High Court Test 19
10 min40 WPM required442 words
Click on the passage and start typing to begin.
Administrative law in India governs the powers and functioning of administrative authorities, tribunals, and agencies of the state, and provides remedies to persons adversely affected by administrative action that is arbitrary, discriminatory, or contrary to the requirements of law. The constitutional foundation of administrative law lies in the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, particularly the right to equality under Articles 14, 19, and 21, which impose constraints on state action and provide grounds for judicial challenge of administrative decisions. Judicial review of administrative action is the principal mechanism through which courts supervise the exercise of public power, and it encompasses review on grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety — the three heads of review articulated by Lord Diplock in the English case of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for Civil Service. Illegality in Indian administrative law encompasses acting without jurisdiction, exceeding jurisdiction, and failing to exercise jurisdiction — the three classic categories of jurisdictional error that courts have traditionally considered reviewable. The doctrine of ultra vires strikes down administrative action taken without the legal authority to do so, or in excess of the authority conferred by the parent statute, and has been the foundation of much of India's administrative law jurisprudence. Irrationality, or Wednesbury unreasonableness named after the English case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation, covers administrative decisions so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made them, and the Supreme Court has in recent years moved towards the proportionality standard in appropriate cases, requiring that restrictions on fundamental rights be proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. The principles of natural justice — the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing — form a central component of procedural impropriety in Indian administrative law. Every person whose rights or interests are adversely affected by an administrative decision is ordinarily entitled to notice of the proposed action, an opportunity to be heard, and a reasoned decision, unless the statute conferring power expressly or by necessary implication excludes these requirements or the circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to comply. The doctrine of legitimate expectation, developed by the Supreme Court from the English concept, protects a person who has been led to expect by the conduct or promise of a public authority that a benefit will not be withdrawn without prior notice and hearing, even if there is no legal right to the benefit. Delegated legislation, the exercise by executive authorities of legislative power delegated by Parliament or state legislatures, is subject to judicial review both for the validity of the delegation and for conformity with the parent Act and the Constitution.