which regular
courts typically cannot do.

Note 10

Distinction between Constitutional Law and Administrative Law

Constitutional Law is the supreme law; Administrative Law is subordinate to it.
Constitutional Law deals with the structure of the state, while Administrative Law focuses
on the functions of state organs.
Constitutional Law provides broad guidelines; Administrative Law details powers and
functions of administrative authorities.
In written constitution countries, distinctions are clearer; in England, they can be blurred.
I. P. Massay notes that while overlapping exists, Administrative Law is recognized as a
distinct discipline.

Note 11

Droit Administratif in France

Droit Administratif defines the organization and duties of public administration and
regulates relations with citizens.
It emerged from the doctrine of separation of powers, ensuring a distinction between
administrative bodies and regular courts.
Historical context: The Conseil d’Etat was established post-Revolution to handle
administrative disputes and has evolved to exercise judicial powers.
By 1872, it gained formal judgment powers, determining administrative liability under
special rules distinct from civil law.

Note 12

Montesquieu’s Doctrine of Separation of Powers

 Montesquieu argues for separation of powers among legislature, executive, and judiciary
to avoid conflict and confusion.
The doctrine is theoretically useful but challenging to enforce practically.
Examples of deviations in practice include:
Ministers being members of Parliament (first rule violation).
Executive accountability to the legislature (second rule violation).
Delegated legislation allowing executives to make laws (third rule violation).

Note 13

Rule of Law
The Rule of Law is foundational to Administrative Law, derived from the principle that law
governs the actions of individuals and institutions.
Introduced by Sir Edward Coke and expanded by A. V. Dicey, who emphasized its three
principles:
Supremacy of Law
Equality before Law
Predominance of Legal Spirit
The Rule of Law is recognized in both the U.S. and Indian constitutions, and various
landmark cases in India reinforce its importance.

Note 14

Delegated Legislation
Definition: Delegated legislation occurs when the legislature delegates its law-making
powers to other state organs.
Need: Increasing pressure on the legislature, lack of expertise, and the complexity of state
functions necessitate this delegation.
Delegated laws made by the executive are termed subordinate legislation, while those
made by the legislature are superior legislation.

Note 15

Delegated Legislation
1. Definition: Delegated legislation refers to the process by which the legislature delegates its
law-making powers to the executive.
1. Expertise Utilization: The executive possesses both expertise and practical experience in
various fields, making it suitable for law-making.
1. Addressing Urgent Situations: The legislature has limited time to enact laws due to
sessions, while the executive can act swiftly to address unforeseen socio-economic
challenges.
1. Facilitation of Experimentation: The executive can modify laws quickly, allowing for
necessary experimentation in new areas, which is not feasible for the legislature.
1. Secrecy Maintenance: Certain laws need to be enacted discreetly to prevent public panic
or hoarding before their enforcement.
1. Administrative Management: Some laws are inherently administrative and thus better
managed by the executive.
Source Pages: [26, 27]

Note 16

Constitutional Validity of Delegated Legislation

1. Initial Challenges: The delegation of legislative powers faced challenges based on the
Doctrine of Separation of Powers and the principle of delegatus non potest delegare,
which suggests that one delegate cannot further delegate powers.
1. Court Responses: Despite these challenges, courts in the UK and the USA have generally
rejected the notion that legislative functions can’t be delegated, recognizing the practical
benefits of such delegation.
1. Indian Context: In the case of R. vs. Burah, the Privy Council found that the delegation in
question was constitutional, leading to differing interpretations in subsequent cases.
1. Federal Court's Ruling: In Jatindra Nath vs. Province of Bihar, the Federal Court adhered to
the Burah decision, allowing conditional legislation but not full legislative delegation.
1. Supreme Court's Conclusion: In Re Delhi Laws Act, the Supreme Court clarified key points
regarding delegation, including that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated,
and established guidelines for permissible delegation.
Source Pages: [27, 28]

Note 17

Essential Legislative Functions

1. Definition: Essential legislative functions involve laying down the policy of law and
enacting this policy into binding rules.
1. Judicial Interpretation: Various court cases have defined how these essential functions
apply. For instance, in Rajnarain Singh vs. Chairman, the delegation was deemed
unconstitutional as it involved policy selection.
1. Examples of Valid Delegation: In Hari Shankar Bagla vs. State of M.P., the court upheld the
delegation for rules maintaining essential commodity supplies as it provided sufficient
guidelines.
1. Unconstitutional Delegation: Conversely, in Hamdard Dawakhana vs. Union of India, the
delegation to modify a list of diseases was ruled unconstitutional due to insufficient
guidelines.
1. Case Comparisons: The court distinguished between valid and invalid delegations based
on the clarity of guidelines and the nature of the powers conferred.
Source Pages: [29, 30]

Note 18

Types of Delegated Legislation

1. Skeleton Legislation: Broad laws are created by the legislature, with details filled in by the
executive, ensuring essential powers remain with the legislature.
1. Power of Inclusion and Exclusion: The legislature establishes a law and allows the
executive to adjust its applicability to certain persons or things, typically seen as
conditional legislation.
1. Modification Powers: Various delegation methods exist for modifying statutes, with courts
typically upholding these as long as they don't change the law's core policy.
1. Removal of Difficulty Clauses: These allow the executive discretion to adjust laws to
facilitate implementation, but excessive powers can render such delegations
unconstitutional.
1. Tax Imposition Powers: Courts generally view delegation of tax imposition as
unconstitutional, though some exceptions exist for selecting certain taxable entities or
exemptions.
Source Pages: [31, 32]

Note 19

Delegated Legislation Overview

Delegation of power by the legislature to the executive is generally considered valid,
especially in tax-related matters.
Types of Delegation:
Tax Authority Delegation: The legislature can delegate the authority to the executive to
bring a commodity under taxation and to fix tax rates within prescribed limits.
Representative Bodies: Tax powers can be delegated to representative bodies like
municipal corporations, ensuring accountability and reducing misuse.
Statutory Bodies: Courts usually uphold delegated taxing powers to statutory bodies if
they are guided and controlled properly.
Case Examples:
J. R. G. Manufacturing Association vs. UOI: The Supreme Court supported the Rubber
Board's authority to levy excise duty, emphasizing its representative nature and
government oversight.
B. K. Krishna Bhat vs. State of Karnataka: The Supreme Court validated the Bangalore
Development Authority's power to levy property tax due to the detailed statutory
framework provided.

Note 20

Judicial Control of Delegated Legislation

Judicial Review: The primary method for controlling delegated legislation in India is
through judicial review, typically invoking the doctrine of ultra vires.
Types of Ultra Vires:
Substantive Ultra Vires: Challenges the validity of the parent Act or the delegated law
itself, arguing it exceeds constitutional authority.
Procedural Ultra Vires: Involves failure to follow the prescribed procedures in creating
delegated legislation.
Stages of Substantive Ultra Vires:
1. Parent Act may be ultra vires the Constitution.
1. Delegation itself may be ultra vires the Constitution.
1. The delegated legislation may be ultra vires.
1. Delegated legislation may also be ultra vires the parent Act.

Note 21

Examples of Ultra Vires Cases

Dwarka Prasad vs. State of U.P.: Certain rules under the U.P. Coal Control Order were
deemed ultra vires for imposing unreasonable restrictions on trade freedom.
Himat Lal K. Shah vs. Commissioner of Police: A rule requiring prior permission for public
meetings was ruled ultra vires due to unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech.
Dwarka Nath vs. Municipal Corporation: Rules that exceeded the delegation limits were
struck down, reinforcing the principle that rules cannot extend beyond the legislative intent
of the parent Act.

Note 22

Additional Control Mechanisms

Vagueness in Rules: Rules can be challenged if they are vague, potentially leading to
discriminatory practices.
Attempts to Exclude Judicial Review: Legislative bodies may attempt to limit judicial
review through clauses in rules or parent statutes, but such attempts are generally
ineffective.
Example: The “as if enacted” clause has been criticized for attempting to shield delegated
legislation from judicial scrutiny but has been overruled in various cases to ensure
accountability.
Protection under Article 31-B: This article protects certain laws from being declared void
due to fundamental rights violations, but it does not extend to delegated legislation unless
specifically included in the IX Schedule.

Note 23

Administrative Law Cases

Prag Rice & Oil Mills vs. UoI: Art. 31-B saves only the parent statute, not the administrative
rules.
The ruling was reaffirmed in Vasanlal Maganbhai vs. State of Bombay and Latafat Ali Khan
vs. State of U. P.
I. R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu: Statutes in the IX Schedule can be challenged.
Conclusive Evidence Clause: Parent statutes often state that rules published in the Official
Gazette are valid.
In Trust Mai Lachhmi Sialkoti Bradari vs. AIT, it was held that this clause does not protect
rules from substantive ultra vires.
In Vallbhdas vs. M. C. Akola, procedural ultra vires can be defended by this clause if the
deviations are minor.
Ganga Clause: A specific type of conclusive evidence clause that exonerates rules from
defects in their making.
B. K. Srinivasan vs. State of Karnataka: The clause allows challenges on substantive ultra
 vires but not on minor procedural irregularities.
The Court upheld the clause despite minor deviations if they did not lead to injustice.

Note 24

Legislative Control of Delegation

The Legislature has the power to control the legislative powers of the delegatee, acting as
the principal.
Two types of legislative control: Direct Control and Indirect Control.
Direct Control
General Control:
Debates on Acts with rule-making powers; members can discuss necessity and extent of
delegation.
Questions and Notices: Members can inquire about delegation aspects, leading to
discussions under Rule 59 in Lok Sabha.
Resolutions and Notices: Members can propose resolutions if delegation matters are
urgent.
Votes on Grants: Members can propose cuts in budget demands to discuss rule-making
powers.
Private Member's Bills: Members can seek modifications in the parent Act.
Special Control: Specifically for delegated legislation, requiring rules to be laid before
Parliament in various ways.
No further direction: Rules come into effect immediately after being laid.
Subject to Negative Resolution: Rules cease to have effect if a negative resolution passes.
Subject to Affirmative Resolution: Rules require approval from both Houses to take effect.
Draft Form with Negative/Affirmative Resolution: Drafts laid before legislature require
approval to come into effect.

Note 25

Procedural Control
1. Drafting: Requires specialized skills; some statutes mandate rules be drafted by trained
draftsmen.
1. Pre-publication (Ante natal publication): Rules must be published to receive objections and
suggestions from affected interests.
Procedure includes:
Publishing draft in Official Gazette.
Inviting objections by a specified date.
Considering objections received.
1. Consultation with Affected Interests: Some statutes require consultation with expert
bodies before drafting rules to ensure engagement with stakeholders.
1. Post-publication (Post natal publication): Necessary for the law to be brought to public
notice.
The Re Panama Case emphasized the need for proper publication to avoid unjust
punishment under repealed regulations.
Note 26

Effect of Ultra Vires Rules

Ultra vires rules are considered invalid and void, treated as if they never existed.
Example: Bar Council of India vs. Surjeet Singh: Rules made by State Bar Council were void
and could not be ratified by Bar Council of India.
Courts may consider invalid provisions as valid directions if the authority has the power to
issue directions in the same matter, unless it leads to public hardship.

Note 27

Retrospective Operation of Delegated Legislation

Legislatures can enact retrospective laws except for criminal laws (Art. 20 prohibits
retrospective criminal laws).
Executive cannot make retrospective laws unless permitted by the parent statute.
Example: ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards vs. Mandal Revenue Officer confirmed this rule.
In B. S. Yadav vs. State of Haryana, it was ruled that just because the parent statute allows
retrospective rules, it doesn't mean they can be enacted without justification.

Note 28

Explanatory Notes and Delay in Making Rules

Explanatory notes may be added instead of amending rules, and their legal effect varies.
Tara Singh vs. State of Rajasthan: Notes held to have legal effect similar to rules.
K. Challaiah vs. Industrial Finance Corporation of India: Notes cannot alter the scope of
established regulations.
Different rulings indicate the necessity for notes to align with statutory requirements and
not conflict with existing rules.

Note 29

Sub-Delegation of Legislative Functions

Definition: Sub-delegation occurs when a delegatee further delegates the power to make
rules. This is typically considered ultra vires unless explicitly permitted by statute.
Case Example 1: In Ganapati Singhji vs. State of Ajmer, Sec. 40 of the Ajmer Laws
Regulation, 1877 allowed the Chief Commissioner to make rules about fairs. The Chief
Commissioner’s delegation of power to the District Magistrate was deemed ultra vires
because the District Magistrate could revoke permits without prior notice.
Case Example 2: In Hari Shankar Bagla vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Central
Government's delegation of power under the Essential Supplies Act was upheld as the
statute allowed for such delegation.
Legal Maxim: The principle delegatus non potest delegare applies, but consent of the
principal can be an exception.
Note 30

Waiver of Rules
Definition: Waiver or relaxation of rules by an administrative authority is void unless
expressly provided for in the statute.
Implication: Allowing waivers can lead to arbitrariness and potential discrimination.

Note 31

Quasi Legislation
Introduction: Quasi legislation refers to orders issued by government departments that
resemble laws but are not actual laws. They arise from the need for uniformity among
various officers in different locations.
Differences with Delegated Legislation:
Authority: Rules are made by the legislature's delegation, while directions are issued by the
executive.
Nature of Binding: Rules are binding; directions are not.
Enforceability: Rules can be enforced in court; directions cannot.
Identification of Quasi Legislation: Factors include nomenclature, source of authority, and
procedural requirements.
Case Examples:
In Uttar Pradesh vs. Kishori Lal, Excise Rules were deemed to be directions.
In A. Prabhakar Reddy vs. State of Karnataka, certain admission rules were similarly
categorized as directions.

Note 32

Enforceability of Quasi Legislation

General Rule: Quasi legislation acts are generally not enforceable in courts; remedies are
administrative.
Case Examples:
Kumari Regina vs. A. E. H. School: A breach of the Grant-in-Aid Code was not justiciable.
J. R. Raghupathy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh: Guidelines issued were deemed
departmental and unenforceable.
UOI vs. Indo-Afghan Agencies: The government was estopped from denying enforcement
of an export promotion scheme.
Exceptions: There are situations where non-compliance may lead to judicial intervention,
such as:
Breaches that amount to violations of statutory provisions.
Cases where a quasi legislation is part of a contract.
Instances invoking the doctrine of estoppel.
Service matters where directions are akin to Rules.
Note 33

Limitations and Conflicts of Directions

Inconsistency with Statutes: Directions cannot contradict statutory provisions. Any
directions aiming to alter laws will be invalid.
Selective Enforcement: Discriminatory application of directions violates Article 14 of the
Constitution, leading to potential legal challenges.
Case Examples:
Mannalal Jain vs. State of Assam: Invalidated a circular for preferential treatment that
contradicted established criteria.
V. T. Khanzode vs. RBI: Directions altering seniority rules were ruled invalid.
Legitimate Expectation: Courts may enforce directions if consistent application creates a
legitimate expectation for individuals.

Note 34

Illogical and Unfair Directions

Directions deemed illogical, irrational, unfair, or unjust can lead to discrimination, violating
Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Example: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. U. S. V. Bararan invalidated a reservation of 40%
seats for HSC students in CET as unconstitutional.
Vague Directions: Directions lacking specific meaning can be misinterpreted and lead to
discrimination, also violating Article 14.
Individual rights can only be affected by legislative action, not executive directions.
Case Example: N. K. Pankaja Kshan Nair vs. P. V. Jayaraj reinforced that rights for
promotion cannot be taken away by administrative instructions.
Directions in pursuit of government policy are enforceable and binding until altered.
Case Example: Home Secretary, UT of Chandigarh vs. Darshuit Singh Grewal affirmed policy
guidelines are binding until changed.

Note 35

Discretionary Powers and Directions

Discretionary powers are meant for administrative authorities to apply their judgment
based on case facts.
Directions to such authorities regarding specific cases are invalid; however, general
guidelines can be upheld for uniformity.
Case Example: Anil Kumar Bhattacharya vs. UOI ruled that a telephone service instruction
for rebates after 15 days of service interruption was enforceable.
Directions affecting quasi-judicial functions must not interfere with the discretion of quasi-
judicial authorities.
Case Example: B. Rajagopala Naidu vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal restricted
government directions to exclude quasi-judicial bodies.

Note 36
Natural Justice Overview
Natural Justice encompasses fundamental rules governing adjudicatory functions,
applicable in judicial and quasi-judicial contexts, but less so in legislative or ministerial
functions.
Functions and Applicability:
1. Administrative Functions:
Ministerial: Not applicable (no decision-making involved).
Discretionary: Partly applicable (only rule against bias).
1. Quasi Judicial Functions: Fully applicable (both rules).
1. Quasi Legislative Functions: Not applicable (similar to legislative acts).
1. Rule-making Function: Not applicable (legislative nature).
Courts have recognized Natural Justice as part of the Constitution's basic structure, even
if not explicitly stated.

Note 37

Rules of Natural Justice

There are two main rules of Natural Justice:
1. Rule Against Bias: No one can judge their own case (Nemo judex in causa sua).
1. Rule of Fair Hearing: Both parties must be heard (Audi alteram partem).

Note 38

Types of Bias
Personal Bias: Occurs when the deciding authority has a personal interest in the case.
Case Example: APSRTC vs. Sathyanarayan Transport Pvt. Ltd. challenged state action due
to personal bias of the minister.
Pecuniary Bias: Arises when the authority stands to gain or lose financially.
Case Example: J. Mohapatra & Co vs. State of Orissa quashed selection decisions due to
committee members' authorship of competing textbooks.
Bias as to Subject-Matter: Interest in a subject may create apprehension of bias but is not
enough alone to disqualify.
Departmental Bias: Occurs when authority belongs to the same department as one of the
parties, potentially compromising impartiality.
Pre-Conceived Notion Bias: Personal convictions of the authority may influence decisions,
although they are difficult to avoid.
Case Example: Franklin vs. Minister of Town and Country Planning highlighted concerns
over a minister's closed-mindedness during a public hearing.

Note 39

Right of Fair Hearing

Audi Alteram Partem: This principle emphasizes that both sides must be heard before a
 decision is made.
Fair hearing components include:
1. Right to Notice: Adequate notice must be given.
1. Right to Appearance: Parties should have the chance to present their case.
1. Right to Know Adverse Evidence: Parties must be informed of any evidence against them.
1. Right to Present Case: Opportunity to present both oral and written arguments.
1. Right to Present Evidence: Both testimonial and documentary evidence must be allowed.
1. Right to Not Collect Evidence at Back: Evidence must not be collected without the
knowledge of the parties involved.
1. Right to Rebut Adverse Evidence: Parties must have the chance to challenge evidence
against them.
1. Right to Report of Enquiry: Access to reports and findings from inquiries.
1. Right to Speaking Order: Decisions must be explained with reasons.
Cases illustrating these rights:
State of J&K vs. Haji Wali Mohammed: Insufficient notice for demolition deemed unfair.
Union of India vs. Naredra Singh: Cancellation without notice ruled illegal.
Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT: Material must be disclosed to ensure fairness.

Note 40

Natural Justice Principles

When an appellate authority modifies or reverses a decision, it must provide sufficient
written reasons.
Case Example: Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Shyam Sundar illustrates this principle.
If an authority confirms a decision made by another after sufficient reasoning, no
additional reasons are necessary.
Case Example: M. P. Industries vs. Union of India was upheld without further reasoning by
the Central Government.
However, in Bhagat Raja vs. UoI, it was determined that even a concurring appellate
authority must provide reasons.
In Divisional Forest Officer vs. Madhusudhan Rao, it was clarified that brief remarks may
suffice if the appellate authority agrees with the lower authority.
Reasons should always be recorded if the order impacts public interest.

Note 41

Circumstances Rendering Hearing Unfair

Dictation Issues:
Case Example: Mahadayal vs. CTO illustrates problems arising from undue influence.
Financial Incapacity:
Case Example: In Ghanshyamdas Shrivastava vs. State of M. P., the lack of suspension
allowance impaired the employee's ability to participate in the inquiry, violating natural
justice.
Administrative Decisions Made Haste:
Case Example: In City Coroner vs. P. A. to Collector, the District Magistrate revoked a
license hastily, ignoring the petitioners' reply, leading to a ruling against the decision for
failing to uphold natural justice principles.
Note 42

Exceptions to Natural Justice

Emergency Situations: Post-decisional hearings may apply in urgent circumstances.
Confidentiality:
Case Examples: Malak Singh vs. State of Punjab; S. P. Gupta vs. Union of India demonstrate
this exception.
Ministerial Functions:
Academic matters can have different standards for natural justice as per J. N. U. vs. B. S.
Narwal and K. P. S. C. vs. B. M. Vijaya Shankar.
Impracticability:
Case Examples: R. Radhakrishnan vs. Osmania University; West Bengal Electricity vs. CESC
Limited highlight scenarios where adherence to natural justice is impractical.
Legislative Functions:
Situations where legislative actions do not infringe upon rights may also be exceptions.

Note 43

Right of Third Parties

Generally, the right to natural justice is limited to parties directly involved in proceedings.
Exception: If a decision may affect a third party's rights, they must also be heard.
Case Example: In Antonio S. C. Pareira vs. Ricardino Naronha, a property dispute required all
parties to be heard in relation to declarations under the Evacuee Properties Act, 1862.

Note 44

Effect of Violation of Natural Justice

Non-compliance with natural justice principles renders decisions or orders void.
Case Example: In Canara Bank vs. Debasis Das, it was ruled that an invalid order could be
reconsidered in a new hearing that complies with natural justice.
Observance of natural justice is mandated as public policy.
Case Example: Kanwar Hari Bhushan Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Simla emphasized
that the absence of input from a party does not excuse non-observance of natural justice
principles.
The distinction between void and voidable orders in natural justice violations is debated,
with courts often ruling orders void from the moment of violation, as seen in Sirsi
Municipality vs. Ceceliakon Francis Tellies.

Note 45

Administrative Functions
 Authority in Decision Making: The final decision must be made by the authority, not
subordinates, even if the latter assist in gathering necessary materials.
Acting Under Dictation: Authority must exercise discretion based on personal experience;
acting under higher authority's dictation is improper.
Case References:
Pradyumna Kumar vs. Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court.
Purtabpore Company Limited vs. Cane Commissioner.
Commissioner of Police vs. Gordhandas Bhanji: License cancellation was invalid when done
under state orders.
Barium Chemicals vs. Company Law Board: Investigation order challenged due to minister's
personal interest, but suspicion cannot replace proof.
Mansukhlal vs. State of Gujrat: Distinction between dictation and advice is essential.
Source Pages: [98, 99]

Note 46

Imposing Fetters on Discretion

Rules for Discretion: Creating rules is acceptable but must not restrict the authority's
ability to decide on individual merits.
Case References:
Hari vs. Commissioner of Police: Abuse of discretion when the Commissioner imposed a
strict prototype for licenses.
Gell vs. Tej Noora.
Keshavan Bhaskaran vs. State of Kerala: Notification issued restricting age for Leaving
Certificates.
Source Pages: [99, 100]

Note 47

Exercise of Discretion
Correct Timing: Discretion must be exercised based on facts at the relevant time;
premature exercise is invalid.
Example: Grant-in-aid must follow a school's five-year operation, invalid if promised
prematurely.
Powers Coupled with Duty: If authority is given a power with mandatory duties, it cannot
evade that duty.
Case Reference: Haridas Narain vs. ITO: Power must be exercised in accordance with
surrounding provisions.
Wrong Exercise of Discretion: Includes various abuses such as:
Irrelevant considerations.
Ignoring relevant factors.
Mixed considerations.
Colourable exercise.
Use for collateral purposes.
Mala fide actions.
Unreasonable actions.
Lack of jurisdiction or exceeding jurisdiction.
 Non-compliance with procedural requirements or natural justice.
Source Pages: [100, 101]

Note 48

Judicial Review and Reasonableness

Judicial Review: Courts may intervene in administrative decisions based on
unreasonableness.
Wednesbury Unreasonableness: A decision can be quashed if it:
Considers irrelevant factors.
Fails to consider relevant ones.
Is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would impose it.
Case Reference: Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation
established this principle.
Principle of Reasonableness: Courts require a rational basis for administrative actions and
may scrutinize the weight given to various factors in decisions.
Examples of Unreasonable Actions:
Partial operations.
Bad faith actions.
Oppressiveness.
Gross interference with rights.
Source Pages: [105, 106]

Note 49

Lack of Jurisdiction and Procedural Compliance

Lack of Jurisdiction: Authorities must act within their granted powers; exceeding these
leads to abuse.
Case Reference: State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Nath.
Procedural Requirements: Non-compliance with mandatory procedures is an abuse of
discretion.
If procedural requirements are directory, non-compliance may not constitute abuse.
Natural Justice Violations: Exercising discretion in violation of natural justice principles,
such as bias or failure to provide fair hearing, constitutes an abuse.
Source Pages: [107, 108]

Note 50

Introduction to Quasi-Judicial Authorities

Quasi-judicial authorities possess some judicial traits but operate in an administrative
capacity.
The term ‘quasi’ implies 'not exactly', indicating that these authorities do not fulfill all
judicial functions.
Distinguishing administrative from quasi-judicial functions can be challenging due to their
overlap in determining individual rights.
Note 51

Characteristics of Quasi-Judicial Functions

1. LIS INTER PARTES
A quasi-judicial function involves disputes between parties (e.g., Shankarlal vs Shankarlal).
1. Provision for Administrative Appeal
Authorities have provisions for appeal processes (e.g., Nagendra Nath Bora vs.
Commissioner).
1. Powers of Court
Authorities with court-like powers are presumed to act quasi-judicially (e.g., State of
Maharashtra vs. Marwanjee F. Desai).
1. Adverse Civil Consequences
Decisions made can adversely affect individuals' rights.
1. Duty to Act Judicially
Authorities must act in a manner deemed 'just and proper', imposing judicial-like duties
(e.g., Shivji Nathubhai vs. India).

Note 52

Distinction Between Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Functions

General Differences
Administrative acts can be purely administrative, legislative, or judicial, while quasi-judicial
acts resemble judicial functions.
The distinction is often blurred since both types determine individual rights.
Key Terms
‘LIS’: Refers to disputes between parties.
‘Quasi-LIS’: Involves decisions affecting rights where the authority itself is a party.
Examples of Quasi-Judicial Authorities
Rent Tribunals, Election Tribunals, Industrial Tribunals, Licensing Tribunals.

Note 53

Duties and Fairness in Quasi-Judicial Functions

1. Duty to Act Judicially
This duty may arise in various circumstances, often inferred from statutory provisions.
1. Duty to Act Fairly
A broader concept than judicial duty, applicable even where no dispute exists. It
encompasses principles like 'fair play' and 'legitimate expectations'.
1. Case Examples
Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani: Government requisitioning land was not
deemed quasi-judicial due to subjective satisfaction.
R. v. Metropolitan Police Commr., ex p. Parker: A cab driver's license revoked without fair
opportunity was also not quasi-judicial.
Note 54

Judicial vs. Quasi-Judicial Functions

Judicial Functions
Require a dispute with formal presentation, ascertainment of facts through evidence, and
legal arguments.
Quasi-Judicial Functions
Involve some judicial elements but may lack formal legal argumentation and rely on
administrative discretion post-fact ascertainment.
Key Distinctions
Quasi-judicial authorities may have discretionary powers unlike courts, which apply pre-
existing laws.

Note 55

Need for Quasi-Judicial Functions

1. Burden on Courts
Courts face delays due to their caseload (e.g., Mahabir Jute Mills case).
1. Specialization and Informality
Quasi-judicial bodies can specialize in specific areas and provide less formal processes.
1. Cost-Effectiveness
Generally less expensive and quicker than traditional judicial processes.
1. Preventive Action
Quasi-judicial bodies can take preventive measures rather than just remedial actions.

Note 56

Challenges in Quasi-Judicial Functions

1. Complexity and Volume
The increasing number and complexity of cases can overwhelm these bodies.
1. Procedural Variability
Lack of standard procedures can lead to inconsistencies.
1. Visibility and Predictability
Decisions may be obscure or unpredictable, affecting public trust.
1. Official Bias and Political Interference
Potential biases and external pressures can compromise fairness.

Note 57

Enquiry Against Quasi-Judicial Authorities

Generally, quasi-judicial authorities must function independently without external
interference.
Enquiries can be initiated under specific circumstances, such as:
1. Integrity issues or misconduct.
1. Negligence or failure to meet conditions of duties.
1. Favoritism or corruption.
Case Example: Union of India vs. K. K. Dhawan, where post haste decisions warranted an
inquiry.

Note 58

Constitutional Validity of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Key Cases
L. Chandra Kumar vs. UoI: Provisions excluding High Courts' jurisdiction deemed
unconstitutional.
State of T. N. vs. S. Thangavel: Tribunal members not classified as judges, their orders not
considered judgments under CPC.

Note 59

Contractual Liability of the State

Articles Involved: Articles 298, 299, and 300 of the Constitution govern state contracts.
Purpose of Article 298: This article allows the government to enter contracts necessary for
state functions.
Details in Article 299: Specifies essential formalities for government contracts:
The contract must be expressed to be made by the President or Governor.
It must be executed on their behalf.
It must be signed by an authorized person.
Article 300: States that the liability of the Union and States mirrors that of the dominion
under the Government of India Act, 1935.
Relation to Indian Contract Act, 1872: The provisions of the Indian Contract Act are
applicable, including:
Section 10 (valid contract requirements)
Section 25 (consideration)
Sections 73, 74, 75 (damages determination).

Note 60

Judicial Precedents on State Contracts

Karamshi vs. State of Bombay: Contract not valid as it was not expressed to be made by
the Governor.
A. L. Ralia Ram vs. Union of India: Supreme Court upheld an arbitration clause despite it
not being in a specific form, as it complied with Article 299.
State of Madras vs. R. Ranganathan Chettiar: Contract must be in a formal deed to be
enforceable; a failure to comply results in an inchoate contract.
Davecos Garment Factory vs. State of Rajasthan: Contract signed by an official without
mentioning on behalf of the Governor was deemed invalid unless signed by competent
authority.
 State of Bihar vs. Karamchand Thaper & Brothers Ltd: The court recognized implied
authorization in the absence of specific authorization, validating the contract signed by the
executive engineer.

Note 61

State Liability and Tortious Liability

Historical Context: The concept of sovereign immunity in England has changed, allowing
for lawsuits against the Crown.
Article 300(1): States the liability of the Union and States is equivalent to that of the
Government of India under previous Acts.
Key Cases:
Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. vs. Secretary of State for India: Established
that the East India Company could be liable for negligence.
Nobin Chander Dey vs. Secretary of State: No breach was found as actions were taken
under sovereign power.
Current Understanding: State liability is applicable unless the act is specifically a sovereign
function.
State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidyawati: The state is vicariously liable for acts done in
employment but not under sovereign powers.

Note 62

Post-Constitutional Developments on Sovereign Immunity

Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram vs. State of UP: The state's immunity was upheld due to the nature
of police power as sovereign.
Satyawati v. Union of India: The government was held liable for negligence during non-
sovereign activities, emphasizing that certain actions do not constitute sovereign
functions.
Union of India v. Sugrabai: The court ruled against sovereign immunity in a tort case
involving military drivers, stating that such acts could be performed by private individuals.
Pushpa Thakur vs. UoI: Clarified that sovereign immunity does not apply under the Motor
Vehicles Act for compensation claims.
Nilabati Behara vs. State of Orissa: Established that constitutional torts violate
fundamental rights and are actionable regardless of sovereign status.

Note 63

Analysis of the Nagendra Rao Case

Distinction Abolished: The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions is
largely removed in modern legal interpretations.
Political Acts Non-Liability: State is not liable for political decisions or acts.
Immunity Limitations: Immunity does not apply to all acts; only those directly related to
political functions.
Misfeasance Doctrine: The State can be held vicariously liable for negligence by its
 officers in public duty.
Kasturi Lal’s Case Revisited: The power to search and apprehend is a sovereign function,
but not all actions taken under this power invoke immunity.

Note 64

Judicial Review Overview

Judicial review of administrative actions is categorized into two main types:
Public Law Review: Focuses on duties towards the public at large and holds the
government accountable to the public, typically arising under the Constitution, statutes, or
rules made under statutes.
Private Law Review: Concerns duties towards private individuals, usually based on
statutory or common law principles.
Public Law Review: Conducted by higher judiciary (High Courts and Supreme Court)
through writ jurisdiction.
Private Law Review: Handled by subordinate judiciary via suits, enforcing tortious and
contractual liabilities under Article 300.

Note 65

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

The doctrine allows individuals to challenge sudden changes in government policy that
adversely affect their interests, asserting that their legitimate expectations have been
belied.
Examples:
Schmidt vs. Secretary of State for Home Affairs (1969): Established the doctrine to
prevent arbitrary power use, relying on the requirement of reasonableness.
State of Kerala vs. K. G. Madhavan Pillai: The first order created a legitimate expectation
that was invalidated by a subsequent order.
Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association vs. State of Karnataka:
Challenge upheld due to lack of hearing.
Navjyoti Co-operative Housing Society vs. UoI: Change in land allotment priority without
notice quashed the order.
Union of India vs. Hindustan Development Corporation: No legitimate expectation as the
change was not based on any law or custom.
The concept also distinguishes between expectation and anticipation; legitimate
expectation must be founded on law or established procedure.

Note 66

Doctrine of Public Accountability

Public accountability ensures that public officers are held responsible for abuses of power,
either through acts of omission or commission.
Key Issues:
Faulty planning, corrupt execution, and absence of accountability are significant problems
 in administration.
Current accountability procedures are often ineffective, leading to a lack of punishment for
the guilty.
The principle of public accountability is rooted in the idea that administrative power is a
public trust.
Privy Council Case (A.G. of Hong Kong V. Reid, 1993): Established that public servants who
misuse their office hold the proceeds as constructive trustees.
Supreme Court Response: Expanded the principle to private sectors and emphasized
accountability in all levels, including members of legislative assemblies.

Note 67

Doctrine of Proportionality
The doctrine dictates that punishment or actions taken by authorities must be
proportionate to the offense committed.
Case Examples:
Hind Construction vs. Workmen: Dismissal of all workers for one day’s absence deemed
disproportionate.
Ranjit Thakur vs. UoI: Struck down a sentence for insubordination as disproportionate.
UoI vs. Parma Nanda: Addressed issues with bogus identification and false pay bills.

Note 68

Doctrine of Locus Standi

Locus Standi: A person must have a cause of action to approach a court, meaning their
rights must be violated.
Key Principles:
A person cannot seek relief for someone else’s rights.
Courts only pass judgments concerning parties involved in a case.
Requirements for Locus Standi:
1. Injury: Violation of rights.
1. Causation: The violation must be due to the defendant's actions.
1. Redressability: There must be a legal remedy available.
Exceptions to Locus Standi:
1. Criminal cases
1. Environmental cases
1. Habeas corpus
1. Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Note 69

Doctrine of Res Judicata

Definition: Res judicata translates to "thing adjudicated"; it means a case once decided
cannot be re-litigated in the same or different court.
Purpose: Aims to prevent multiple litigations and ensure finality of court decisions for
 public policy reasons.
Case Example: In Sharma v. Krishna Sinha, the Supreme Court ruled that once a tax
assessment order is challenged through a writ petition, it cannot be challenged again.
Fundamental Rights: An individual can approach the High Court or Supreme Court for
infringement of fundamental rights, but once a decision is made, they cannot approach
another court for the same issue.
Exception: Res judicata does not apply if the orders challenged in successive writ petitions
are different, as seen in Amalgamated Coalfields v. Janapada Sabha.
Requirements for Application:
1. Competent jurisdiction: The case must be decided by a competent court.
1. Finality: The decision must be final, not interlocutory.
1. Merits: Must be decided on merits, not technicalities.
1. Same Issues: Issues in both cases must be the same or substantially similar.
1. Same Parties: Parties must be litigating under the same title.
Constructive Res Judicata: If an issue could have been raised in an earlier case but wasn’t,
it is barred by res judicata in subsequent cases.
Double Jeopardy Comparison: In criminal law, similar principles prevent prosecution for
the same offense again after acquittal or conviction.
Habeas Corpus Exception: Res judicata does not apply to habeas corpus petitions,
allowing for multiple filings based on new grounds.

Note 70

Jurisdiction of Supreme and High Courts

Supreme Court Jurisdiction:
Under Arts. 32 and 136, the Supreme Court protects and enforces fundamental rights.
It can issue various writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, etc.) for enforcement of rights.
Art. 32 provides a direct approach to the Supreme Court without exhausting lower court
options.
The court can modify writ applications to suit specific cases.
High Court Jurisdiction:
Under Art. 226, the High Court can issue writs for breaches of fundamental and other
rights.
Has wider jurisdiction compared to the Supreme Court.
Can reject applications based on:
1. Delay and Laches: Unreasonable delay in invoking court jurisdiction.
1. Alternative Remedy: If an equally effective remedy exists, the High Court may decline writ
relief.
Grounds for Judicial Review:
Review grounds vary and include illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety, as
established by Lord Diplock in CCSU v. Minister for the Civil Service.
These grounds are broad and often overlap.

Note 71

Grounds for Judicial Review

Illegality:
 Decisions outside statutory language are termed ultra vires, meaning beyond authority.
Courts can review decisions on legal errors but not typically on factual errors unless
exceptions apply.
Irrationality:
This challenges decisions that no reasonable authority could make (Wednesbury
unreasonableness).
The decision must be beyond reasonable responses available to the decision-maker.
Procedural Impropriety:
Failure to comply with procedural requirements can invalidate decisions.
Courts prefer not to set aside decisions on technical grounds, focusing on the impact of
procedural flaws.
Writs: Courts can issue various writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari,
and quo warranto) under respective Articles (32 for Supreme Court and 226 for High
Court), with the latter having discretionary power to reject applications.

Note 72

Writ of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus

Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Literally means "you must have the body"; it compels production of a detained person
before the court.
Used for:
1. Testing legality of preventive detention.
1. Securing custody of minors or insane persons.
1. Testing detention under legislative privilege or court martial.
Not necessary to produce the person in cases where it may affect public order.
Relaxations by the Supreme Court include:
No strict pleading rules; even a postcard suffices to invoke jurisdiction.
No locus standi requirement; anyone can file on behalf of the detenu.
Res judicata does not apply; fresh petitions can be entertained by the Supreme Court even
after rejection by the High Court.
Writ of Mandamus:
A judicial remedy ordering an agency to perform a mandatory duty.
Conditions for issuance:
1. Public Duty: Must be imposed by law, not contract.
1. Absolute Duty: The duty should not be discretionary.
1. Specific Demand and Refusal: There must be a specific demand for action and a refusal
from the authority.
Courts can enforce statutory duties through contracts if they are inherently statutory.

Note 73

Writ of Mandamus
Definition: A writ of mandamus is a judicial order compelling an authority to fulfill a duty.
Demand and Refusal: It does not lie unless there is a demand and refusal; unreasonable
delay counts as refusal.
Case Example: In Naubat Rai vs. Union of India, the petition was dismissed because the
 petitioner did not apply for reinstatement.
Case Example: In Venugopal vs. Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipality, the court granted
mandamus as the filing of a suit was treated as a demand and refusal.
Clear Right Required: The petitioner must show a clear right to enforce the duty before
applying.
Case Example: In SP Manocha vs State of M.P., mandamus was refused as the petitioner
could not demonstrate the right to admission.
Right Must Exist at Time of Petition: The right must still exist when the petition is filed; if it
has been terminated, the writ does not apply.
Ownership of Right: The right to enforce the duty must belong to the petitioner; a
shareholder cannot enforce corporate rights unless personal rights are infringed.

Note 74

Mandamus vs. Injunction

Similarities:
Both may compel or prevent an act.
Both are extraordinary legal remedies, not ordinary legal remedies.
Relief is not granted if an alternative remedy exists.
Advantages of Mandamus:
It is a constitutional remedy, superior to injunction.
Cannot be barred by statutory provisions; injunction can be.
Section 80 CPC does not apply to mandamus.
Generally, it is a speedier remedy.
Advantages of Injunction:
Available in local courts, unlike mandamus which requires higher courts.
Compensation may be sought in injunction cases; not available with mandamus.
Oral evidence can be presented in injunction suits, improving chances of success versus
affidavits in mandamus cases.

Note 75

Writ of Certiorari and Prohibition

Common Grounds: Both writs can be issued on similar grounds when authority acts
beyond jurisdiction.
Differences:
Certiorari: Quashes actions taken without jurisdiction.
Prohibition: Prevents authorities from proceeding without jurisdiction.
Grounds for Issuing Writs:
1. Lack of Jurisdiction: Authority acts beyond its power.
Examples: Improper constitution, exercising jurisdiction incorrectly, incompetence.
1. Excess of Jurisdiction: Authority has jurisdiction but exceeds limits.
Case Example: J. K. Choudhari vs. Datta Gupta where dismissal was deemed excess.
1. Abuse of Jurisdiction: Improper exercise of jurisdiction, e.g., for mala fide purposes.
1. Violation of Natural Justice: Failure to adhere to rules of fair hearing and bias.
1. Error Apparent on Face of Record: Obvious errors in authority’s conclusion.
1. Fraud: Orders obtained through fraud can be quashed.
Note 76

Writ of Quo Warranto

Definition: A writ of quo warranto questions the authority of a person occupying a public
office.
Conditions for Issuance:
1. Public Office: The office must be created by constitution or statute.
1. Substantive Nature: The office must be permanent, not terminable at will.
1. Occupancy: The individual must have occupied the office.
1. Contravention of Law: Writ arises only if the appointment violates the law.

Note 77

Judicial Review: Public vs. Private Law

Public Law Review: Conducted through writ jurisdiction by higher judiciary, focusing on
state duties to the public.
Private Law Review: Conducted through ordinary jurisdiction of subordinate judiciary; state
treated like an individual under laws.
Remedies Available: Same statutory remedies against state as individuals, including
injunction, declaration, and damages.
Special Privileges for State: Longer limitation periods, notice privileges, and document
withholding, meant for public protection, not state protection.

Note 78

Injunctions
Definition: An injunction is a court order directing a party to do or refrain from doing a
specific act.
Types:
Mandatory Injunction: Requires a party to do an act (e.g., demolishing an illegal structure).
Prohibitory Injunction: Prevents a party from doing an act, typically not issued to prevent
contract breaches unless irreparable loss is likely.
Temporary Injunction: Provisional, lasting until a decision is made; can be granted ex parte
under specific conditions (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss).
Refusal Conditions: An injunction may be denied if the plaintiff's conduct is unclean or if
alternative relief is available (e.g., damages).

Note 79

Declaratory Orders
Definition: A declaratory order clarifies the legal position between parties but does not
 compel any actions.
Characteristics: Lacks coercive force and is generally not enforceable without a
consequential remedy.
Usage: Aimed at resolving disputes before they escalate into litigation; often combined
with other remedies (e.g., possession or injunction).
Case Example: In Bai Shri Vaktuba v. Thakore, the court allowed a declaration regarding
paternity, emphasizing the need for timely resolution to avoid prolonged legal uncertainty.

Note 80

Judicial Review and Damages

Individuals may claim compensation for losses due to government actions.
Under Section 40, Specific Relief Act, plaintiffs can seek damages alongside or instead of
injunctions.
Courts have discretion to award damages; injunctions are not issued if damages suffice as
a remedy.
Key questions in damage suits:
1. Is the plaintiff entitled to damages?
1. What is the amount of damages?
Evidence is crucial for deciding damages; they cannot typically be determined in writ
proceedings.
Courts are increasingly awarding damages for constitutional torts, which involve
fundamental rights violations, as seen in Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa, where a
petitioner’s son died in police custody after alleged torture.
The Supreme Court ordered inquiry and awarded damages based on evidence supporting
the petitioner's claims.

Note 81

Government Privileges
Governments may claim certain privileges that differentiate them from individuals,
including:
1. Privilege of notice under Section 80, C.P.C. – Requires a two-month notice before filing
suit against the government.
1. Privilege to withhold documents – Governed by Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian
Evidence Act, limiting evidence from unpublished official records and confidential
communications.
1. Immunity from statutes – The government is not bound by statutes unless explicitly
stated.
1. Immunity from estoppel – Government can deny past assertions if it jeopardizes
constitutional powers.
1. Longer limitation periods in specific cases.
Section 80 was amended to allow courts to dispense with notice in urgent matters, as
illustrated in the State of Orissa vs. Madan Gopal case.

Note 82
Estoppel and Government Actions
Estoppel prevents a party from denying facts previously asserted, impacting governmental
actions.
Initially, the Supreme Court was reluctant to apply estoppel against the government in
violation of statutes (e.g., Amar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan).
However, in cases like Union of India vs. Indo-Afgan Agrarian Ltd., courts have begun to
apply estoppel where parties relied on government representations, even if not statutory.
Key propositions from Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs. State of U.P.:
1. Estoppel can be a shield or sword.
1. It applies even without a valid contract under Article 299.
1. Cannot be defeated by executive necessity.
However, it cannot condone breaches of law or public policy.

Note 83

Mal Administration and Alternative Remedies

Many individuals hesitate to approach courts due to formalities, costs, and delays, often
seeking political or departmental remedies first.
Parliamentary remedies: Citizens can write to their MPs for redress against government
actions.
Tribunals provide a cheaper, faster alternative to courts for resolving disputes between
citizens and the state, being independent of executive interference.
Arbitration is an alternative means for dispute resolution; some statutes mandate
arbitration for certain disputes with the government.
Ombudsman: Acts as a safeguard against administrative abuse, with powers to investigate
complaints without requiring evidence from complainants. Ombudsman services are
inexpensive and accessible, requiring minimal fees for filing complaints.
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC): Established in 1964 to combat governmental
corruption.

Note 84

Ombudsman and CVC

The Ombudsman in India started functioning in 2000, initially as a 7-member body, later
changed to a single-member body.
The Ombudsman investigates complaints of maladministration and has broad powers to
access files and act on complaints.
Filing a complaint requires only Rs.10 as a fee, making it accessible to citizens.
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is an apex body established to address
corruption within government bodies, enhancing accountability and transparency.

Note 85

Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Overview

 The CVC is an autonomous body established in February 1964 based on the Committee on
Prevention of Corruption recommendations, headed by Shri K. Santhanam.
Its primary roles include:
1. Monitoring vigilance activity under the Central Government.
1. Advising various authorities on planning, executing, reviewing, and reforming vigilance
work.
The CVC is not an investigating agency; it operates through the CBI or Departmental Chief
Vigilance Officers.
Investigations against government officials require government permission and the CVC
publishes lists of cases with pending permissions.
The CVC also maintains a list of corrupt officials for punitive action.
**

Note 86

CVC Appointment and Removal

The Central Vigilance Commissioner and Vigilance Commissioners are appointed by the
President after recommendations from a Committee led by the Prime Minister, including
the Home Minister and Leader of the Opposition.
They can be removed only by the President based on:
1. Proved misbehavior or incapacity, after Supreme Court inquiry.
1. Grounds such as insolvency, conviction of moral turpitude, engagement in outside
employment, mental or physical incapacity, or conflict of interest.
The President can suspend them during inquiries.
**

Note 87

Limitations of CVC
The CVC serves as an advisory body; its advice can be accepted or rejected by Central
Government Departments.
It has limited resources, operating with a staff strength of 299 to oversee over 1500
central departments.
Cannot directly command the CBI for inquiries against officials at the Joint Secretary level
and above without departmental approval.
The CVC lacks powers to register criminal cases, focusing only on vigilance and
disciplinary matters.
While it holds supervisory powers over the CBI, it cannot direct investigations or call files.
Appointments to the CVC remain indirectly controlled by the Government, limiting its
independence.
**

Note 88

Lokayukta and Lokpal Institutions

 The Administrative Reforms Commission, chaired by Shri Morarji Desai, recommended
establishing Lokpal and Lokayukta for addressing citizens' grievances related to
administrative actions at Central and State levels.
These institutions aim to operate independently, supplementing judicial systems led by
Chief Justices or High Court Judges.
Karnataka enacted the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to address administrative
grievances, including corruption and favoritism.
The term Lokpal refers to the Indian equivalent of an Ombudsman, recommended by the
Administrative Reforms Commission in 1966.
Multiple Bills have been introduced in Parliament from 1968 to 2001, varying in scope
regarding the Prime Minister's inclusion and definitions of corruption.
**

Note 89

Changes in Lokpal Bills

1968-1971 Bills included definitions of grievances and mal-administration; later Bills
focused more on corruption allegations.
The 1977 Lokpal Bill included the Prime Minister, unlike earlier versions, and defined
misconduct broadly while excluding grievances.
The 1985 Bill excluded the Prime Minister again and limited corruption definitions, making
prosecution dependent on Lokpal findings.
The 1989 Bill re-included the Prime Minister and proposed a three-member Lokpal
structure, differing from previous models.
The 1996 Bill followed similar structures, emphasizing corruption over grievance redressal.
Over the years, there has been a noticeable shift in legislative focus from addressing
public grievances to tackling corruption at high levels.
**