Administrative Law: Powers, Duties and Functions
Administrative law deals with the powers, duties and functions of administrative authorities. These authorities perform different types of functions while implementing laws and managing public administration.
Administrative actions are generally classified into three main categories:
- Legislative or Rule-Making Actions.
- Administrative or Executive Actions.
- Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Actions.
Sometimes, an administrative authority performs more than one type of function. Therefore, it is important to understand the nature of its action and the legal principles governing it.
Legislative or Rule-Making Actions
Legislative action means making rules, regulations, orders or policies under the authority given by the legislature.
- It lays down general rules for the public or a particular class of persons.
- It is usually general in nature and applies to future situations.
- It must remain within the limits of the parent Act.
- It is commonly known as delegated or subordinate legislation.
Example: The government makes rules under an act to regulate traffic, public health or licensing.
Important Case Laws
- In re Delhi Laws Act (1951): The Supreme Court recognised delegated legislation but held that the legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative functions.
- Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India (1985): The Supreme Court held that subordinate legislation can be challenged if it violates the Constitution, exceeds the authority of the parent Act or is otherwise legally invalid.
Administrative or Executive Actions
Administrative or executive action means taking decisions and performing duties to implement laws and run government administration.
- It is generally concerned with the practical implementation of laws and government policies.
- It may involve granting licences, transferring employees, appointing officials, issuing directions and taking disciplinary or other administrative decisions.
- Such actions are generally based on administrative discretion.
- They must be fair, reasonable and free from arbitrariness.
Example: A District Magistrate grants a licence, transfers a government employee or issues an administrative order.
Important Case Laws
- K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969): The Supreme Court held that the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions is becoming narrower. Administrative authorities must act fairly and follow the principles of natural justice wherever applicable.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Supreme Court held that State action affecting personal liberty must be fair, just and reasonable.
Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Actions
A judicial action is an action performed by a court while deciding a dispute between parties according to law.
A quasi-judicial action is performed by an administrative authority or tribunal which is not an ordinary court but is required to act judicially while deciding a matter affecting the rights of individuals.
Main Features of Quasi-Judicial Actions
- The authority must have legal power to decide the matter.
- Its decision must affect the rights or interests of individuals.
- It must consider the facts and evidence objectively.
- It must give the affected person a reasonable opportunity of being heard, wherever required.
- It must act fairly and without bias.
- It should give reasons for its decision wherever the law requires or fairness demands it.
Example: A disciplinary authority conducts an enquiry and decides whether a government employee should be punished. Similarly, a licensing authority hears objections before cancelling a licence.
Important Case Laws
- Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani (1950): The Supreme Court explained the difference between administrative and quasi-judicial actions. It held that an authority must have a legal duty to act judicially for its decision to be quasi-judicial.
- Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1959): The Supreme Court held that where one officer hears the parties and another officer takes the decision, it violates the principles of natural justice in the circumstances of that case.
- Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma (1965): The Supreme Court explained the nature of quasi-judicial functions and recognised that administrative tribunals may perform such functions.
Administrative Authorities to Act Judicially
An administrative authority is not an ordinary court, but sometimes the law requires it to act in a judicial manner while exercising its powers. Such an authority is said to have a duty to act judicially.
The duty to act judicially may arise in the following situations:
- When the authority has to decide a dispute between two parties.
- When its decision affects the rights or interests of a person.
- When the law specifically requires an enquiry or hearing.
- When the authority has to consider evidence and decide the matter fairly and objectively.
Important Tests
The following three conditions are important to identify a quasi-judicial authority:
- It must have legal authority.
- It must have the power to determine questions affecting the rights of individuals.
- It must have a duty to act judicially.
Important Case Laws
- Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani (1950): The Supreme Court laid down the important tests for identifying a quasi-judicial function.
- Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (1959): The Court emphasised that an authority performing a quasi-judicial function must follow the principles of natural justice.
- K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969): The Supreme Court held that the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions has become narrow. Even administrative authorities must act fairly when their decisions affect individual rights.
Institutional Decisions
Meaning
An institutional decision is a decision taken in the name of a government, department or public institution rather than as the personal decision of one particular officer.
In modern administration, the government has to deal with a large number of matters. Therefore, it is not possible for a minister or the head of a department to personally examine every file and take every decision.
For this reason, different officers may participate in the decision-making process.
How Does It Work?
- One officer may receive the application and examine the facts.
- Another officer may conduct the enquiry or hear the affected person.
- The concerned officers may submit their reports and recommendations.
- The authorised senior officer or competent authority may take the final decision in the name of the Government or department.
Thus, the final decision is treated as the decision of the institution and not necessarily the personal decision of one officer.
Advantages of Institutional Decisions
- They save time and reduce the workload of senior officials.
- They allow the use of expert knowledge and experience.
- They make administration more efficient.
- They help in dealing with a large number of government matters.
Disadvantages of Institutional Decisions
- The officer who takes the final decision may not personally hear the affected person.
- One officer may hear the case while another decides it.
- The actual responsibility for the decision may become unclear.
- The affected person may not get a proper opportunity to explain their case to the final decision-maker.
The Rule: “One Who Decides Must Hear”
This is an important principle of natural justice. It means that the person who takes the final decision should ordinarily be the person who hears the affected party and considers the relevant evidence and arguments.
However, in institutional decisions, the hearing and decision-making processes may be divided between different officers. This may create a conflict with the principle of natural justice, particularly when the authority is performing a quasi-judicial function.
Important Case Laws
- Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1959): The Supreme Court held that the separation of the hearing and decision-making functions between different persons violated natural justice in that case. The person who heard the objections was not the person who made the final decision.
- Union of India v. E.K. Andrew (1996): The Kerala High Court discussed institutional decisions and emphasised the importance of the principle that the person who decides should hear. It also recognised the practical difficulties of institutional decision-making. The requirement of a personal hearing depends on the nature of the power, the applicable law and the circumstances of the case.
- Labh Singh Atma Singh v. Union of India (1969): The Delhi High Court recognised that Government decisions may be institutional decisions and that authorised officers can transact government business under the applicable rules.
Difference Between Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Actions
The following table explains the key differences between administrative action and quasi-judicial action:
| Administrative Action | Quasi-Judicial Action |
|---|---|
| It is mainly concerned with implementing laws and policies. | It is concerned with deciding disputes or matters affecting individual rights. |
| It generally involves administrative discretion. | It requires objective and judicial consideration. |
| A formal hearing is not always necessary. | A fair hearing is generally required wherever natural justice applies. |
| It may not always require a reasoned order. | Reasons are generally important, subject to the law and circumstances. |
| Example: Transfer of a government employee. | Example: Deciding a disciplinary enquiry against an employee. |
Conclusion
Administrative authorities perform legislative, executive, judicial and quasi-judicial functions. Although these functions are different, all administrative actions must remain within the limits of the law.
When an authority performs a quasi-judicial function, it must follow the principles of natural justice, including the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. Institutional decisions are also permitted in modern administration, but they must not become a means of avoiding fairness and accountability.
Therefore, the main objective of administrative law is to ensure that every administrative authority exercises its powers legally, fairly, reasonably and without arbitrariness.
