The main emphasis of this research study is how an intensive style of government
and its governance influenced the development of administrative law.
Administrative law has always been regarded as a by-product of this kind of
In other words, it was only a byproduct that happened to be employed to help the
government and solve problems of the present. As governments have developed into
many forms, it was inevitable that people would eventually grow so reliant on
them that they would even expect the government to take care of them from birth
until death. Administrative law focuses on the authority of administrative
authorities, how those powers are used, and the remedies available to harmed
parties when those authorities abuse their authority.
Finding measures to keep the administration within bounds so that discretionary
power does not develop into arbitrary power is the main goal of administrative
law. The goal of administrative law is to harmonise democratic safeguards and
fair play requirements with the efficient operation of government in the area of
The expanded executive powers, as Lord Denning correctly noted, "properly
exercised, lead to the Welfare State; but abused, lead to the Totalitarian
The term "administrative law" can refer to either:
- Law Pertaining To Administration Or
- Law Created By Administration.
The latter would come in two varieties. First, it might be administrative
authorities who have been given the authority to create such subordinate
legislation by a statute. These authorities could create rules, regulations,
orders, plans, bye-laws, etc. Second, certain administrative entities have the
authority to adjudicate legal and/or factual disputes affecting certain
individuals generally. Most of these powers are used in quasi-judicial fashion.
Such choices apply a law, a rule, or instructions to particular circumstances.
They develop a body of administrative law in the process.
Government or a government agency is the administration. The union and the
states each have a portion of the state's authority under the Indian
constitution. The executive, legislative branch, and judicial branch are the
three main departments that make up both the union and the states.
The executive can employ its administrative powers in one of two ways. It may
exercise the executive power of the Union or a state, or it may operate in
accordance with a specific statute or other laws that are subordinate to it. The
rule of law applies to the use of administrative power.
Rule Of Law And Indian Constitution
The Constitution of India is the highest law. The notion of the rule of law is
spelled forth in our Constitution's preamble. It is frequently claimed that
because planning and welfare policies have a significant negative impact on
people's freedoms and liberties, they basically undermine the rule of law. But
by emphasising fair play and more administrative responsibility, the rule of law
plays an important role. To get rid of administrative arbitrariness, it places
more stress on the concepts of natural justice and the rule of speaking order in
the administrative process.
In S.G. Jaisinghani V. Union of India and Others
, the Supreme Court very
clearly outlined the fundamentals of the rule of law. It stated: "The first
prerequisite of the rule of law, upon which our entire constitutional system is
based, is the lack of arbitrary power. When granted to executive authorities,
discretion must be maintained within clearly defined boundaries in a system
where the rule of law is in place.
According to this perspective, the rule of
law dictates that judgments should be decided by using established principles
and regulations. A judgement made without regard to any principles or laws is
unpredictable and is the exact opposite of one made in line with the rule of
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the lack of arbitrariness is one of the
requirements of the rule of law in the case Supreme Court Advocates on Record
Association V. Union of India.
The Court made a note. The existence of proper
guidelines or norms of general application within the area of discretionary
authority excludes any arbitrary exercise of discretionary authority.
the rule of law to be realistic, there must be spaces for discretionary
authority within the operation of the rule of law, even though it must be
reduced to the minimum extent necessary for proper governance. When applied to
individuals in accordance with appropriate standards and rules, the use of
discretionary authority further narrows the scope of the issue.
Purpose Of Administrative Law
I.P. Massey (I.P. Massey, Administrative Law, 5th ed.) identifies the
fundamental pillars of administrative law as being:
- To prevent the abuse of administrative power;
- To guarantee citizens an impartial resolution of their disputes by
officials in order to safeguard them from the unwarranted infringement of
their rights and interests; and
- To hold those in positions of public authority accountable to the
It is vital to have an administrative law system based on fundamental legal and
administrative principles in order to achieve these fundamental goals.
following three fundamental ideas serve as the cornerstones of an extensive,
sophisticated, and successful system of administrative law:
- Executive accountability, which aims to ensure that those who exercise
the executive (and coercive) powers of the state can be called on to explain
and justify the way in which they have gone about that task. Administrative
justice, which at its core is a philosophy that the rights and interests of
individuals should be properly safeguarded in administrative
- Effective administration:
Decisions and actions taken in the administration
should adhere to generally recognised norms, such as rationalism, fairness,
consistency, and transparency.
Classification Of Administrative Action
The phrase "administrative action" is broad and defies precise definition. The
administrative process, which today transcends the traditional division of
governmental functions and unites all the powers that were formerly exercised by
three different organs of the State into one, is a byproduct of intense forms of
The authors of administrative law generally concur that it is
fruitless and impossible to attempt to categorise administrative functions or
any conceptual foundation. Even Nevertheless, a student of administrative law is
required to study categorization since, in the current legal climate,
particularly in relation to judicial review, conceptual classification of
administrative activity is widely used.
As a result, an administrative action
can be broadly divided into four categories:
- The adoption of rules or quasi-legislative measures.
- A quasi-judicial or rule-decision activity.
- An administrative or rule-application action.
- Ministerial action
- The adoption of rules or quasi-legislative measures:
Any state's legislature
is its primary legislative body. The legislature is given explicit authority to
make laws in some written constitutions, such as the American and Australian
Constitutions. Although this authority is not explicitly granted to the
legislature in the Indian Constitution, when Articles 107 to III and 196 to 201
are taken together, the result is that Parliament and the individual State
legislatures can both exercise the power to make laws for the Union and the
The Constitution's authors intended for those bodies to be the only ones able to
use the authority to enact laws.
As a result, giving the administration the authority to make laws is a
compulsion. When any administrative authority uses the law-making authority
granted to it by the legislature, it is referred to as the law-making activity
of the administration, quasi-legislative action, and is frequently referred to
as delegated legislation.
- Rule-decision or quasi-judicial action:
Today, administrative agencies with
adjudicatory powers make the majority of judgments that have an impact on a
private individual instead of courts. The explanation appears to be that the
traditional judicial system cannot provide the people with the volume of justice
necessary in a welfare State because administrative decision-making is also a
byproduct of the intensive style of government.
The ability to make decisions that are mostly administrative in nature but
nevertheless require some elements of judicial customs may be characterised as
According to this concept, the following
administrative duties have been declared to constitute quasi-judicial duties:
- The process for disciplining students.
- Disciplinary actions taken against an employee for improper behaviour.
- The Sea Customs Act of 1878 allows for the confiscation of goods.
- The licencing authority's reluctance to renew a licence or permit or its
cancellation, suspension, or revocation.
- The citizenship determination.
- Resolution of statutory disagreements.
- The ability to keep goods in custody or under seizure after a
specific time period.
- Pension and gratuity forfeiture.
- Authority approving or rejecting authorization for layoffs.
- Rule-application action or administrative action:
Although the lines between
quasi-judicial and administrative action have blurred, that does not mean that
the lines between the two are completely absent. Even if two people are wearing
the same coat, that does not mean that they are the same. Although the
distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative action may no longer have
much practical significance, it may nevertheless be important for deciding the
level of natural justice that should be applied in a particular circumstance.
In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, the Court said that one must consider the
nature of the power granted, the recipients of the power, and the context in
which the power is granted in order to establish whether an administrative
authority's action is administrative or quasi-judicial.
Administrative action is therefore a residual action that falls outside of the
legislative and judicial realms. It lacks generality and is solely focused on
how to handle a specific circumstance. It is not required to follow procedures
like gathering evidence and weighing arguments. It is based on subjective
gratification, even when the choice is driven by expediency and policy. Even
while it might have an impact, it does not determine a right.
However, this does not imply that while the authority is using its
"administrative powers," the norms of natural justice can be fully disregarded.
Depending on the facts of each case, a minimal set of natural justice principles
must always be followed, unless the statute specifies otherwise.
No comprehensive list of such actions can be made, however a few can be
mentioned for clarity's sake:
Administrative action might be statutory, carrying legal weight, or
non-statutory, lacking legal weight. The majority of administrative action is
statutory since a legislation or the Constitution grants it legal power, but in
other circumstances it may be non-statutory, such as when giving orders to
subordinates that lack legal authority but may nevertheless result in
disciplinary punishment if they are broken. The administrative power must
operate fairly, impartially, and reasonably even though administrative action is
typically discretionary and based on subjective satisfaction.
- Referring a dispute to a tribunal for resolution in accordance with the
Industrial Disputes Act.
- A selection committee's duties
Consequently, at this point it becomes crucial to understand the precise
distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial Acts.
Therefore, activities that must be completed to the subjective satisfaction of
the administrative authority are generally referred to as "administrative" acts,
whilst actions that must be completed to the objective satisfaction of the
administrative authority might be referred to as quasi-judicial acts.
Administrative decisions that are based on established criteria are referred to
as objective decisions, whereas judgments that require a choice because no set
norm is applicable are referred to as subjective decisions. The former is an
administrative decision, whereas the later is a quasi-judicial judgement.
There is no legal requirement for the person responsible for making the
administrative judgement to take into account and weigh arguments and
submissions, or to compile any evidence. The justifications for his actions and
the steps he takes to educate himself before acting are totally up to him.
"It is clearly established that the ancient distinction between a judicial act
and an administrative act has withered away, and we have been liberated from the
pestilent incantation of administrative action," the Supreme Court stated.
- Ministerial action:
Ministerial action is a further derivation of
administrative action. A ministerial action is a decision made by an
administrative agency that is only motivated by a legal obligation and lacks any
discretion or independent thought. Performing a specific task for which there is
no other option is a ministerial action. One such ministerial action might be
In the absence of any, notes and administrative instructions
Separation Of Powers
On first appearance, one could assume that India accepts the theory of
separation of powers based on the articles of the Indian Constitution. According
to the Indian Constitution, the President has executive authority, Parliament
has legislative authority, and the judiciary has judicial authority.
The Constitution itself lists the duties and authority of the President. There
are no further restrictions on the legislative power of the Parliament, which
may enact any law as long as it complies with the Constitution's requirements.
The Executive and the Legislature are not permitted to interfere with the
Judiciary's independence in its area of practise.
The Supreme Court and High
Courts have the authority to declare any statute passed by the Parliament or the
Legislature to be unconstitutional thanks to this judicial review power. Some
lawyers believe that the notion of separation of powers has been recognised in
the Indian Constitution after taking these considerations into account.
It is evident from a comprehensive examination of the constitutional provisions
that India does not adhere strictly to the theory of separation of powers. In
India, there is not only functional overlap but also personnel overlap.
If legislative or executive activities contravene any provisions of the
Constitution or a law approved by the legislature in the case of legislative
acts, the Supreme Court has the authority to annul such laws and those actions.
By appointing judges and the Chief Justice, the executive has the power to
influence how the judiciary operates. Such instances may be continued, but an
exhaustive list would not result.
India's Separation Of Powers And Judicial Ruling:
- Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab was the subject of the judiciary's first
significant ruling regarding the doctrine of separation of powers. The court in
the aforementioned instance believed that India did not completely adopt the
theory of separation of powers.
The opinion of Mukherjea J. further supports the
claim that India does not entirely subscribe to the aforementioned theory. He
claims that although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly embrace the
notion of separation of powers, the various roles that the various arms of the
government play are sufficiently distinct.
- It was then determined in the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, in
which the Supreme Court was hearing arguments regarding the election of the
Prime Minister, that the adjudication of a particular dispute is a judicial
function that parliament, even when granted constitutional amending power,
Therefore, the major argument against the amendment was that it
violated the separation of powers principle because when the constituent body
proclaimed that the election of the prime minister would not be null and void,
it performed a judicial duty that it wasn't supposed to. After this ruling, the
position of this doctrine in the Indian setting became somewhat more obvious.
- In Keshvananda Bharti v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the
Constitution's fundamental principles applied to the amending power. Therefore,
any modification that modifies these fundamental elements will be declared
unlawful. Separation of powers is a component of the constitution's fundamental
design, according to J. Beg. None of the republic's three distinct organs may
assume responsibility for the other's duties. Therefore, this furthered the
court's assessment of the idea of separation of powers.
Principles Of Natural Justice
The use of natural law concepts in the development of English law is centred on
two issues: on the one hand, the introduction of equitable considerations of
"justice between men" and the concept of the supremacy of law, and, in
particular, the conflict between common law judges and parliament for
The first resulted in a resounding triumph for
parliamentary supremacy and a setback for theories of higher law. There are
several instances from the early seventeenth century where a law was determined
to be invalid and unenforceable because it did not violate the principles of
In the Maneka Gandhi case, the court ruled that "natural justice is a great
humanising principle meant to invest legislation with fairness and to achieve
justice" and that "it has ever the year evolved into a widely ubiquitous rule
impacting large areas of administrative action." Fair play in action is
therefore the essence of natural justice, which is why it has gained the most
widespread acclaim throughout the democratic world. The right to an
administrative bearing is seen as a fundamental condition of fairness and truth
in the United States of America.
The independent existence of administrative law has never been contested;
however, if one were to draw two circles representing the two branches of law,
they would overlap in a specific location, illustrating their tense
relationship, and this location could be referred to as a watershed in
In India, the entire control mechanism established in the
Constitution for the control of administrative authorities, namely Articles 32,
136, 226, 227, 300, and 311 might be included in the watershed. The instructions
given to the State under Part IV may be included. It may also cover research on
the administrative agencies covered by Articles 261, 263, 280, 315, 323-A, and
324 of the Constitution itself. 
Even while the connection between constitutional law and administrative law is
not particularly strong to be seen with the naked eye, the reality remains that
concomitant issues are not so obscure that one must use a magnifying glass to
peer through the text's crevices to find the connection.
truths and examples offer convincing evidence to establish an essential
connection between the core ideas of both notions. If there are any remaining
questions, the tendency of every author�all but one to distinguish between the
two branches of law necessitates the hypothesis that there is a significant
- Administrative Law ( Dr. U.P.D Kesari), 21st Edition ,Central Law
- 1967 AIR 1427, 1967 SCR (2) 703
- AIR 1955 SC 549, 1955 2 SCR 225
- 7 November, 1975,SC
- 24 April, 1973,SC