ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

MODULE 1:

DEFINITION MEANING, NATURE, AND SCOPE OF ADL

Definition :
Administrative Law is, in fact, the body of those which rules regulate and control the administration.
Administrative Law is that branch of law that is concerned with the composition of power, duties, rights and
liabilities of the various organs of the Government that are engaged in public administration. Under it, we
study all those rules, laws and procedures that are helpful in Properly regulating and controlling the
administrative machinery. There is a great divergence of opinion regarding the definition/conception of
administrative law. The reason being that there has been tremendous increase in administrative process and
it is impossible to attempt any precise definition of administrative law, which can cover the entire range of
administrative process.
Let us consider some of the definitions as given by the learned jurists.
Austin has defined administrative Law. As the law, which determines the ends and modes to which the
sovereign power shall be exercised. In his view, the sovereign power shall be exercised either directly by the
monarch or indirectly by the subordinate political superiors to whom portions of those are delegated or
committed in trust.
Holland regards Administrative Law “one of six” divisions of public law. In his famous book “Introduction
to American Administrative Law 1958”, As per Holland, Administrative Law provides for the manner of
activities or the various organs of the Sovereign Power as provided by the Constitution.
Bernard Schawartz has defined Administrative Law as “the law applicable to those administrative agencies
which possess of delegated legislation and ad judicatory authority.”
Jennings has defined Administrative Law as “the law relating to the administration. It determines the
organization, powers and duties of administrative authorities.”
Dicey in 19th century defines it as. Firstly, portion of a nation’s legal system which determines the legal
statues and liabilities of all State officials. Secondly, defines the right and liabilities of private individuals in
their dealings with public officials. Thirdly, specifies the procedure by which those rights and liabilities are
enforced.
This definition suffers from certain imperfections. It does not cover several aspects of administrative law,
e.g. it excludes the study of several administrative authorities such as public corporations which are not
included within the expression “State officials,” it excludes the study of various powers and functions of
administrative authorities and their control. His definition is mainly concerned with one aspect of
administrative. Law, namely, judicial control of public officials.
A famous jurist Hobbes has written that there was a time when the society was in such a position that man
did not feel secured in it. The main reason for this was that there were no such things as administrative
powers. Each person had to live in society on the basis of his own might accordingly to Hobbes, “ In such
condition, there was no place for industry, arts, letters and society. Worst of all was the continual fear of
danger, violent death and life of man solitary poor, nasty and brutish and short.
K.C. Davis has defined administrative law in the following words: “ Administrative Law is the law
concerning the powers and procedures of administrative agencies including specially the law governing
judicial review of administrative action.”

In the view of Friedman, Administrative Law includes the following:

• The legislative powers of the administration both at common law and under a vast mass of statutes.
• The administrative powers of the administration.
• Judicial and quasi-judicial powers of the administration, all of them statutory.
• The legal liability of public authorities.
• The powers of the ordinary courts to supervise the administrative authorities.
MEANING OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
In the 21st century various functions are performed by administrative entities so much so that the
administrative process cuts across the traditional bounds of classification and combines into one the powers
exercised by all the organs, i.e. legislature, executive, judiciary. It’s evident that a wide variety of activities
fall within the sphere of ‘administrative action’ and that even administrative authority doesn’t restrict to
courts and legislative bodies of the country. Residuary functions of administrative bodies may themselves
partake themselves of the legislative or judicial quality.[i] The consideration that arises is whether the
function performed by executive authorities is purely administrative, quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative in
nature, since there’s no precise or scientific test to distinguish one from another.
Administrative action is the action which is neither legislative nor judicial in nature but only concerned with
the analysis and treatment of a particular situation and is devoid of generality. It has no procedure of
collecting evidence and weighing arguments but only based upon subjective satisfaction where decision is
based on policy and expediency. It does not decide a right or wrong , neither it ignores the principles of
natural justice completely though it may affect a right. Unless the statute provides otherwise, a minimum of
the principles of natural justice must always be observed depending on the fact situation of each case.
Administrative action may be statutory, having the force of law, or non statutory, devoid of such legal force.
The bulk of the administrative action is statutory because a statute or the Constitution gives it a legal force
but in some cases it may be non-statutory, such as issuing directions to subordinates not having the force of
law, but its violation may be visited with disciplinary action. Though by and large administrative action is
discretionary and is based on subjective satisfaction, however, the administrative authority must act fairly,
impartially and reasonable.
Administrative actions are those actions which are carried out in the administrative law and an
administrative law deals with the powers and functions of the administrative authorities. An administrative
actions are those legal action which are related to the public administrative body.
These actions protect the public and maintain law and order in the society. It is an action which is not a
legislative and not a judicial action. While exercising administrative powers, principles of natural
justice must always follow but depending on the situation of each case. These action forces an authority to
do or not to do a thing.
Nature, Scope and Significance of Administrative actions
It is not compulsory that the executive authorities that are performing its function is fully administrative,
quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative in nature. A lots of activities fall within the area of administrative actions.
The action which is neither a legislative nor a judicial in nature is the administrative action. Administrative
action can be statutory which is having the force of law or non statutory. If these actions are against the
principles of natural justice or violating the rights of the citizens then the courts can remove such actions.
Our judiciary is already being overburdened by lots of cases which are pending in the courts. So it is not
possible for the judiciary to solve the problems of administration side by side. So that’s why quasi-judicial
and quasi-legislative bodies are given power to reduce the existing load on the judiciary. At the time of
emergencies like war administrative action is the best possible remedy because executive has the powers to
deal with the situation.
Administrative authorities have some powers which they use efficiently for the citizen’s good and these
powers are used efficiently by way of various administrative actions. Administrative actions should comply
with the basic principles of fairness because if it goes against that then such an action is amenable to judicial
review.
Administrative actions can be challenged in court of law by any natural person or a body corporate and these
actions are controlled by the courts by issuing writs because the Supreme court has the power under article
32 of the Constitution of India to issue writs.

Administrative action is a comprehensive term that resists exact definition. In modern times, the
administrative process has emerged as a by-product of intensive government, cutting across the traditional
classification of governmental powers and merging into one the functions traditionally exercised by the three
different organs of the State. Therefore, there is a general agreement among scholars of administrative law
that any attempt to classify administrative functions on a conceptual basis is not only impossible but also
futile. Nevertheless, students of administrative law are compelled to explore the field of classification
because modern law, particularly in relation to judicial review, frequently employs the conceptual
classification of administrative action. Broadly speaking, administrative action can be classified into four
categories:
(i) Rule-making action or quasi-legislative action
The legislature is the law-making organ of any state. In written constitutions such as those of the United
States and Australia, the law-making power is expressly vested in the legislature. In the Indian Constitution,
although this power is not explicitly vested in the legislature, the combined effect of Articles 107 to 111 and
196 to 201 makes it clear that the law-making power is exercised for the Union by Parliament and for the
States by the respective State legislatures. The Constitution-makers intended that only these legislative
bodies should exercise this power. However, in the present day, legislative bodies are unable to provide the
quality and quantity of laws necessary for the efficient functioning of a modern, intensive government.
Therefore, the delegation of law-making power to the administration has become a compulsive necessity.
When an administrative authority exercises the law-making power delegated to it by the legislature, it is
known as the rule-making action of the administration or quasi-legislative action, commonly referred to as
delegated legislation.
The rule-making action of the administration shares all the characteristics of a normal legislative action,
including generality, prospectivity, and behavior based on policy considerations that create rights or impose
disabilities. However, these characteristics are not without exceptions. In certain cases, administrative rule-
making action may be specific, retroactive, and based on evidence.
(ii) Rule-decision action or quasi-judicial action
Today, the majority of decisions that affect private individuals are made not by courts but by administrative
agencies exercising adjudicatory powers. This is because administrative decision-making, as a by-product of
an intensive government, is better suited to provide the necessary quantity of justice in a welfare state than
the traditional judicial system.
Administrative decision-making may be defined as the power to perform acts that are administrative in
nature but that also require some characteristics of judicial traditions. Based on this definition, the following
functions of the administration have been held to be quasi-judicial:
1. Disciplinary proceedings against students.
2. Disciplinary proceedings against an employee for misconduct.
3. Confiscation of goods under the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
4. Cancellation, suspension, revocation, or refusal to renew a license or permit by a licensing authority.
5. Determination of citizenship.
6. Determination of statutory disputes.
7. Power to continue the detention or seizure of goods beyond a particular period.
8. Refusal to grant a 'No Objection Certificate' under the Bombay Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1953.
9. Forfeiture of pensions and gratuity.
10. Authority granting or refusing permission for retrenchment.
11. Grant of a permit by the Regional Transport Authority.
Attributes of administrative decision-making action or quasi-judicial action distinguish it from judicial and
administrative action.
(iii) Rule-application action or administrative action
Although the distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative action has become blurred, it does not
mean that no difference exists between them. Even if two individuals are wearing similar coats, it does not
mean that they are identical. The difference between quasi-judicial and administrative action may not have
much practical significance today, but it remains relevant when determining the extent of natural justice
applicable in a given situation.
In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, the Court held that to determine whether an administrative authority's
action is quasi-judicial or administrative, it is necessary to consider the nature of the power conferred, the
authority to whom the power is given, the framework within which the power is exercised, and the
consequences of its exercise.
Administrative action is essentially the residual category of action that is neither legislative nor judicial. It
deals with particular situations and lacks generality. It does not require procedural obligations such as
collecting evidence and weighing arguments. Instead, it is based on subjective satisfaction, where decisions
are influenced by policy and expediency rather than the determination of rights, though it may affect a right.
However, this does not imply that principles of natural justice can be completely ignored when an authority
exercises administrative powers. Unless the statute specifies otherwise, a minimum standard of natural
justice must always be observed, depending on the facts of each case.
(iv) Ministerial action
A further subset of administrative action is ministerial action. Ministerial action refers to actions taken by
an administrative agency as a matter of duty imposed by law, without any element of discretion or judgment.
Therefore, ministerial action involves the performance of a definitive duty where no choice exists. The
collection of revenue is an example of ministerial action.
1. Notes and administrative instructions issued in the absence of any statutory authority cannot override
the law.
2. If administrative instructions are not backed by statutory authority, they cannot take away rights
vested in a person under the Act.

Case Laws dealing with Administrative Actions

Sat Pal Singh V. Union of India and Ors.
The petitioner was designated as Lance Naik in the Border Security Force, he was even promoted to the rank
of Head Constable later. The petitioner along with the other participants in sports was allowed special leave.
He proceeded to his home station in Bam Loni, District Rohtak on 6.9.2005 and was to report back for his
duty on 17.10.1995. The petitioner fell sick between 30.09.1995 to 6.12.1995.
On 7.12.1995, the petitioner, with an intention to join his duties, took lift in a civil truck, but the said truck
met with an accident and the petitioner was shifted to the Government Hospital Amrit Kaur Byawar and was
admitted there. During this period he could not report to his Unit and was really shocked on receiving an
order of removal from service dated 14.3.1996 passed by the Commandant 44 Bn BSF.
Aggrieved from the said order of removal, the petitioner preferred an appeal praying for reinstatement,
however, the said appeal was also dismissed by order dated 29.12.1997 stating that there was no merit in the
contentions raised in the appeal. Having failed to get any relief at the hands of the respondents, the petitioner
has questioned the correctness of the above order before this Court in the present writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
According to the petitioner, the respondents have not exercised the powers vested in them in accordance
with the procedure prescribed under BSF Rule 22 read with Section 11(4) of the Border Security Force
Act. The petitioner prays for quashing of the said order and his reinstatement in the service.
Held: In the present case, the authorities have selected to take administrative action as postulated under
Rule 22 of the Rules and required the petitioner to be dismissed from service. The administrative action in
terms of Rule 22 is an exception to the regular trial by the Security Force Court and proper application of
mind and recording of the requisite satisfaction would be a condition precedent to invoke such provisions.
The casual manner in which the respondents have dealt with the case of the petitioner can hardly fall within
the category of administrative action supported by proper reasons and proper application of mind. In fact, it
fails to satisfy the basic ingredients which form the very foundation of such an administrative action. we
grant freedom to the respondents to start the Departmental proceedings, if they so desire, by serving a fresh
show cause notice upon the petitioner and after giving him opportunity, pass such appropriate orders as they
deem fit and proper and as is permissible in law within a period of three months from the date of passing of
this order. We allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
A.k Kraipak v. Union of India
In this AK Kraipak case, there was an advertisement for a government post which was posted by the
government for the post of chief conservative of forest. Many candidates here in applied including the acting
chief conservative forest. When the interview was finally conducted the judgement panel who are
conducting the interview also included the acting chief conservative officer.
There was another candidate A.K Kraipak, he later on filed a case saying that the justice is not being done
because the acting chief conservative officer was also present in the panel therefore it created a sort of
biasness against the other candidates and the selections are violative of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution
of India and the selections in question are dissipated by the contravention of the principles of natural justice.
The chief conservative officer contended that he was not in the panel when his interview was being
conducted. The Hon’ble court found the power exercised by the selection board as an administrative one and
tested the validity of the selections on that basis.
Held – That the selections made by the selection committee were in violation of principles of natural justice.
Assistant Conservators have been selected for the senior scale service. At the same time some of the officers
who had put in more than eight years of service had been selected for the junior scale service.
Hence it is not possible to separate the two sets of officers. For the reasons mentioned above these petitions
are allowed and the impugned selections set aside. The Union Government and the State Government shall
pay the costs of the petitioners.
Karnataka Public Service vs B.M. Vijaya Shankar And Ors.
The karnataka Public Service Commission conducted competitive examinations for the state civil services
and general instructions were given to the candidates that the roll number should be written only on the front
page of the answer sheet in the space given for it and not anywhere else inside the answer sheet.
It was also cleared that the candidates must abide by the instructions and violation of the instructions will
make them liable to expulsion from examination or such other punishment as the commission may deem fit.
But one candidate violated the instructions by enter his roll number on every page of the answer sheet and
then the commission cancelled his paper.
The candidate challenged the action of the commission before the karnataka administrative tribunal which
directed the commission to get his answer sheet evaluated by holding that no penalty was provided for
breach of the instructions and the failure to afford any opportunity to the candidate to explain his bonafide
and innocence was arbitrary. Against the decision of the tribunal the commission and the state filed this
appeal in this court.
Held – In the result these appeal succeed and are allowed. The order passed by the tribunal is set aside. The
claim petition filed by the candidates shall stand dismissed because the court said that this is purely an
administrative action.
In Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd.
A three-Judge Bench of this Court held that in the present day set-up judicial review of administrative
action has become board and is becoming wider day by day and the State has to justify its action in different
fields of public law. All these necessitate recording of reason for executive actions including the rejection of
the highest offer.
This Court held that disclosure of reasons in matters of such rejection provides a chance for an objective
review both by superior administrative heads and for judicial process and propound that such reasons should
be communicated unless there are definite justifications for not doing so.
Ratnakar Vishwanath Joshi vs Life Insurance Corporation
In order to support its employees to qualify themselves as Actuaries, the Corporation permitted a scheme in
the form of administrative instructions. The scheme was issued by the Chairman of the Corporation. The
petitioners were among those Class I Officers of the Corporation who got benefit by this scheme. The
petitioners pray that the scheme of 31-7-1971 cannot be taken back except in accordance with law and the
action of the Chairman taking back the scheme on 6-3-1972 be quashed.
It is compulsory for the petitioners to show that their claim to the benefit of the scheme of 31-7-1971 is
based on a right which arises not merely out of contract but from law.
The administrative action or administrative instructions which may be taken or issued by the Corporation as
regards to its employees stand on a footing very different from the administrative action and administrative
instructions taken or issued by the Government in dealing with Government servants. The latter are
governed by status but the former are still in the area of contract.
Held – The scheme falls in the last category, namely, administrative instructions which are not laws and
which are directions having the force of law. The Corporation could issue such administrative instructions
with the authority of law that the petitioners do not have a legal right which is enforceable under Article
226 of the Constitution either for a declaration that the scheme of July 31, 1971 cannot be withdrawn except
in accordance with law or for an order that the action of the Chairman withdrawing the scheme on March 6,
1972 be quashed.
For, the said scheme was neither law nor did it have the force of law. It consisted only of administrative
instructions which offered some benefit to certain employees of the Corporation as a grace and not as a right.
The withdrawal of the scheme was a matter relating to the internal administration of the Corporation which,
even if contrary to regulations, cannot be challenged by way of a writ petition inasmuch as the scheme itself
was not capable of being made the subject-matter of the writ petition.
The withdrawal of the scheme could not, therefore, stand on a footing higher than the scheme itself. The writ
petition is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND ADMINISTRATIVE

LAW
Administrative law and constitutional law are closely related to one another. Both laws are parallel to one
another, which means that if one of the two laws is absent, the other cannot stand on its own. They are
interconnected. Because of this, we can say that while constitutional law deals with the fundamental
principles relating to the organization and powers of different state organs and the relationship between these
organs and the people, administrative law deals with the structures, rights, duties, and responsibilities of
administrative authorities.
Because administrative law occasionally expands into the territory of constitutional law, we might conclude
that the link between administrative law and constitutional law is not very tight. But a comprehensive
understanding of the connections between the two is crucial for jurists, academics, and law students. It is
true that both constitutional law and administrative law are components of public law, indicating that the
former is the mother of the latter and that, as a result, they cannot be distinguished from the latter.
Arbitrary behavior is constrained in constitutional law to reasonable administrative law rules and principles
of justice. While constitutional law deals with general principles relating to the organization and powers of
different state organs as well as the relationship of these organs with the general public, administrative law
deals with those organizations, powers, and functions that indicate the responsibilities of administrative
authorities. It is true that both administrative law and constitutional law play vital roles in regulating the
diverse concerns of every State. To early English jurists, there was virtually no difference between the
two[2].Based on their ideas and understanding, a variety of authors and academics attempt to express their
opinions on how administrative law and constitutional law relate to one another. We’ll use the following
examples as a guide:
 Keith claims that it is illogical to distinguish between administrative and constitutional law, and all
attempts to do so appear to be manufactured. Some lawyers, like Felix Frankfurter, went a step
farther and referred to this exercise as such, but they viewed the outcome as illegitimate and bizarre.
Ser edits your sentences, making it easy for you to instantly rethink and reword your text.
 According to Holland, constitutional law describes the various organs of the government and on the
other hand, administrative law describes it in motion. And as a result, the executive and legislative
structure come under the purview of constitutional law while their working is indicated as it
governed by administrative law. [3]
These days, administrative law is regarded as a distinct and independent area of the law. It would not be
incorrect to state that when two circles are drawn side by side, a portion of each circle will be in common. In
administrative law, this portion is referred to as the watershed.
THE GENUS – SPECIES RELATIONSHIP
According to a genus-species link, administrative law has been defined as the body of law that relates to
administration and aids in identifying the structure, scope, and responsibilities of administrative authorities.
The distinction between administrative law and constitutional law is not made in this definition of the laws.
This definition is also quite broad since it demonstrates how the legislation that establishes the authority of
administrative authorities also governs the actual exercise of those powers.
It also deals with issues that go outside the purview of administrative law, like public health, housing, and
national planning, among others. However, administrative law deals with these issues in the same way that
the Constitution has incorporated these laws for the benefit of the State. Prof. Sathe asserts that because
administrative law is a component of constitutional law, all of its issues are constitutional law issues as well.
THE DOCTRINE OF WATERSHEDS IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
This watershed idea is crucial because it provides a foundation for establishing precise boundaries for the
effective application of both laws. It establishes the connection between the two definitions of law made by
numerous authors, including Locke, Holland, and many others. These authors’ definitions make it very
evident that these laws are tied to one another.
Due to several rules that have a direct impact on the management and regulation of administrative
authorities, the link between administrative law and constitutional law is extremely important in India.
Article 32 gives people the right to petition the Supreme Court to have their fundamental rights upheld,
while Article 136 gives them special leave to appeal to overturn administrative decisions. By virtue of
Article 226’s authority to issue writs to protect people’s rights and maintain proper operation, high courts
have a great influence over administrative bodies. While other clauses give high courts supervision over
lower courts and create administrative organizations to oversee particular fields, Article 300 concerns
property rights. These clauses emphasize the relationship between constitutional law and administrative law,
whereby constitutional rights and principles serve as the cornerstone of administrative acts.
EXPANSION
We can see that they still occasionally overlap, but they cannot be entirely separated from one another
because it is believed that Administrative law developed from Constitutional law. However, this law is
required in order to restrain the arbitrary actions of the government and safeguard the rights of both
individuals and the general public. Every area of law contains elements of it, therefore we cannot in any way
dismiss them.
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
 Both administrative and constitutional law are deal with public matter.
 Both administrative law and constitutional law are concerned with Human rights issue.
 Both branch of law relies on statues and case law for their principles and operations.
 The enforcement of principles in both administrative and constitutional law lies in the hands of same
institutions.[4]
Constitutional law and administrative law are interrelated. While administrative law deals with the
organizations, powers, functions, and duties of administrative authorities, the constitutional law deals with
the general principles relating to these organization and their powers and the relationship of these organs
with the individuals.
For relationship between Constitutional law and administrative law, it can be stated that- “It is logically
impossible to distinguish administrative from constitutional law and all attempts to do so are artificial.[1]
The constitutional law describes the various organs of government at rest, while administrative law describes
them in motion.”
In simple terms it can be said that the structure pertaining to legislature and executive are the subject matter
of Constitutional Law whereas their functions are dealt with Administrative Law. Hence, Constitutional law
and administrative law are closely connected and form a platform for accountability and responsibility to
government. There was no difference between the two laws according to English Jurists.[2] However, there
are certain areas where they overlap each other and is termed as ‘water shades of administrative law’. But
the difference between the two reflects that they are supplementary and complementary to each other.
There has always been a complicated relationship between both the laws. India has a written Constitution
and prevalence of concept called Judicial Review thereby, makes it very difficult to separate both the laws.
There is no watertight relation between the two and hence, this imposes a burden on scholars and jurists to
read between the lines. Constitutional Law is the mother of Administrative Law wherein both are public
laws and cannot exist without each other.
The court in Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (1986)[3] held that in the relationship
between Constitutional Law and Administrative Law, there lies a rational nexus between both the laws as
Administrative Law functions to preserve the sanctity of principles, duties, rights, obligations etc. laid down
by Constitutional Law. But thereafter, there is pressing need to draw distinction between the both laws to
cater the idea of jurisdiction.
The confusion was created because U.K. had an unwritten constitution. Hence, in such ambiguity jurists
and scholars are referred to solve the differences and relationship between the two laws. for example,
according to Holland, various organs of the government are adumbrated in Constitutional Law whereas the
Administrative Law describes them in motion. Hence, the structure of legislature and executive comes under
the ambit of constitutional law whereas their functioning comes under administrative law.[4]
For Ivor Jennings, general principles relating to organization, its powers and powers of other organs along
with their mutual relationship is the subject matter of Constitutional Law whereas, the premise of
Administrative Law deals with organization, its functions and powers of administrative authorities.[5] And
Locke had a more clear stance on the same as he pointed out that “an individual can do anything but what is
forbidden by law while state may do nothing but what is authorized by law”.[6]
According to Foulks, Administrative Law reflects the “law relating public administration. It is concerned
with the legal forms and constitutional status of public authorities; with their powers and duties and with the
procedures followed in exercising them; with their legal relationships with one another, with the public and
with their employees; which seek, in varied ways, to control their activities.”[7]
The doctrine of water shades helps to establish a line of distinction indicating proper boundaries for
application of laws. Dicey and Holland attempted to define this idea as relationship between both the laws.
However, many jurists feel that there exists a grey area between the two laws. in India, this exists in shape of
constitutional mechanism for ruling administrative authorities’ and to keep an eye on- Article 32, 136, 226,
227, 300 and 311 deals with study of administrative agencies which finds its genesis in constitution,
legislative powers delegation and limitation on administrative actions.[8]
The growth of Administrative Law was outcome of growing and changing role of state and its people. In
country like India, the expectations of people are very high, because government performs functions of not
only facilitator but regulator too. The role is not limited to external aggression but involves internal one also.
The distribution of limited resources requires good governance.
There have been technological advancements which has consequences like unemployment, overutilization of
resources etc. Furthermore, inefficiency of traditional courts which requires proper functioning for justice,
welfare and quick problem solving. Hence, growth of administrative law amidst it is the backbone of
modern political philosophy.[9]
This development of Administrative Law is not a recent one. It finds its root even in ancient times. This can
be traced in the era of Mauryas and Guptas who have well-structured administrative laws. The notion of
Dharma was at its peak and gave importance to principles of natural justice, fairness etc. And this was
considered to have a broader ambit as compared to rule of law or due process of law. Every king or monarch
followed this without claiming any immunity.
Constitutional Law is the prime source of Administrative Law in India. It is considered as soul of
Administrative Law. However, ordinance is also an important source. Under Article 213 and 123, President
and Governor has power to promulgate ordinance in emergency situations, but there lies a need to get
approval for the same.
In Bank Nationalization Case[10], Supreme Court held that “if the ordinance is constructed on collateral
grounds then it can be challenged before the Apex Court”. Further in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India[11],
the court clarified that “proclamation of emergency under Article 356 on ground of failure of constitutional
machinery is subjected to judicial review”.
The Constitutional Law is the supreme law of the land whereas Administrative Law is subordinate to it.
Hence, former is genus and latter is its specie. Constitutional law reflects provisions with respect to all laws
and their relations with state and citizen, however, the latter deals with working of state and its various
functions to be performed. Therefore, there lies a need for separate discipline to control and prevent
the arbitrary action of administrative authorities and give protection to the rights of an individual and
thereby public as a whole.
The court in State of Bombay v Bombay Education Society[12] held that Executive action established in
India is protected through various ways. Considering example of subordinate legislation which is considered
within the meaning of Article 13 which includes bye-laws regulations etc. but if it is ultra vires of
Constitution then it can be struck down as held in Chandrakant Krishnarao Pradhan v Jasjit Singh[13].
The court in Rashid Ahmed v Municipal Board, Kairana[14] held that any administrative action with no
statutory basis can be held void and therefore, court has power to declare it void if any administrative policy
or action violates Constitution.
There is an additional ground on which administrative action can be challenged in special cases where
legislative act if comes under purview of administrative order made in itself is unconstitutional as held
in State of Mysore v. H. Srinivasmurthy.[15] The court also in Ram Narayan Singh v State of Delhi[16]
held that, when the orders are made in cases of quasi-judicial questions it can be challenged to be
unconstitutional and legislative provision to be against constitution.
The court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak[17] held that any aspect of administrative law does not
differentiate between both the laws. the aspects are so broad to include various substantive aspects like
public health, education etc. since, the Constitutional Law reflects such ideas for public welfare at large and
hence, administrative law deals with them to further help in implementation. Constitutional Law has power
to monitor the three branches of the government and set a benchmark to the extent in which policies, rules
and regulations can be formulated as substantiated in Sunil Batra II v. Delhi Administration[18].
Therefore, it cannot be denied that Constitutional Law plays a very important role in establishing guidelines,
rules, principles and helps in broadening the scope of Administrative Law. The relationship between
constitutional law and administrative law, however, sometimes overlaps but very instrumental in many
cases. In existence, both are separate laws and have a common area called watershed area in administrative
law.

EVOLUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Administrative law is the name given to the legislation that regulates administrative actions. Administrative
law, according to Ivor Jennings, is referred to as such. It establishes the composition, scope, and duties of
administrative authorities. It encompasses the responsibilities of government entities under the law, the
ability of normal courts to supervise administrative bodies, the power of administrative bodies to make rules,
and the quasi-judicial role of administrative agencies. It oversees the executive branch and guarantees that it
interacts fairly with the general population.
Administrative law is within the umbrella of public law. It goes through how people communicate with the
government. It establishes the organizational framework and authority structure for the administrative and
quasi-judicial institutions responsible for upholding the law. The main focus is on official activities and
procedures, and it develops a control structure by which administrative institutions keep their bounds.
But administrative law is not a codified statute. A judge established the law, and it evolved over time.
Government in ancient India was centralized under the Mauryans and Guptas. Administrative law in India
underwent some changes as a result of the British presence. There were rules governing administrative acts
in British India.
After gaining independence, India made the decision to create a welfare state, which expanded the reach of
government activities. Along with the growth of governmental and administrative operations and authority,
the need for “Rule of Law” and “Judicial Review of State Actions” also grew. The rules, regulations, and
orders of administrative authorities that were later shown to be outside the scope of their legislative power
were to be regarded as ultra-vires, unconstitutional, unlawful, and invalid.
REASON FOR GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
 THE IDEA OF WELFARE STATE
More control of those activities was required as government operations increased as the United States
evolved from a laissez-faire to a welfare state. This branch of law developed as a result.
 INADEQUACY OF LEGISLATIVE MEASURES
The legislature’s finite time cannot be used to solve the ongoing, constantly evolving needs of society. Even
if it does, the protracted and difficult legislative procedure would render the rule ineffective because the
needs would have changed by the time it was put into force.
As a result, the government has the power to enact laws and use its judgment. So, once powers are
conferred, it becomes vital to govern them.
 INEFFICIENCY OF JUDICIARY
The court’s decision-making procedure is incredibly formal, expensive, sluggish, and convoluted.
Additionally, due to the enormous volume of cases that are already planned, it is impossible to swiftly
dispose of suites. As a result, there was a demand for tribunals.
 SCOPE FOR EXPERIMENT
It is not required to keep a rule in effect until the start of the next legislative session, unlike the legislature.
However, in the administrative process, a rule can be created, tested for a while, and if it is proven to be
flawed, it can be changed or updated within a short amount of time, which is unquestionably a characteristic
of relative flexibility.
EVOLUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
The Law Commission specifically highlights the following in its XIVth Report as to the causes of the
exponential growth of administrative law and its necessity in the present situation:
“Government functions have grown and society in the 20th century has become extremely complex. The
scope and nature of government have changed from a laissez-faire to a public service state, which has
resulted in a concentration of significant power in the hands of the executive arm of government.
The Interaction between citizens and administrative bodies has increased as a result of societal changes
because, whether then or now, these interactions have led to new procedures, inventions, and methods for
addressing issues of every kind and for ensuring the greatest possible welfare of people.
The need to empower administrative agencies was overtaken by interactions, thanks to:
 They have the discretionary power,
 unlike the legislature or the court, to quickly change or revise inappropriate or irrelevant rules in
order to handle the issues on their own,
 They have a wide range of responsibilities (they establish policies, lead and support the legislature,
carry out and enforce the legislation),
  In addition to performing their conventional duties, administrative agencies were required to exercise
their legislative authority and issue a wide range of regulations, bye-laws, and orders.

Administrative law has become extremely crucial in the developed society since the relationship of the
administrative authorities and the people has become complex. In order to regulate these complexities some
law is necessary, which can help maintain regularity certainty and check misuse of powers vested in the
administration. This increase in the spectrum of responsibilities ushered in an administrative age and an era
of Administrative law. Administrative has been characterized as the most outstanding legal development of
the 20th-century. The governments have evolved from being laisseze faire to parens patria. This
development saw a similar trend in several parts of the world. In this article we will be discussing the
evolution and development of administrative law in India, UK, USA and France

Development of administrative law in India

Administrative law in India can be traced back to ancient history times. The Maurya and the Gupta dynasties
of Ancient India had centralised administrative system. Following this, came the Mughals who had
somewhat similar administrative system. The kings in the anterior period of history were mostly concerned
majorly about three things-
 Protecting the state from external aggression
 Maintaining law and order and order
 Collecting taxes.
With the arrival of the British in India, there was the advent of modern administrative law. Establishment of
East India Company increased the government’s powers manifold. Several Acts, legislatures and statutes
were brought by the British Parliament for regulating public safety, health, morality, transport and labour
relations. The exercise of granting licences began with the State Carriage Act, 1861. The first public
corporation came into existence under the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879. Delegated legislation was accepted
as legitimate power of the Executive in Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 and Opium Act, 1878.
In many statutes, provisions were made vis-a-vis granting of permits and licences and settlement of disputes
by administrative authorities and tribunals. During the Second World War, the executive powers increased
manifold by virtue of Defence of India Act. In addition to this, the government issued many orders and
ordinances, covering several matters by way of Administrative instructions.
Post independence, India adopted a welfare state approach, which in turn increased state activities. With
increase in power and activity of the Government and administrative authorities increased so did the need
for ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Judicial Review of State actions’.[i] The philosophy of a welfare state became
specifically embodied in the Constitution of India. In the Constitution itself, provisions were made to secure
to all citizens social, economic and political justice, equality of status and opportunity. The ownership and
control of material resources of the society should be so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good.
For better administration and execution of laws at the ground level, procedures such as laying and delegated
legislation were borrowed from contemporary regimes and customised to cater to the Indian needs. Also, if
rules, regulations and orders passed by the administrative authorities were found to be beyond their
legislative powers then such orders, rules and regulations were to be declared ultra-vires, unconstitutional,
illegal and void. This flexibility of administrative law also marks an important feature of evolution of
administrative law in India.
The Post-Independence Constitutional Framework
After India gained independence in 1947 and adopted its Constitution in 1950, the evolution of administrative law
took on a new dimension. The Indian Constitution enshrines the rule of law and provides for separation of powers
among the legislature, executive, and judiciary. This establishment of a constitutional framework meant that every
administrative action now had to have a statutory basis and be subject to judicial review.

Key constitutional principles—such as due process, natural justice, and fair procedure—became applicable to
administrative decision-making. Over the decades following independence, a series of landmark judicial decisions
affirmed that governmental actions, even when taken by specialized administrative bodies, must adhere to these
principles. This period marked the evolution of judicial review as a powerful tool to check administrative discretion,
ensuring that state action is not arbitrary or unreasonably exercised.

4. Judicial Developments and the Expansion of Review Mechanisms

Decisive Supreme Court judgments have played a significant role in shaping administrative law in India. Cases such as
the landmark decisions in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala reinforced the
ideas that:

 Government action must be rational, fair, and within the ambit of the law;

 The executive cannot encroach upon personal liberties and property rights without following due process;

 Even legislation and administrative actions must conform to the constitutional mandate.

These judgments not only emphasized the requirement for natural justice but also established that administrative
decisions are subject to scrutiny by higher courts. As a result, judicial review emerged as an essential safeguard
against abuse of power, ensuring that even decisions made by administrative agencies and tribunals are accountable
and transparent.

5. The Emergence of Specialized Administrative Tribunals

With the increasing complexity of modern governance, administrative disputes expanded beyond the capacity of
ordinary courts. To address this, India developed specialized tribunals that could adjudicate disputes in areas such as
taxation, labor, environmental regulation, and public procurement. These bodies are designed to be quasi-judicial in
nature; their procedures incorporate features of the judicial process—such as hearings, evidence evaluation, and
reasoned decisions—but they operate as part of the administrative machinery. The establishment of these tribunals
represents the modern trend in administrative law toward specialization, balancing the need for expertise and
efficiency with the principles of fairness and accountability.

6. Contemporary Themes: Transparency, Accountability, and Technology

In the modern era, administrative law in India has evolved to address new challenges arising from globalization and
technological advancements. The digital age has introduced issues related to data protection, e-governance, and
cyber regulation, requiring the law to adapt continuously. Contemporary administrative law is characterized by:

 The increased demand for transparency in government decision-making;

 Mechanisms for ensuring public participation and feedback in administrative processes;

 The development of digital tools for record-keeping and electronic evidence, thereby facilitating judicial
review of administrative action in a digital context.

These themes reflect an ongoing evolution where administrative law is not static but dynamically responds to socio-
economic developments, ensuring that government actions remain both effective and accountable.

Development of administrative law in UK

In 1885 a British jurist A.V. Dicey rejected the whole concept of Administrative law. Due to this several
legal thinkers suspended the notion of acknowledging the various statutory powers given to administrative
authorities to form a separate branch of law. They disregarded the control exercised by such authorities to be
anything distinct in itself. Hence, until 20th century administrative law was not given its due in England. It
was only later that the concept came to be recognised.
In 1929, Lord Donoughmore Committee recommended for better publication and control of subordinate
legislation. The legal maxim that the king can do no wrong, was abolished and the scope and extent of
administrative law was expanded by the Crown Proceeding Act, 1947. It allowed initiation of civil
proceedings against the Crown in a similar fashion to any ordinary private citizen.
The Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958 brought about better control and supervision of administrative
decisions. Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union[ii] was the first case wherein the existence of
administrative law in England was recognised.
4. Landmark Judicial Developments

Over time, landmark cases have helped to define and refine the contours of administrative law in the UK:

 Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (the “GCHQ case”) (1985): This case was
pivotal in affirming that decisions made by government bodies—especially those affecting individual rights
and public interests—could be subjected to judicial review. The House of Lords (now the Supreme Court)
held that even high-level policy decisions were not immune from review if they were made in a procedurally
and substantively unjust manner. This case emphasized that the exercise of statutory powers by
administrative bodies must comply with principles of fairness and reasonableness.

 R (on the application of Doody) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (1994): In this decision, the
courts clarified further what it meant for administrative actions to adhere to the requirements of natural
justice. The judgment provided guidance on the procedural fairness that must be observed, ensuring that
affected parties have a reasonable opportunity to present their case. It reinforced the idea that
administrative bodies must act not only within the legal parameters defined by statutes but also in keeping
with judicially–mandated standards of fairness.

These cases, among others, have contributed to the modern administrative law landscape by reinforcing that
governmental discretion is not unchecked and that public bodies, even when executing policy decisions, must be
accountable to judicial scrutiny.

5. The Development of Specialized Administrative Tribunals

With the recognition of the need for efficiency and expertise in handling administrative disputes, the UK developed
specialized tribunals over time. These tribunals perform quasi-judicial functions and are designed to adjudicate
disputes arising from administrative action. Although their decisions are subject to judicial review, they have become
an integral part of the administrative law framework, helping to ease the burden on the traditional court system
while ensuring that disputes are resolved efficiently and justly.

6. Contemporary Administrative Law and Further Innovations

In recent decades, administrative law in the UK has continued to evolve. The introduction of statutory provisions such
as those in the Senior Courts Act 1981, the expansion of supervisory jurisdiction through judicial review, and
legislative responses to new challenges (such as data protection, environmental regulation, and the complexities of
the modern welfare state) have all contributed to a robust system. The modern framework is characterized by:

 Increased transparency: Administrative bodies now regularly publish detailed reasons for their decisions.

 Enhanced public participation: There are more avenues for appeal and scrutiny, reflecting a commitment to
democratic accountability.

 Technological adaptation:
Development of administrative law in USA
The existence and growth of administrative law was ignored in the United States until it grew into being the
fourth branch of Democracy. Also several legal jurists like Frank Goodnow and Ernst Freund had authored
several books on administrative law which bolstered its position in the States.
Dr. Freund in his observation of the characteristics of American and English system found that American
growth of administrative power didn’t encounter a temperamental opposition like it did in England. Rather it
was checked by the distribution of powers under a federal system. Not until 19th century the Congress used
its interstate commerce powers for regulatory purposes, with recourse into administration by commission.
Bulk of the legislations, at first, was administered without general supervision; the central-state
administrative organisation was built slowly. As a result administrative control in the US was less
bureaucratic and hence less centralised.[iii]
In the United States the rise of administrative law is contemporaneous with the need for governmental
regulation of industry. Such a need led to the creation in 1887 of the Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC). In 1933 a special committee was appointed to determine how judicial control over administrative
agencies could be exercised. Thereafter, the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 was passed which provided
for judicial control over administrative actions.
American administrative law developed from the operation of these different regulatory agencies, vested
with significant powers to determine, by rule or by decision, private rights and obligations. As the
regulations and orders promulgated by these organs impinged more and more upon the community and the
bar that counseled it, the development of legal rules to ensure the subordination of agency activities to law
became of concern to jurists. During the 1920s courses on administrative law began to be offered in law
schools, the American Bar Association set up a special committee on the subject, and it came increasingly to
occupy the attention of courts and lawyers.[iv]

Development of administrative law in France

The existence of an administrative authority (le droit administratif) in France, separate and distinct from the
civil law, dealing, in the main, with the competence of the administrative authorities and watching over the
relations amongst themselves and with private individuals, distinguishes fundamentally the administrative
and legal system of France from that of Anglo-Saxon countries.
A study of the history of French administrative law during the last hundred years will show that its
development has consisted principally in the working out of remedies for the protection of private
individuals against the arbitrary and illegal conduct of the administrative authorities and in the extension of
the control of the administrative courts (particularly the council of state) over the acts of these latter
authorities. It is somewhat analogous to the power of American courts to refuse to enforce unconstitutional
acts of the legislature.
This control has gone through a very interesting process of development. During the early years of the First
Empire when the judicial courts were, in large measure, the servile instruments of Napoleon, they refused to
entertain the plea of illegality as a bar to prosecution for the violation of all acts of the administrative
authorities, from the lowest to the highest. In 1800, however, the court of cassation which three years before
had held that the inferior judges had no right to refuse to enforce prefectural or municipal police ordinances
on the ground of their illegality, changed its opinion and ruled that they were not bound to impose fines for
the violation of such ordinances.
During the period of the Restoration when the judges became more independent in consequence of the
adoption of the rule of non removability, they went further and held that they were not even bound to impose
fines for the violation of ordinances issued by the King[v] Legality of nearly every administrative act for the
violation of which a fine is prescribed, and illegality includes not merely nonconformity to the laws but also
incompetence, vice of form, violation of the principle of equality of citizens, of personal liberty, liberty of
conscience, inviolability of domicile, violation of property rights, etc.[vi]
Even so-called ordinances of public administration issued by the President of the Republic upon the advice
of the council of state, which until 1907 could not be questioned either before the administrative or judicial
courts, are now attackable before both classes of courts on the ground of illegality and during the world war,
when the French Parliament delegated extraordinary ordinance power to the President, the judicial courts
regularly entertained the exception of illegality against such ordinances. This power of the judicial courts to
declare illegal the ordinances of the administrative authorities is, as Hauriou remarks, one of the
“correctives” of the French administrative system which cannot be ignored. it offered a means of control
over administrative conduct which was more frequently invoked than now, its importance having decreased
in consequence of the remarkable extension of the control of the administrative courts, the effect of which
has been to reduce correspondingly the control of the judicial courts.”

DOCTRINE OF RULE OF LAW

Administrative law is a historical concept -its philosophies and techniques are what mandates it in the
present world.[1] With time, it develops, however, retaining principles that have formed the basis of this law.
They have not lost their underlying ideologies, but have been amended with time to fit the legal system
accordingly, for example, be the separation of powers between the legislature, judiciary, and executive,
could be one and another would be the Rule of law. It is an ideal that ensures justice, equality, and
fairness[2], preventing arbitrariness on the government’s side. It can be inferred that the Rule of law
(Dicey’s interpretation) has three essential features:
(i) supremacy of law
(ii) equality before the law
(iii) judge-made law.
This ideal is what prevents the state from turning into a totalitarian authority since it helps preserve the
structure of the democratic values.[3] Democratic values also include individual rights (Fundamental
Rights), significantly being the protection of freedom of thought, freedom to practice any religion, freedom
of choice of work, and liberty to necessary living facilities.[4] When individuals assert their rights, it helps
preserve the democratic structure, since it is this respect that forms the basis for a democratic society,
ethically and morally.

Evolution of the Rule of Law

The phrase has been derived from the French term, la principle de legalite, which stands for the principle of
legality. This principle holds that the government is based on rules made by laws and not men[7]. While this
term had been taken from England, the country, however, never believed that administrative law existed for
the longest time. The Evolution of the Rule of Law into the country through the Droit
administrative system, otherwise known as the French legal system.

Rule of Law Meaning

The argument about the Rule of Law began in Ancient Greece with Aristotle and proceeded with medieval
and early modern theorists such as Sir John Fortescue, John Locke, Niccolo Machiavelli, Montesquieu, etc.
 Modern era: In the modern era, A. V. Dicey, F.A. Hayek, John Rawls, etc. worked on the
concept.
 According to Prof. Dicey, the term "rule of law" refers to the complete dominance over the influence
of arbitrary power and discretionary power of the government.
 Dicey regarded the rule of law as the bedrock of the British Legal System. This doctrine is accepted
in the constitutions of the U.S.A. and India.

Rule of law--
1. Supremacy of Law:
Dicey believed that only law and law alone could rule a man without any place for arbitrariness. He believed
that if the administrative authority is given any kind of discretionary power, it would be dangerous for the
supremacy of law. The Government is subject to law and not the law to the Government.
2. Equality before Law:
According to the second principle of Dicey, equality before law and equal subjection of all classes to the
ordinary law of land to be administered by the ordinary law courts. Every person regardless of his economic
condition or rank is subject to be treated equally in front of the law. Whether it is a government official or an
ordinary citizen, they have to be treated in the same way. No one is above law.
3. Predominance of Legal Spirit:
Dicey believed that there must be an upholding authority and that this authority could be found in the courts.
The courts are the authorities of the rule of law and they should be both fair and liberated from every single
outer impact. The courts should be the protectors of liberty, equality and justice of the citizens. Just
mentioning these rights in any constitution would not be sufficient unless remedies would be available for
the enforcement and protection of these rights.

Rule of Law Characteristics

The following are the characteristics of the Rule of Law:
 There must be the supremacy of law.
 No one should be above the law, everybody is equal before the law.
 It states that no one can be prosecuted unless and until he/she has violated the laws.
o The accusation should be proven by an autonomous entity such as a court.
 It protects against the arbitrary actions of men.
 All the actions of the organs of government must be in accordance with laws.
 The judiciary is the preserver and protector of the rule of law.
 It takes into account the principle of natural justice.
 It is the fundamental basis of the democracies around the world.
Rule of Law Under Indian Constitution
The provisions of Rule of Law were taken both from USA and England Constitutions. The Rule of Law can
be found in Part III of the Indian Constitution. If there is an infringement of such rights, one can move to the
Supreme Court or High Court under Article 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution, just like writ petitions can
be filed for violation of any fundamental rights.
The Constitution is supreme and the legislative, executive and judiciary are subject to the constitution of
India. Any law made has to obey the Constitution and any law failing to do so would be declared invalid.
The most famous application of Rule of Law in India was seen in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State
of Kerala where the Supreme Court held that the Rule of Law is an essential part of the basic structure of the
constitution. And it could not be amended by any power vested in the Parliament.
The Indian Constitution contains numerous provisions based on this doctrine. The rule of law is implicitly
given in the various provisions of the Constitution. All the three organs of the government (Legislative,
Executive and Judiciary) must adhere to the principle of the Rule of Law.
 Judicial review: The power of judicial reviewhas been provided under Articles 13, 32,136, 142, 226,
etc. to the judiciary to preserve the ‘Rule of Law’.
o Any law made by the Central Government or State Governments must be consistent with the
Constitution of India.
 Preamble: The Constitution of India is enriched with the principles of law, such as justice, equality
and liberty.
 Article 21: The right to life and personal liberty cannot be curtailed except procedure established by
the law under article 21.
 Article 14: Dicey’s ideas of equality before the law is provided under Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution establishing the idea of equality before the law and equal protection under the law.
Rule of Law in India Exceptions
In India, Dicey’s concept of the rule of law cannot be said to be followed in the strict sense; there are certain
exceptions provided under the Indian Constitution and other laws.
 Discretionary powers to the President and Governor:
 Under Articles 72 and 161, the President and the Governor respectively are empowered to pardon,
reprieve, respite, or remit punishment, as well as to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any
individual found guilty of any crime.
 Article 85 gives the President discretion concerning the prorogation of either House of Parliament or
the dissolution of the House of People.
 The governor is allowed to reserve bills for consideration under Article 200 and to send the report to
the President under Article 356 of the Constitution.
 Immunities to the President and Governor:
o The President/Governor is not answerable to the court of law in discharging his executive
functions.
o No criminal proceedings can be instituted against the President or the State Governors while
in office.
o No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed can be filed against the President or Governor
except after the expiration of a 2-month notice served on him.
  Police: As part of the executives, police are given discretionary powers of arrest without warrant for
cognisable offenses.
 Public servants: Administrative officers, municipal authorities, etc. have been provided with certain
immunities and privileges for better functioning of the system.
 Criminal courts: Indian criminal courts possess broad discretionary authority regarding sentencing.
 Diplomatic immunities: Under international law, visiting heads of state, heads of government,
ministers, officials and foreign diplomats posted in the country are not subjected to the jurisdiction of
local courts in the discharge of their official functions.

Application of Rule of Law as seen in India:

1. Supreme Court vs Union Of India on 6 October, 1993 (Equality before law)
In S.P. Gupta the concept of independence of the judiciary to be kept in view, while interpreting the relevant
provisions of the Constitution, was summarized by Bhagwati, J. (as he then was), thus :
Judges should be stern stuff and tough fire, unbending before power, economic or political, and they must
uphold the core principle of the rule of law which says “Be you ever so high, the law is above you.” This is
the principle of independence of the judiciary which is vital for the establishment of real participatory
democracy, maintenance of the rule of law as a dynamic concept and delivery of social justice to the
vulnerable sections of the community. It is this principle of independence of the judiciary that we must keep
in mind while interpreting the relevant provisions of the Constitution.
2. CSC Punjab vs. Om Prakash, AIR 1969 SC 33 (Supremacy of Law)
The American case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer was referred which observed that: The rule of
law rejects the conception of the Dual State (2) in which governmental action is placed in a privileged
position of immunity from control by law. Such a notion is foreign to our basic constitutional concept.
3. Hotel Dwaraka, Hyderabad vs The Union Of India And Ors. on 25 January, 1985 (Predominance of
Legal Spirit)
In para 40
The bills of federalism are said to be : Weakness of the Government since no one authority can wield the
same amount of power as under a unitarian Constitution is possessed by the sovereign, conservatism because
of the rigidness of the Constitution which cannot be changed by ordinary process of legislation and legalism,
namely, the predominance of the judiciary in the Constitution – the prevalence of a spirit of legality among
the people.

4) A.D.M. Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976)

The issue before the Court was “whether the rule of law was present in the constitution other than Article
21[9]”. This issue arose when rights under Articles 14, 21, and 22 were suspended during the proclamation
of an emergency. The majority judgment ruled in the negative. However, Justice H.R Khanna delivered a
dissenting opinion and held that –
“Even in the absence of Article 21 in the Constitution, the state has no power to deprive a person of his life
and liberty without the authority of law. Without such sanctity of life and liberty, the distinction between a
lawless society and one governed by laws would cease to have any meaning.”[10]
The most critical case in Indian Judicial History with respect to the evolution of the Rule of Law in India
was the Kesavananda Bharti v State of Kerela[14]case, whereit was added to the basic structure of the
constitution, to be upheld at all times. This marked a permanent establishment of Dicey’s theory of the Rule
of law in the Indian legal system. In another case of Sukhdev v Bhagatram[15], Justice Mathew J. ruled that
having a democracy where the executive possessed arbitrary power would be to the collapse of the country,
as it would become one lead by individual interest.
The Rule is a well-recognized theory in India upheld overtime to strike a balance between
Administrative/executive action and infringement of an individual’s rights. We can state that the Rule of law
is subjected to law, morality, and justice since it forms a fundamental element of democracy and competent
authority. It prevents wars and maintains a check on the protection of Human Rights. However, it has not
been sufficiently maintained in India due to multiple frauds In the last decade, a clear sign of abuse of
administrative power and action, thus, a violation of said law. Its necessity cannot be denied in a country,
and its development and maintenance must be kept in mind with the progress of the nation.
ORIGINS OF DUE PROCESS AND PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY LAW
For the sake of clarity, the origins of due process and process established by law, from the Constitution of
India and the Constitution of USA have been identified. The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution lays
down, inter alia, that “no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property, without due process of
law”.
In India, this expression has been embodied in Article 21 as “Right to Life” which is as follows: “Protection
of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law”
Due process consists of two parts: procedural and substantive. Here, procedural due process requires fair
procedure, i.e., notice and hearing while substantive due process examines substantive content of
legislation .On the other hand, the expression “procedure established by law” means procedure laid down by
statute or procedure prescribed by the law of the state. Accordingly, three premises are laid down. First,
there must be a law justifying interference with the person’s life or personal liberty. Second, the law should
be a valid law and third, the procedure laid down by the law should have been strictly followed.
‘PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW’ AS SYNONYMOUS WITH ‘DUE PROCESS’ AFTER
1978:
The Vth amendment of U.S Constitution lays down that “no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or
property without due process of law”. Under the concept of due process, the courts becomes the arbiter of
reasonableness of both substantive as well as procedural provisions in law. Article 21 of Indian Constitution
says that- ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law’. In India, there is no mention of the word ‘Due Process’.
 Firstly, This was a significant omission for the entire efficacy of the procedural due process concept
emanates from the word “due”.
 Secondly, the draft constitution had contained the words “due process of law” but these words were
later dropped and the present phraseology adopted instead.
This was a strong evidence to show that the Constituent assembly did not desire to introduce into India the
concept of procedure due process. This was done mainly to avoid the uncertainty surrounding the due
process concept in the U.S.A. The judicial decisions in the USA on what was reasonable had not been
uniform. The concept of ‘reasonable’ had varied from judge to judge, statute to statute, time to time and
subject to subject.
A strict literal interpretation of Procedure established by Law give the legislative authority an upper hand
and they may enact laws which may not be fair from a liberal perspective. The difference between “due
process of law” and “procedure established by law” is that under the American system, a law must satisfy
the criteria of a liberal democracy. In India “procedure established by law”, on the other hand, means a law
duly enacted is valid even if it’s contrary to principles of justice and equity. In A. [Link] v. UoI [16] the
Court held that procedure established by law means any procedure laid down by the legislature in India. It
settled 2 major principles in relation to Article 21. One article 19, 21 and 22 were mutually exclusive and
independent of each other and article 19 was not to apply to a law affecting personal liberty to which Article
21 would apply. And secondly a “law” affecting life or personal liberty could not be declared
unconstitutional merely because it lacked natural justice or due procedure.
However, in India a liberal interpretation was made by judiciary after 1978 and it has tried to make the term
‘Procedure established by law’ as synonymous with ‘Due process’ when it comes to protect individual
rights. In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case (1978), Supreme court held that Procedure established by
law’ within the meaning of article 21 must be ‘reasonable, just and fair’ and ‘not arbitrary, fanciful or
oppressive’ otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be
satisfied. This case has been exerting multi dimensional impact on development of Constitutional law in
India.
The brief facts of this case are that Maneka Gandhi’s passport was confiscated at the airport under Section
10(3)(c)of the Passport Act [Link] being asked upon, she was communicated that it was the decision of
the Government of India to impound the passport in the interest of the general public. It was held that
 Firstly, Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution[17] since
it confers vague unlimited powers on the passport authorities In E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
& Another,[18], It was held in this case that Article 14 is one of the pillars of the Indian Constitution
and hence cannot be bound by a narrow and inflexible interpretation. Article 14 should thus be given
the widest interpretation possible, which also includes reasonableness and arbitrariness of certain
provisions of the legislations.
 Secondly, there was Violation of the Principle of Natural Justice i.e The Audi Alteram Partem
Rule which forms an important part in defining the constitutionality and fairness of any procedure. In
the present case, Maneka Gandhi was denied reasons for the impounding of her passport, which is
unfair since every person has the right to know the grounds on which any executive action is being
taken against them. Also, she was never given a chance to present her own case before the
authorities.
 Thirdly, the order is violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution since the right to travel
abroad under personal liberty was denied by the passport authorities without giving reason for the
same. Also, the clause talking about ‘procedure established by law’ adopted in this case was arbitrary
and unfair.
The court decided that it is not just about the procedure, but also about the substantive due process of law
i.e. the fairness of the law. The Supreme Court judgement in Maneka Gandhi demonstrates a sharp shift in
jurisprudence and interpretation adopted by the judiciary, which resulted in profound constitutional change.
With this change in jurisprudence, we can say that the phrase ‘procedure established by law’ under Art. 21 of
the Indian Constitution has acquired the same significance as the ‘due process of law’ clause in the
Constitution of United States of America, post Maneka Gandhi judgement.
POST MANEKA GANDHI JUDGEMENT
Article 21 which has lain dormant for nearly three decades was brought to life by the now famous Supreme
court decision in Maneka Gandhi. Since then, Article 21 has been on its way to emerge as the Indian
version of the American concept of due process. It has become the source of many substantive rights and
procedural safeguards to the people. Now it is settled that that article 21 confers positive rights to life and
liberty The word “life” in article 21 means a life of dignity and not just mere animal survival which was also
upheld in the case of Francis Caralie. The procedure of depriving a person of his life and liberty must be
reasonable, fair and just.
In the 1978, the 44th amendment of the constitution took place, article 359 was amended, and it provided
that article 20 and 21 could not be suspended even during declaration of an emergency. A.k. Bindal vs.
Union of India[20], It was held that no person should be deprived of his life and personal liberty except
according to the procedure established by law. Thus with the above brief preview of article 21 it is clear that
it has a multidimensional interpretation. Any arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful act of the part of any state
depriving the life or personal liberty would be against article 21 of the Indian constitution.
The Supreme Court has asserted in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab that the procedure contemplated by
Article 21 is that it must be “right, fair and just” and not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive. The expression
“procedure established by law” extends to both substantive as well as procedural law. A procedure not
fulfilling these attributes is no procedure at all in the eyes of Article 21.

Droit administratif
Droit administratif is a fundamental concept in the legal framework of France and several other civil law
countries, shaping the interactions between government agencies and the public. This specialised branch of
law governs public administration, ensuring that government actions remain efficient and lawful while
protecting individual rights.
Defining Droit Administratif
French administrative law or “Droit Administratif,” comprises a specialised body of rules that define the
organisation, powers and duties of public administration while regulating the interactions between the
administration and the country’s citizens. Unlike other branches of law that are predominantly shaped by
parliamentary legislation, Droit Administratif is chiefly constructed through the rulings of administrative
courts. This distinctive feature underscores its role in adapting legal standards directly to the complexities of
governmental functions.
Droit administratif refers to the body of law governing the administrative actions of the government. Unlike
common law countries where laws are primarily developed by precedents set by judicial decisions, droit
administratif is characterised by statutes, administrative regulations and decisions made by administrative
courts. This branch of law covers various aspects, including public service, management of public property
and the organisation of public institutions.
Historical Background
The term “droit administratif” originated in France during the early 19th century, emerging from the need to
establish a legal framework that could handle the complexity of administrative decisions separate from the
ordinary judicial system. This was primarily a response to the French Revolution’s demand for a government
that could maintain order while respecting newly recognised individual rights. The Conseil d’Etat,
established in 1799, played a pivotal role in developing and shaping administrative law as a distinct
category.
Characteristics of Droit Administratif
Droit Administratif, the cornerstone of administrative law in France, possesses several distinctive
characteristics that differentiate it from the legal systems found in common law countries. This framework
governs how the state interacts with its citizens and oversees public administration. Below are the primary
features that define Droit Administratif:
1. Specialised Judicial System: The administrative matters related to the state and its functions are
adjudicated by specialised administrative courts rather than ordinary civil or criminal courts. This
separation ensures that disputes involving public administration are handled by judges with specific
expertise in administrative law.
 2. Judge-Made Rules: Unlike common law systems where jurisprudence heavily influences law, the
rules applied in administrative litigation in France are developed by the courts themselves,
specifically the administrative courts. This approach allows for a dynamic and adaptive legal system
that can respond more effectively to the complexities of governing.
3. Tribunal des Conflicts: This specialised tribunal resolves jurisdictional conflicts between
administrative and ordinary courts. Its existence underscores the unique parallel systems of justice in
France, ensuring clear lines of authority and preventing legal conflicts between different branches of
the judiciary.
4. Protection of Government Officials: Droit Administratif provides certain protections for
government officials from the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, recognising the unique nature and
responsibilities of public service. This protection is designed to allow public servants to perform
their duties without undue interference from the ordinary judiciary.
5. Historical Development of Conseil d’État: Emerging from the transformative period of the French
Revolution, the Conseil d’État has grown to serve dual roles as both a consulting body to the
government and the highest administrative court. This institution’s evolution reflects the gradual and
considered integration of administrative governance into the broader democratic framework of
France.
6. Absence of Natural Justice in Some Aspects: Notably, the principle of “Audi Alteram Partem,”
which requires a hearing from both sides before a decision is made, is not always applicable in
French administrative proceedings. This departure from what is typical in common law jurisdictions
highlights a fundamental difference in how rights and responsibilities are balanced in administrative
disputes.
7. State Liability and Tort: France diverges from English jurisprudence by not granting immunity to
the state from tort liability, meaning the state can be held liable in civil law for damages caused by
wrongful acts or negligence. This approach increases the accountability of public administration.
8. Non-interference of Administrative and Ordinary Courts: In France, there is a strict non-
interference policy between administrative and ordinary courts, each operating within its defined
remit. This separation is designed to maintain the integrity and independence of each branch of the
judiciary.
9. Independence from Precedent: Unlike common law systems that rely heavily on precedent, Droit
Administratif is characterised by its reliance on judge-made law that is not strictly bound by previous
decisions. This allows administrative law to remain flexible and responsive to new challenges and
circumstances.
Key Principles of Droit Administratif
Several core principles define droit administratif and differentiate it from other branches of law:
 Principle of Special Jurisdiction: Administrative courts exclusively hear disputes between
individuals and public authorities. This separation from ordinary courts is based on the belief that
specialised knowledge is required to adjudicate complex administrative matters.
 Principle of Administrative Discretion: Public administrators are granted discretion to make
decisions within the bounds of the law. This flexibility is important for effective public management
but comes with checks to prevent misuse.
 Principle of Judicial Review: Despite the autonomy of administrative bodies, their decisions are
subject to review by administrative courts. This ensures that actions and decisions comply with the
law and respect individual rights.
  Principle of Service Public: This principle is central to droit administratif, emphasising that the
primary role of administrative action is to serve the public interest. It reflects the idea that the
government should work for the benefit of the community.
Rules of Droit Administratif
Droit Administratif is characterised by its judge-made rules, formulated within administrative courts rather
than derived from statutes passed by the French Parliament. This body of law primarily shapes the
framework within which public administration interacts with citizens and manages its internal operations.
The rules of Droit Administratif can be broadly categorised into three distinct but interconnected areas:
Administrative Authorities and Officials
This category includes rules related to the appointment, removal, allowances and obligations of
administrative officials. These regulations ensure that public officials are appointed fairly, can be removed
for just cause and are provided with appropriate compensation and legal duties. This set of rules is important
for maintaining an efficient, accountable and transparent administration, which is the backbone of effective
governance.
Public Service Operations
The second rule focuses on the welfare of the public, mandating that services should be administered
directly by public officials or through delegated authority under their supervision. In some cases, private
agencies may also be engaged to execute these duties. The essence of this rule is to ensure that the public
services are delivered efficiently and meet the needs of the citizens, thereby fulfilling the core objective of
public administration to serve the public interest.
Administrative Adjudication
The third rule establishes that the Conseil d’État acts as the highest administrative court in France. It is
responsible for adjudicating disputes involving public administration and the rights of private citizens. This
rule is fundamental to Droit Administratif, as it provides a mechanism for individuals to seek redress against
the actions of the state that infringe on their rights or cause injury. This system of administrative justice
plays a critical role in maintaining the balance between state authority and individual freedoms.
The Role of the Conseil d’Etat
The Conseil d’Etat stands at the apex of the administrative court system in France. It serves dual roles as an
advisory body to the government on legal matters and as the supreme court for administrative justice. Its
decisions set precedents that guide the application of administrative law across the country, influencing how
laws are interpreted and applied by other administrative courts.
Impact on Public Administration
Droit administratif significantly impacts how public administration operates, providing a framework that
balances efficiency with fairness. It allows administrative agencies to respond flexibly to public needs while
ensuring that such responses do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of individuals. The system’s focus
on both service delivery and rights protection helps maintain public trust in governmental operations.
Comparison with Other Systems
Unlike the administrative law systems in common law countries like the United States or the United
Kingdom, where judicial and administrative proceedings are not strictly separated, droit administratif
provides a distinct and specialised legal process. This separation ensures that experts in public law
adjudicate cases, which can lead to more informed and specific rulings.

DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

If the rule of law as enunciated by Dicey affects the growth of Administrative law in Britain, the doctrine of
separation of Powers had an intimate impact on the development of administrative law in the United States.
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers has emerged in several forms at different periods, its origin is
traceable to Plato and Aristotle. In 16th and 17th centuries, French philosopher John Bodin and British
politician. Locke expressed their views about the theory of separation of powers, it was Montesquieu who
for the first time formulated this doctrine systematically, scientifically and clearly in his book Espirit Des
Lois(The Spirit of the Laws), published in the year 1748.
When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates,
there can be no Liberty; apprehensions may arise, let’s the same monarch are saying it should enact
tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner. Again, there is no Liberty, if the judiciary power be
not separated from the legislative and executive. Where it joined it without the legislative, the life and
Liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator.
Where it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would
be an end of everything, were the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people come
out to exercise those three powers, that of executing laws, that of exhibiting the public resolutions, and of
trying the causes of individuals.
IMPORTANCE
The basic purpose of the doctrine of separation of power is to divide governance against itself by creating a
distinct centre of power so that they could prevent each other from threatening tyranny.
The aim of the doctrine of separation of power is to guard against tyrannical and arbitrary powers of the
state. The rationale underlying the doctrine has been that if all power is concentrated in one and the same
organ or person there would arise the danger that it may enact tyrannical laws, execute them in a despotic
manner, and interpret them in an arbitrary fashion without any external control.
The doctrine of separation of powers is based on four different principles:
(a) Exclusivity principle which suggests structural division in all the three organs of state as it is in the USA
(b) Functional principle which prohibits amalgamation and usurpation but not interaction of all the organs of
state.
(c) Check and balance principle, meaning, thereby, that each organ of state may check the other to keep it
within constitutional bounds.
Mutuality principle which aims at creating Concord not discord, cooperation not confrontation, engagement
not estrangement amongst different organs of state to create a Society of constitutional image, which is a
free, equalitarian, inclusive and the rule of Law Society.
This doctrine can be further used in two senses
1. Negative sense, in which this doctrine puts limits on the exercise of power by each organ of state
2. Positive sense in which it not only demarcates limits but also defines the minimum contents of power
within those limits which a court can enforce to achieve constitutional values.
Historical development of the Doctrine
The doctrine of the separation of powers has its root in ancient period. The history of the doctrine’s genesis
is traceable to Aristotle[1] of Greek. In the 16th and 17th centuries, French philosopher John Bodin and
British politician Locke expounded the theory of the division of powers, respectively. But it was
Montesquieu who, in his book ‘ Esprit des Lois,’ in the year 1748, for the first time gave it a systematic and
empirical formulation.
The separation of powers is a model for the governance of democratic states. The model was first developed
in ancient Greece and was widely used by the Roman Republic as part of the uncodified Constitution of the
Roman Republic. Under this model, the State is divided into branches, each with separate and independent
powers and areas of responsibility, so that no branch has more powers than the other branches. The normal
division of branches is between:
 executive,
 the legislature and
 the judiciary.
Separation of Powers in Indian Context
After independence, the Constituent Assembly was set up to make our own Indian constitution. The Indian
constitution has adopted different things from the constitutions of different nations.
The Constitution of India, does not contain any provision for an absolute or rigid division of the functions of
the three organs of government. Legislative and judicial powers are often entrusted to the executive, but the
functional separation of powers has nevertheless been emphasized. The analysis shows that, pursuant to the
various provisions of our Constitution, Like Articles 53(1) and 154(1), the executive powers of the Union
and the States are conferred on the President and the Governors. According to this scheme, the President is
the Chief Executive Officer of the Indian Union, who exercises his powers constitutionally on aid and advice
The Council of Ministers referred to in Article 74(1). The three-fold division of powers is partially
recognized and no unbridled legislative powers have been conferred on the Parliament and the State
legislatures and on the judiciary of the Supreme Court and other courts. The Constitution of India has taken
a middle course in this matter. Article 50 of the Constitution provides that the State shall take steps to
separate the judiciary from the judiciary. This is to ensure that the parliamentary form of government is
functional as well as the rule of law.
The Constitution also empowers the President to issue ordinances in the exercise of his legislative powers,
which extend to all matters within the legislative competence of the Parliament. Pursuant to Article 123,
during the recess of both Houses of Parliament, the President shall have the power to promulgate an
ordinance, as the case may be[2].
The President also performs the judicial functions and, in this process, is empowered to decide on a disputed
question concerning the age of the High Court and the judges of the Supreme Court for the purpose of
retiring from the judicial office.13 In this regard, as has been established by the Supreme Court, the
President must consult only the Chief Justice. Since, in such a case, he performs judicial functions of serious
importance, he can not act on ministerial advice in this matter. Pursuant to Article 60, the President is bound
by an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and may be charged with violating the provisions
of Article 61 of the Constitution.
In the event of an indictment by the President, one of the Houses shall act as the Prosecutor and the other
House shall investigate the charges and declare whether or not such charges have been upheld. As regards
the Council of Ministers, pursuant to Article 75(5) No individual may be a member of the Council of
Ministers for more than six months unless he is a member of either House of Parliament. There is no specific
provision or convention that prevents a member of the Rajya Sabha from becoming Prime Minister of India,
as clearly demonstrated by the appointment of Mrs. Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister of India in 1966.
The Council of Ministers is jointly responsible to the People’s House[3] and ministers, including the Prime
Minister, must sit in one of the houses to which they belong, by virtue of their membership, and vote in
passing bills of law and other motions. The principle of collective responsibility to the People’s House is a
direct negation of the doctrine of the separation of powers. It creates intergovernmental responsibility and
collective accountability under the control of the People’s House.[4]
Development on Separation of Powers
Observation of Justice Das in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar when he said, “The Constitution
does not express the existence of a separation of powers, and it is true that the division of powers of
government into legislative, executive and judicial powers is implicit in the Constitution, but the doctrine
does not constitute a fundamental foundation stone of the constitutional framework as such.
In Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P It was held that, although our Constitution does not accept the strict
doctrine of the separation of powers, but provides for an independent judiciary in the State, it constitutes a
High Court for each State to lay down the institutional conditions for the service of its judges, confers
extensive jurisdiction on it to issue writs to keep all courts, including, where appropriate, the Government.
Again in Udai Ram Sharma v. Union of India, the Court categorically held that this doctrine had not been
accepted by our Constitution. The Court expressed its opinion that the American doctrine of separation of
powers has no application in India.
The landmark judgment came in the case of Ram Jawaya v State of Punjab. The court held that Doctrine of
separation of powers was not fully accepted in India. Mukherjee J adds that:
“The Indian constitution has not indeed recognize the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity
but the functions of the different parts or branches of the government have been sufficiently differentiated
and consequently it can very well be said that our constitution does not contemplate assumption, by one
organ or part of the state, of functions that essentially belong to another”.
Later in I.C. Golak Nath v State of Punjab, Subha Rao, C.J opined that:
“The constitution brings into existence different constitutional entitles, namely the union, the state and the
union territories. It creates three major instruments of powers, namely the Legislature, the Executive and the
Judiciary. It demarcates their jurisdiction minutely and expects them to exercise their respective powers
without overstepping there limits. They should function with the spheres allotted to them.”
The above opinion of the court clearly states the change in the courts view pertaining to the opinion in the
case of Ram Jawaya v. state of Punjab related to the doctrine of separation of powers.
The landmark judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in Keshvananda Bharti v Union of India the
court was of the view that amending powers was now subject to the basic features of the constitution. And
hence, any amendment tampering these essential features will be struck down as unconstitutional.
Then in Indira Gandhi Nehru v. Raj Narain, where the dispute regarding P.M. election was pending before
the Supreme Court, opined that adjudication of a specific dispute is a judicial function which parliament,
even under constitutional amending powers, cannot exercise i.e. the parliament does not have the
jurisdiction to perform a function which the other organ is responsible for otherwise there will be chaos as
there will be overlapping of the jurisdictions of the three organs of the state.
In In re Delhi Laws Act case, Honorable Chief Justice, Kaniah Observe that although in the Constitution of
India there is no express separation of power, it is clear that a legislature is created by the constitution and
detailed provisions are made for making that legislature passed laws. Is it then too much to say that under
the constitution the duty to make loss, the duty to exercise its own wisdom, judgment and patriotism in
making law is primarily cast on the legislature, does it not imply that unless it can be gathered from other
provisions of the constitution, other bodies executive or judicial are not intended to discharge legislative
functions.
In Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, The Indian Constitution has not indeed recognized the doctrine of
separation of powers in its absolute rigidity but the functions of the different parts or branches of the
Government have been sufficiently differentiated and consequently it can very well be said that our
Constitution does not contemplate assumption, by one organ or part of the State, of functions that essentially
belong to another.