2. Define the meaning of 'Delegated Legislation'. What is its necessity?

Meaning of Delegated Legislation: Legislature can delegate its power to legislation to any
subordinate agency. Exercise of legislative power by such subordinate agency is known as
delegated legislation.
This subordinate body acquires power from the act of the legislature. Power is transferred from
the principal lawmaker to the lower body, which may be the executive, cabinet, council of
minister, or a specific administrative agency, by the mechanism of delegation. Generally,
delegation refers to the act of entrusting another authority or empowering another to act as an
agent or representative.

3. Explain and illustrate the meaning of 'Reasoned Decision'.

A Reasoned Decision is a Decision, Order, Decree, Judgement or an Interlocutory Order of the
Court in which stating the reason for the decision is mandatory. A reasoned decision serves the
following purpose:
(i) Elimination of human error of omission or commission.
(ii) Gives a clarity to the judgement.
(iii) Reasoned decisions are almost always correct
(iv) Giving reasoned decisions is a part of Principles of Natural Justice
(v) Errors apparent on the face of record will be crystal clear when reasons of the
decision is given and can be quashed in an appeal before an Appellate Court or by a Writ of
Certiorari by a High Court or a Supreme Court.

4. Explain the nature and scope of Writ of 'Quo-Warranto'.

Writ of Quo-Warranto: Quo Warranto means by what warrant or authority. Quo Warranto writ
is issued against any person who occupies a public authority without any qualification for the
appointment. It is issued to restrain the authority or candidate from discharging the functions
of public office. In University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao,12 the Supreme Court observed that
the procedure of quo Warrato confers the jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control
executive action in making the appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory
provisions. It also protects a citizen being deprived of public office to which he may have a
right.

5. Comment upon the working of Central Administrative Tribunal.

Central Administrative Tribunal has been established for adjudication of disputes with respect
to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the Union or other local authorities within the territory of India
or under the control of Government of India and for matters connected therewith.
The Tribunal is governed by Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The tribunal has jurisdiction
over Central Government employees along with employees of 45 other organisations notified
by the Government of India. The tribunal, however, do not apply to members of armed forces
and paramilitary forces, officers or employees of the Supreme Court, or to persons appointed
to the Secretariat Staff of either House of Parliament or the Secretariat staff of State/Union
Territory Legislatures.

Working of Central Administrative Tribunal

(i) The Tribunal is not bound to follow the procedures laid down in the Code of Civil
Procedure 1908 or Evidence Act, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice in
deciding cases and the procedure.
(ii) The Central Administrative Tribunal is empowered to prescribe its own rules of
practice for discharging its functions subject to the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and
Rules made there under. For this purpose, the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of
Practice, 1993 have been made.
(iii) Parties to the dispute may appear in person or be represented by a lawyer before
the Tribunal. The Supreme Court has held in a case that the CAT must confine itself to the
limits of judicial review.
(iv) No interim orders, whether by way of injunction or stay shall be made on an
application unless copy of the application along with other documents are furnished to the party
against whom such application is made and opportunity is given to such party to be heard in
the matter.
(v) However ex-parte interim orders can be issued in exceptional cases valid for 14
days. In this case the administration should approach CAT within 14 days to put across their
point of view and try for vacation of such interim stay orders.

Section B (10 marks)

6. Define the term Administrative Law. Discuss the nature and purpose of Administrative
Law.
Administrative law is the law that governs the powers, functions and duties of the government
administrative authorities. This law defines the power of the ordinary courts to supervise
administrative authorities to ensure that the executive treats the public fairly.
Administrative law is a uncodified public law which is judge-made and has evolved over times.
It deals with the relationship of individuals with the government. It determines the organisation
and power structure of administrative and quasi-judicial authorities to enforce the law. It is
primarily concerned with official actions and procedures and puts in place a control mechanism
by which administrative agencies stay within bounds.

7. Discuss briefly 'Rule Against Bias' with relevant Indian Cases.

Rule against bias means that the deciding authority must be composed of impartial persons
acting fairly, without prejudice and bias. The maxim is “Nemo in propria causa judex , esse
debet”, which means no one should be made a judge in his own cause. It is the minimum
requirement of natural justice system.

The rule against bias can be applied to those factors which may influence a judge for a biased
decision. This rule is based on the premises that it is against the human psychology to decide a
case against his own interest. The basic objective of this rule is to ensure public confidence in
the impartiality of the administrative adjudicatory process.

Types of bias:
(1) Personal Bias
(2) Pecuniary Bias
(3) Subject Matter Bias
(4) Departmental Bias
(5) Preconceived Notion Bias
(6) Bias On Account Of Obstinacy.

(1) Personal Bias:

Personal bias arises out of the personal or professional relationship. This may be of friendship
or hostility between the authority and the parties. In Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. V.
State of Bihar, the Supreme Court decision serves as a good illustration on the point. Here, the
petitioners were granted a mining lease for 99 years in 1947. But in 1955, government quashed
the license. The petitioners brought an action against the minister passing this order on behalf
of government, on the ground that, the petitioner in 1952 opposed the minister in General
election. Therefore, on account of political rivalry, the minister passed such an order, and hence
the order was suffered from personal bias. Supreme Court found the allegation to be true and
thus quashed the said order. Similarly in Baidyanath Mohapatra v. state of Orissa, the Supreme
Court quashed the order of the tribunal confirming premature retirement on the ground that the
chairman of the tribunal was also a member of the review committee which had recommended
premature retirement.
Test For Personal Bias:
(a) Reasonable Suspicion Of Bias: looks mainly to outward appearance.
(b) Real Likelihood Of Bias: Focuses on courts own evaluation of possibilities.
In both the situations, the court sees whether there is reasonable ground for believing that the
deciding officer was likely to be biased, as it is very difficult to prove a persons state of mind.

In the case of Jiwan K. Lohia v. Durga Dutt Lohia, the apex court observed that it is not whether
the bias has affected the judgment, but whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a
bias attributable might have operated against him in the final decision. Therefore the real test
for likelihood of bias is whether a reasonable person in possession of relevant information,
would have tho ught that bias was likely and whether the authority concerned was likely to be
disposed to decide a matter in a particular manner.

(2) Pecuniary Bias:

Pecuniary bias arises out financial or material interest howsoever small it may be. In Jeejeebhoy
vs. Astt. Collector,Thana the CJ reconstituted the bench, when it was found that one of the
members of the bench was the member of the cooperative society for which the land has been
acquired. But this rule is not applicable where the judge, though having a financial interest, has
no direct financial interest in the outcome of the case.

(3) Subject Matter Bias

The situations where the deciding officer is directly or indirectly in the subject matter of the
case. The Supreme Court in cases like Murlidhar v. Kadam Singh and Sub – committee of
Judicial Accountability v. Union of India followed that deciding officer is part of the subject
matter. But in Gulla Palli Nageshwara Rao v. APSRTC, the Supreme Court quashed the
decision of Andhra Pradesh government. Nationalizing road transport on the ground that the
secretary of the transport department who was given a hearing was interested in the subject
matter.

(4) Departmental Bias

The problem of departmental bias is something which is inherent in the administrative process,
and if it is not effectively checked, it may negate the very concept of fairness in the
administrative proceeding.
 In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC the order of the government nationalizing road
transport was challenged in this case. One of the grounds for challenge was that the Secretary
of the Transport Department who gave the hearing was biased, being the person who initiated
the scheme and also being the head of the department whose responsibility it was to execute it.
The court quashed the order on the ground that, under the circumstances, the Secretary was
biased, and hence no fair hearing could be expected.

The problem of departmental bias arises in different context- when the functions of judge and
prosecutor are combined in the same department. It is not uncommon to find that the same
department which initiates a matter also decides it, therefore, at times, departmental fraternity
and loyalty militates against the concept of fair hearing.

(5) Preconceived Notion Bias

Bias arising out of preconceived notions is a very delicate problem of administrative law. On
the one hand, no judge as a human being is expected to sit as a blank sheet of paper, on the
other hand, preconceived notions would vitiate a fair trial. A classic case bringing this problem
to the forefront is Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning known as Stevenage
case. This point came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in T. Govindaraja
Mudaliar v. State of T.N, the government decided in principle to nationalize road transport and
appointed a committee to frame the scheme. The Home Secretary was made a member of this
committee. Later on, the scheme of nationalization was finalized, published and objections
were heard by the Home Secretary. It was contended that the hearing was vitiated by the rule
against bias because the Secretary had already made up his mind on the question of
nationalization as he was a member of the committee which took this policy decision. The court
rejected the challenge on the ground that the Secretary as a member of the committee did not
finally determine any issue as to foreclose his mind. He simply helped the government in
framing the scheme.

(6) Bias on Account of Obstinacy

The word Obstinacy implies unreasonable and unwavering persistence and the deciding officer
would not take no for an answer. This new category of bias was discovered in a situation where
a judge of the Calcutta High Court upheld his own judgment while sitting in appeal against his
own judgment. Of course a direct violation of the rule that no judge can sit in appeal against
his own judgment is not possible, therefore, this rule can only be violated indirectly. In this
case in a fresh writ petition the judge validated his own order in an earlier writ petition which
had been overruled by the Division Bench. What applies to judicial process can be applied to
administrative process as well.
Doctrine of Necessity:

Bias would not disqualify an officer from taking an action if no other person is competent to
act in his place. This exception is based on the doctrine which it would otherwise not
countenance on the touchstone of judicial propriety. The doctrine of necessity makes it
imperative for the authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield. It can
be invoked in cases of bias where there is no authority to decide the issue. If the doctrine of
necessity is not allowed full play in certain unavoidable situations, it would impede the course
of justice itself and the defaulting party would benefit from it. If the choice is between either
to allow a biased person to act or to stifle the action altogether, the choice must fall in favor of
the former as it is the only way to promote decision-making. Therefore, the Court held that bias
would not vitiate the action of the Speaker in impeachment proceedings and the action of the
Chief Election Commissioner in election matters.

However, the term bias must be confined to its proper place. If bias arising out of preconceived
notions means the total absence of preconceptions in the mind of the judge, then no one has
ever had a fair trial, and no one ever will. Therefore, unless the strength of the preconceived
notions is such that it has the capacity of foreclosing the mind of the judge, administrative
action would not be vitiated.

8. Write a short note on the institute of Ombudsman.

Ans: An ombudsman or public advocate is an official who is charged with representing the
interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints of maladministration or a
violation of rights. The ombudsman is usually appointed by the government or by parliament,
but with a significant degree of independence.

The typical duties of an ombudsman are to investigate complaints and attempt to resolve them,
usually through recommendations (binding or not) or mediation. Ombudsmen sometimes also
aim to identify systemic issues leading to poor service or breaches of people's rights. At the
national level, most ombudsmen have a wide mandate to deal with the entire public sector, and
sometimes also elements of the private sector (for example, contracted service providers).

The Government of India has designated several ombudsmen (sometimes called Chief
Vigilance Officer (CVO)) for the redress of grievances and complaints from individuals in the
banking, insurance and other sectors being serviced by both private and public bodies and
corporations.[77] The CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) was set up on the
recommendation of the Santhanam Committee (1962–64).

Lokpal
In India, the Ombudsman is known as the Lokpal or Lokayukta. An Administrative Reforms
Commission (ARC) was set up on 5 January 1966 under the Chairmanship of Shri Morarji
Desai. It recommended a two-tier machinery: Lokpal at the Centre (parliamentary
commissioner, as in New Zealand) and one Lokayukta each at the State level for redress of
people's grievances. However, the jurisdiction of the Lokpal did not extend to the judiciary (as
in case of New Zealand). The central Government introduced the first Lokpal Bill, Lokpal and
Lokayuktas Bill in 1968, and further legislation was introduced in 2005. Final bill, after all the
amendments, has been passed in Rajya Sabha on 17 December 2013 and passed in Loksabha
on 18 December 2013.

Lokayuka
The state-level Lokayukta institution has developed gradually. Orissa was the first state to
present a bill on establishment of Lokayukta in 1970, but Maharashtra was the first to establish
the institution, in 1972. Other states followed: Bihar (1974), Uttar Pradesh (1977), Madhya
Pradesh (1981), Andhra Pradesh (1983), Himachal Pradesh (1983), Karnataka (1984), Assam
(1986), Gujarat (1988), Delhi (1995), Punjab (1996), Kerala (1998), Chhattishgarh (2002),
Uttaranchal (2002), West Bengal (2003) and Haryana (2004). The structure of the Lokayukta
is not uniform across all the states. Some states have UpaLokayukta under the Lokayukta and
in some states, the Lokayukta does not have suo moto powers of initiating an inquiry.

Q. Short note on Judicial Review [4 marks - 2018]

Q. Define meaning of Judicial Review. [4marks - 2022 - Political Science BA-LLB 4th Sem]

Judicial Review in India

Judicial review is the power of the Judiciary to review the actions of legislative and executive
branches and ensure constitutional supremacy. In a setup of separation of power it is essential
to maintain checks and balances.

The Constitution of India explicitly provides for judicial review through Articles 13, 32, 131
through 136, 143, 226 and 246.

Q. What is the doctrine of 'Separation of Power'? How far is it followed in the constitution
of India? [20 marks - 2015]
Q. Explain the meaning of 'Separation of Power'. [4 marks - 2016]
Q. The doctrine of separation of power [4 marks - 2017]
Q. What do you mean by Doctrine of Separation of Power? Discuss. [20 marks - 2021]
Q. What do you mean by Doctrine of 'Separation of Powers'. Discuss its importance in the
context of Administrative Law. [20 marks - 2022]
Q. Doctrine of separation of powers speaks about the division of the legislative, executive and
judicial functional of government among separate. Discuss this doctrine with the help of
decided cases. How this doctrine is implicit in our constitution. Discuss. [20 marks - 2023]
Separation of Power
Meaning
The doctrine of separation of powers means that the three organs of the government, i.e., the
executive, legislature and judiciary are separated and distinct. They cannot exercise the powers
vested on other departments. These organs are independent of one another and do not encroach
upon the authority given to other organs.
Importance of Doctrine of Separation of Power
Concentration of power in one branch of the government is detrimental to the very purpose of
democracy. Concentration of power gives rise to maladministration, corruption, nepotism and
abuse of power. The doctrine of Separation of Powers keep the democracy alive by ensuring
that:
(i) There is no autocracy in the system
(ii) Individual liberty is safeguard
(iii) Increased efficiency in administration
(iv) Independence of judiciary is maintained
(v) The constitution is protected
Separation of Power in the Constitution of India
The doctrine of separation of powers implicit in the Constitution of India. It is and integral part
of the basic structure of the Constitution. Though, the Constitution does not explicitly mention
this doctrine, separation of power is suggested through various articles of the Constitution.
Prominent of those are discussed below:

Article 50: Under the Directive Principles of State Policy, it is suggested to separate the
judiciary form the legislature.

Article 123: The President, being the executive head of the country, is empowered to exercise
legislative powers (Promulgate ordinances) in certain conditions.

Articles 121 and 211: The legislatures have not authority to discuss the conduct of a the
Supreme Court or High Court judge except incase of impeachment.

Article 361: The President and Governors enjoy immunity from court proceedings.
Checks and balances to protect the basic structure of the constitution

The judiciary has the power of judicial review over the actions of the executive and the
legislature.
The judiciary has the power to strike down any law passed by the legislature if it is
unconstitutional or arbitrary as per Article 13 (if it violates Fundamental Rights).
It can also declare unconstitutional executive actions as void.
The legislature also reviews the functioning of the executive.
Although the judiciary is independent, the judges are appointed by the executive.
The legislature can also alter the basis of the judgment while adhering to the constitutional
limitation.
Checks and balances ensure that no one organ becomes all-too powerful. The Constitution
guarantees that the discretionary power bestowed on any one organ is within the democratic
principle

Leading Cases on the Doctrine of Separation of Power

Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): In this case, the SC held that the amending power of the
Parliament is subject to the basic features of the Constitution. So, any amendment violating the
basic features will be declared unconstitutional.

Swaran Singh Case (1998): In this case, the SC held the UP Governor’s pardon of a convict
unconstitutional.

Ram Jawaya Kapoor V State of Punjab

Indira Nehru Gandhi V Raj Narain