UNIT – III

JUDICIAL REVIEW
Judicial review in administrative law refers to the process by which
courts examine the actions, decisions, and rules of administrative
agencies to ensure they comply with constitutional, statutory, and
procedural requirements. It serves as a check on administrative bodies,
ensuring they do not exceed their authority, violate principles of natural
justice, or engage in arbitrary or capricious actions.
Key aspects of judicial review include:
1. Legality: Courts assess whether the agency acted within the scope of
its legal authority.
2. Reasonableness: Courts evaluate whether the agency's decision was
reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious.
3. Procedural Fairness: Courts ensure that the agency followed proper
procedures and respected the rights of affected parties.
4. Constitutionality: Courts review whether the agency's actions comply
with constitutional provisions.
Judicial review helps maintain the rule of law by holding administrative
agencies accountable and protecting individual rights against potential
misuse of administrative power.
POSITION OF JUDICIAL REIEW IN INDIA:
In India, judicial review under administrative law is a fundamental
feature that ensures the rule of law and the protection of individual
rights. It allows the judiciary to oversee and control the actions of
administrative authorities to ensure they comply with the Constitution
and statutory mandates.
Constitutional Basis
1. Article 32 and Article 226: Judicial review is primarily rooted in these
articles, which empower the Supreme Court and High Courts,
respectively, to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and
for any other purpose.
2. Basic Structure Doctrine: The Supreme Court in the landmark case of
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) held that judicial review is
a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, which cannot be
abrogated or diluted by any amendment.
Scope and Grounds
1. Ultra Vires Actions: Courts review administrative actions to determine
if they exceed the legal authority granted by statutes (ultra vires
doctrine).
2. Reasonableness and Proportionality: Courts examine whether the
administrative actions are reasonable and proportionate to the objectives
sought to be achieved.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 1 of 33

3. Procedural Fairness: Courts ensure that administrative authorities
adhere to principles of natural justice, such as providing a fair hearing
and acting without bias.
4. Violation of Fundamental Rights: Any administrative action infringing
on fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution is subject to
judicial review
Judicial Approach
1. Writ Jurisdiction: The High Courts (under Article 226) and the
Supreme Court (under Article 32) can issue various writs like habeas
corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari to check
administrative actions.
2. Judicial Activism: Indian courts have been proactive in using their
powers of judicial review, often stepping in to correct administrative
wrongs and ensure justice.
3. Deference to Expertise: While courts exercise their review powers,
they also show deference to the expertise of administrative agencies,
particularly in technical and specialized matters, unless there is a clear
abuse of power.
Important Cases
1. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Established the principle that
laws infringing on fundamental rights would be subject to judicial review.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded the scope of
judicial review by interpreting the right to life and personal liberty under
Article 21 to include a due process component.
3. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): Reinforced the role of the judiciary
in maintaining checks on administrative actions, particularly in the
context of judicial appointments and transfers.
Judicial review in India serves as a crucial mechanism for ensuring that
administrative authorities act within their legal bounds and respect the
rights and liberties of individuals, thereby upholding the principles of
democracy and the rule of law.
GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTARTIVE ACTIONS
Judicial review is a mechanism by which courts examine the actions of
administrative bodies to ensure they are lawful, rational, and
procedurally fair. The grounds of judicial review include:
1. Illegality:
An administrative action is illegal if the decision-maker does not have the
legal authority to make the decision or acts beyond their powers (ultra
vires). This can include:
Misinterpretation of the Law: Misunderstanding the law governing the
decision.
Misapplication of the Law: Applying the law incorrectly.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 2 of 33

Failure to Exercise Discretion: Rigidly following a policy without
considering individual circumstances.
Improper Delegation: Delegating decision-making authority without
proper legal basis.
2. Irrationality (Wednesbury Test):
An administrative action is irrational if it is so unreasonable that no
reasonable authority could ever have come to it. This is known as the
Wednesbury Test, derived from the case Associated Provincial Picture
Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948). It involves:
Extremity of Unreasonableness: Decisions that are outrageous in their
defiance of logic or accepted moral standards.
Relevant Considerations: Ignoring relevant factors or considering
irrelevant ones.
Disproportionate Impact: Actions where the adverse effects are grossly
disproportionate to the benefits.
3. Procedural Impropriety
Procedural impropriety occurs when there is a failure to follow the
procedures required by law, which includes:
Natural Justice: Ensuring fairness in the decision-making process, such
as the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias.
Statutory Procedures: Failing to adhere to specific procedural
requirements outlined in relevant statutes or regulations.
Duty to Give Reasons: In some cases, the duty to provide reasons for a
decision to enable an understanding and potential challenge of the
decision.
4. Proportionality:
Proportionality involves assessing whether the actions of the
administrative body are proportionate to the aim pursued. This is
particularly relevant in the context of human rights. The proportionality
test includes:
Legitimate Aim: Whether the objective of the action is legitimate.
Suitability: Whether the means chosen are suitable to achieve the
objective.
Necessity: Whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the same
end.
Balancing: Whether the benefits of the action outweigh the adverse
impacts.
Proportionality is more stringent than the Wednesbury test and is
increasingly applied in cases involving fundamental rights under the
European Convention on Human Rights.
Case Laws:
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation
(1948): Established the Wednesbury unreasonableness standard.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 3 of 33

Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985):
Expanded on the grounds of judicial review, highlighting procedural
impropriety and illegality.
Understanding these grounds helps in evaluating whether administrative
decisions meet legal standards and protects individuals from the abuse of
power by public authorities.
WRIT:
A writ is a formal written order issued by a court or other legal authority.
In the context of constitutional law, writs are instruments used to enforce
rights and ensure justice. They are particularly significant in jurisdictions
following the common law tradition, such as India, the United States, and
the United Kingdom. Writs are often issued by higher courts to lower
courts, tribunals, or public authorities.
The Indian Constitution, under Articles 32 and 226, empowers the
Supreme Court and High Courts respectively to issue certain types of
writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights.
The main kinds of writs are:
1. Habeas Corpus:
- Literally meaning "to have the body," this writ is used to bring a
person who has been detained unlawfully before the court. The court
examines the legality of the detention and can order the release of the
person if the detention is found to be without legal justification.
- Example: In the landmark case of "ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla"
(1976), the Supreme Court dealt with habeas corpus petitions during the
Emergency period in India.
2. Mandamus:
- Meaning "we command," this writ is issued to direct a public authority
or government official to perform a duty they are obligated to carry out
but have failed or refused to do. It compels action rather than prevents it.
- Example: A High Court can issue a writ of mandamus to a
municipality to perform its statutory duty of maintaining clean streets.
3. Prohibition:
- This writ is issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to
prevent it from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to the rules
of natural justice. It essentially prohibits an inferior court from
continuing proceedings in a particular case.
- Example: If a lower court is hearing a case that it has no jurisdiction
over, a higher court can issue a writ of prohibition to stop the
proceedings.
4. Certiorari:
- Meaning "to be informed," this writ is issued by a higher court to
review the legality of an order or decision made by a lower court or

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 4 of 33

tribunal. It can be used to quash a decision if it is found to be illegal or
beyond the authority of the lower court.
- Example: The Supreme Court can issue a writ of certiorari to quash
an administrative decision that violates the principles of natural justice.
5. Quo Warranto:
- Meaning "by what authority," this writ is used to challenge the legal
right of a person to hold a public office. It prevents unlawful usurpation
of public office by questioning the authority under which a person claims
to hold the position.
- Example: If a person is appointed to a government position without
meeting the required qualifications, a writ of quo warranto can be sought
to challenge the validity of their appointment.
These writs serve as vital tools in the judicial system to uphold the rule of
law, protect individual rights, and ensure that public authorities act
within their legal boundaries. They provide a mechanism for judicial
oversight and help maintain checks and balances within the legal and
administrative framework.
WRIT JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT:
The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts in India
under administrative law plays a crucial role in the enforcement of
constitutional and legal rights, ensuring that public authorities act within
their legal limits and adhere to principles of natural justice. This
jurisdiction is enshrined in the Indian Constitution, with specific
provisions outlining the powers of these courts.
Supreme Court's Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 32:
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to
issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. This article is
often referred to as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution, given its
critical role in protecting citizens' rights.
1. Direct Access: Any person whose fundamental rights are violated can
directly approach the Supreme Court without having to go through the
lower courts.
2. Scope: The Supreme Court can issue writs of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto to enforce
fundamental rights.
3. Guardian of Fundamental Rights: Article 32 establishes the Supreme
Court as the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights. Any law that
limits the power of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is considered
void.
High Court's Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226:
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants High Courts the power to
issue writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 5 of 33

for other legal rights. This makes the High Courts' writ jurisdiction
broader than that of the Supreme Court.
1. Wider Scope: Unlike the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 32,
the High Courts can issue writs for the enforcement of both fundamental
rights and other legal rights. This includes rights arising under statutes
or common law.
2. Territorial Jurisdiction: High Courts can issue writs to any person or
authority, including government authorities, within their territorial
jurisdiction. In certain cases, they can extend their jurisdiction if the
cause of action arises within their territory.
3. Preventive and Remedial: High Courts can issue writs to prevent a
violation of rights (preventive) or to provide a remedy after a right has
been violated (remedial).
Comparative Aspects:
1. Direct Approach vs. Wider Jurisdiction:
- The Supreme Court can be directly approached for violations of
fundamental rights, ensuring a quick remedy.
- High Courts have a broader writ jurisdiction, covering not just
fundamental rights but also other legal rights.
2. Concurrent Jurisdiction:
- Both the Supreme Court and High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction
in the context of fundamental rights. An individual can choose to
approach either court.
- However, High Courts are usually approached first due to their wider
territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court is
generally seen as a court of last resort.
3. Flexibility and Accessibility:
- High Courts, being more numerous and regionally distributed, provide
greater accessibility to justice.
- The Supreme Court's centralized location in New Delhi can be a
logistical and financial challenge for many litigants.
4. Binding Nature of Decisions:
- Decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all courts in India.
- High Court decisions are binding only within the jurisdiction of that
particular High Court but can be persuasive in other jurisdictions.
Examples of Writ Applications:
1. Habeas Corpus:
- A person unlawfully detained can file a writ of habeas corpus to seek
release. For example, during the Emergency in India (1975-77),
numerous habeas corpus petitions were filed to challenge unlawful
detentions.
2. Mandamus:

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 6 of 33

 - A writ of mandamus can compel a public official to perform a duty
they are legally obligated to carry out. For instance, if a government
authority fails to grant a license to a qualified applicant, a writ of
mandamus can be issued to enforce this duty.
3. Prohibition and Certiorari:
- Writs of prohibition and certiorari are often used to control judicial
and quasi-judicial authorities. For example, if a lower court proceeds in a
matter beyond its jurisdiction, a higher court can issue a writ of
prohibition to halt the proceedings, or a writ of certiorari to quash the
decision if already made.
4. Quo Warranto:
- This writ can be used to challenge the legality of a person’s claim to a
public office. For instance, if a person is appointed to a public position
without meeting the required qualifications, a writ of quo warranto can
be filed to question their right to hold that office.
Conclusion:
The writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts under
administrative law serves as a fundamental mechanism for upholding the
rule of law and protecting citizens' rights. While the Supreme Court acts
as the ultimate guardian of fundamental rights, the High Courts provide
a broader and more accessible forum for redressal of grievances related
to both fundamental and other legal rights. Together, they ensure that
administrative actions remain within the bounds of law and justice is
readily available to the aggrieved.
AUTHORITIES AMENABLE TO WRIT JURISDICTION:
Writ jurisdiction under Administrative Law refers to the power of higher
courts, such as the Supreme Court and High Courts in many
jurisdictions, to issue writs to government authorities and other bodies to
ensure the enforcement of rights and duties. This power is a crucial
aspect of judicial review, which is fundamental to maintaining the rule of
law and preventing the abuse of power by authorities. The key writs
include habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and
certiorari. Here’s a detailed discussion on authorities amenable to writ
jurisdiction:
1. Government Bodies and Officials:
These are the primary targets of writ jurisdiction. Courts can issue writs
against:
- Central and State Governments: To ensure they act within the bounds of
their legal authority.
- Government Officials: To compel performance of duties or restrain them
from unlawful actions.
2. Statutory Authorities:

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 7 of 33

Entities created by statutes, such as various commissions, boards, and
regulatory authorities, fall under writ jurisdiction because they exercise
public functions. Examples include:
- Election Commission: Ensuring free and fair elections.
- Public Service Commissions: Overseeing recruitment for government
positions.
3. Local Authorities:
Municipal corporations, municipalities, panchayats, and other local
governance bodies can be subject to writs for matters within their
jurisdiction, such as public health, sanitation, and local infrastructure.
4. Tribunals and Quasi-Judicial Bodies:
Tribunals set up for adjudicating specific types of disputes (e.g., tax
tribunals, labor courts) are amenable to writ jurisdiction to ensure they
do not exceed their powers and follow principles of natural justice.
5. Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs):
Companies and enterprises owned or controlled by the government are
considered amenable to writ jurisdiction as they perform public
functions. This includes entities in sectors like transport, communication,
and energy.
6. Educational Institutions:
Both public and private educational institutions that receive government
aid or perform public duties can be subject to writs to enforce rights such
as admission, fee regulation, and administrative fairness.
7. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs):
NGOs and other private bodies that perform public duties or functions, or
receive significant government funding, may also be brought under writ
jurisdiction. This ensures accountability and transparency in their
operations.
8. Private Bodies Performing Public Functions:
Even purely private entities can be subject to writ jurisdiction if they
undertake functions of a public nature, such as hospitals, universities, or
contractors engaged in public work. This is a growing area, reflecting the
expansion of judicial oversight to ensure public duties are performed
fairly and justly.
Limitations and Exclusions:
While writ jurisdiction is broad, it is not all-encompassing. For example:
- Private Individuals and Corporations: Typically not subject to writs
unless performing public functions or duties.
- Internal Matters: Courts often refrain from interfering in the internal
management of entities unless there is a clear breach of law or violation
of fundamental rights.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 8 of 33

- Political Questions: Issues that are purely political in nature are
generally excluded from writ jurisdiction to maintain the separation of
powers.
Conclusion:
Writ jurisdiction serves as a powerful tool for ensuring legal
accountability and protecting rights. It covers a wide range of authorities
performing public functions, thus playing a critical role in administrative
law by preventing arbitrariness and ensuring the rule of law. The
judiciary's ability to issue writs fosters a system of checks and balances
essential for a functioning democracy.
LOCUS STANDI
Locus standi, or standing to sue, is a fundamental principle in
administrative law, determining who has the right to bring a case before
the court under writ jurisdiction. This principle ensures that only those
with a sufficient interest in the matter can seek judicial review.

1. Traditional Locus Standi:

Traditionally, to have standing in writ jurisdiction, an individual must
show that they have been directly affected by the action or decision in
question. This requirement is rooted in the idea that courts should not
entertain cases brought by those without a legitimate interest or
grievance. Under this traditional view:
- Personal Injury: The petitioner must demonstrate personal harm or
infringement of rights.
- Direct Impact: The petitioner must show that the action or decision has
a direct and adverse effect on them.
2. Liberalization of Locus Standi:
Over time, courts have recognized the need to broaden the concept of
locus standi to enhance access to justice, especially in matters affecting
public interest and marginalized communities. This shift is particularly
evident in Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The liberalization of locus
standi allows:
- Public-Spirited Individuals: Persons or organizations with no direct
interest can file petitions on behalf of those who are unable to approach
the court due to poverty, ignorance, or social constraints.
- Public Interest: Courts entertain cases where public rights or the
enforcement of public duties are involved, even if the petitioner is not
directly affected.
3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
PIL has significantly expanded the scope of locus standi in writ
jurisdiction. Key features include:
- Access to Justice: It enables the court to address grievances that affect
a larger section of society or raise significant issues of public concern.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 9 of 33

- Representative Actions: Individuals or groups can file PILs on behalf of
those who suffer from societal disadvantages.
- Judicial Activism: PIL allows courts to take a proactive role in
addressing issues such as environmental protection, human rights, and
government accountability.
4. Requirements and Safeguards:
While the liberalization of locus standi promotes access to justice, courts
also establish safeguards to prevent misuse:
- Genuine Interest: Petitioners must demonstrate a genuine concern for
the public interest rather than personal or political gain.
- Prima Facie Case: The petition should establish a prima facie case that
warrants judicial intervention.
- Absence of Vexatious Motives: Courts scrutinize petitions to ensure they
are not frivolous, vexatious, or filed with ulterior motives.
5. Landmark Cases and Judicial Pronouncements:
Several landmark cases illustrate the evolution of locus standi:
- S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): The Supreme Court of India
significantly broadened the concept of locus standi, recognizing the
importance of PIL and allowing greater access to justice for public-
spirited individuals.
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): The court allowed a
PIL filed by an organization on behalf of bonded laborers, emphasizing
that any member of the public acting bona fide can approach the court
for the enforcement of constitutional and legal rights of disadvantaged
groups.
- Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): This case
underscored the role of PIL in environmental protection, allowing a
welfare forum to file a writ petition against pollution caused by tanneries.
6. Impact and Criticism:
- Positive Impact: The liberalization of locus standi has enabled courts to
address systemic issues, protect the rights of marginalized groups, and
ensure government accountability.
- Criticism: There are concerns about judicial overreach, the potential for
misuse of PIL for personal or political agendas, and the burden on courts
dealing with an increased number of petitions.
Conclusion:
Locus standi in writ jurisdiction under administrative law has evolved
from a restrictive approach to a more inclusive and liberal one,
particularly through the mechanism of Public Interest Litigation. This
evolution enhances access to justice and enables the judiciary to address
broader societal issues. However, maintaining a balance through
appropriate safeguards is crucial to prevent the misuse of this expanded
locus standi.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 10 of 33

 DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION
The doctrine of legitimate expectation is an important principle in
administrative law. It deals with the expectations of individuals or groups
that a public authority will act in a certain way, based on past actions,
promises, or established practices.
Definition
Legitimate expectation arises when a public body induces a reasonable
belief or expectation in a claimant that they will receive a benefit or that
a certain procedure will be followed.
Basis of Legitimate Expectation:
1. Express Promise: A clear and unambiguous representation or
assurance given by a public authority.
2. Established Practice: Consistent past practices of the public authority
that the claimant relies upon.
3. Legislative or Policy Framework: Legal rules or policies that create
expectations for individuals or groups.
Types of Legitimate Expectations:
1. Procedural Legitimate Expectation: The expectation that a certain
process or procedure will be followed before a decision is made.
2. Substantive Legitimate Expectation: The expectation that a public
authority will grant a substantive benefit or outcome.
Legal Requirements:
1. Clarity and Unambiguity: The promise or practice must be clear and
unequivocal.
2. Reliance: The claimant must have reasonably relied on the promise or
practice.
3. Detriment: The claimant may have suffered or will suffer a detriment if
the expectation is not honoured.

Judicial Review
Courts can review administrative actions to ensure that legitimate
expectations are respected. They assess whether:
1. The expectation was legitimate and reasonable.
2. The authority had a lawful reason for not fulfilling the expectation.
3. There was procedural fairness in how the decision was made.
Limitations
1. Public Interest: The expectation may not be enforced if it conflicts with
a greater public interest.
2. Statutory Requirements: Expectations cannot override statutory duties
and requirements.
3. Change in Policy: Public authorities can change policies, provided they
do so fairly and transparently.
Case Law

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 11 of 33

1. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985):
Established procedural legitimate expectation.
2. R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan (2001):
Recognized substantive legitimate expectation.
In essence, the doctrine of legitimate expectation ensures fairness in
administrative actions by holding public authorities accountable to their
promises and practices, thus protecting individuals from arbitrary
changes in administrative conduct.
DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY
The doctrine of proportionality is a key principle in administrative law
that ensures that the actions of public authorities do not exceed what is
necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. This doctrine seeks to balance the
means used by an authority against the ends it seeks to achieve, ensuring
that decisions are reasonable and not excessively burdensome on
individuals.
Key Elements of Proportionality
1. Legitimate Aim: The action must pursue a legitimate objective that is
within the scope of the authority's powers.
2. Suitability: The action must be suitable or appropriate to achieve the
intended aim.
3. Necessity: The action must be necessary, meaning there should be no
less restrictive alternative available to achieve the same objective.
4. Balancing: There must be a balance between the benefits of the action
and the harm it causes. The adverse effects on the rights of individuals
should not be disproportionate to the benefits achieved.
Application of Proportionality
1. Judicial Review: Courts use the doctrine of proportionality to review
administrative decisions, especially in cases involving fundamental
rights. They examine whether the actions taken by authorities are
appropriate, necessary, and balanced.
2. Human Rights Law: Proportionality is particularly significant in human
rights law, where it is used to ensure that restrictions on rights are
justified and minimal.
3. European Influence: The doctrine is strongly influenced by European
law, particularly through the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR).
Case Law
1. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (2001):
The UK House of Lords applied proportionality in the context of
prisoners' rights, ensuring that restrictions on prisoners’ correspondence
were not excessive.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 12 of 33

2. Bank Mellat v Her Majesty's Treasury (No. 2) (2013): The UK Supreme
Court used proportionality to assess financial sanctions imposed on an
Iranian bank, balancing national security interests against the impact on
the bank.
Steps in Proportionality Analysis
1. Identify the Objective: Determine the legitimate aim pursued by the
authority.
2. Assess Suitability: Evaluate whether the measure is suitable to achieve
the objective.
3. Examine Necessity: Check if the measure is necessary, with no less
intrusive means available.
4. Balance the Impact: Weigh the benefits of the measure against the
harm caused, ensuring a fair balance.
Conclusion
The doctrine of proportionality plays a crucial role in ensuring that
administrative actions are fair, reasonable, and justified. By requiring
that measures taken by public authorities are suitable, necessary, and
balanced, it protects individuals from arbitrary and excessive
interference with their rights. This doctrine is a cornerstone of modern
administrative law, promoting accountability and fairness in public
administration.
DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
The doctrine of public accountability is a fundamental principle in
administrative law that ensures that public authorities and officials are
held responsible for their actions and decisions. It is essential for
maintaining transparency, integrity, and trust in government and public
institutions.
Key Elements of Public Accountability
1. Transparency: Public authorities must operate in an open manner,
providing access to information about their activities, decisions, and
policies.
2. Answerability: Officials must be able to explain and justify their
decisions and actions to the public and other stakeholders.
3. Responsiveness: Authorities should respond to the needs and concerns
of the public, adapting their policies and actions accordingly.
4. Responsibility: Public officials must act in accordance with legal and
ethical standards, upholding their duties and obligations.
5. Sanctions: There must be mechanisms in place to hold officials
accountable, including disciplinary actions, legal sanctions, or political
consequences for misconduct or failure to perform.
Mechanisms of Public Accountability

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 13 of 33

1. Legislative Oversight: Parliaments or legislatures can hold public
officials accountable through inquiries, hearings, and reviews of policies
and actions.
2. Judicial Review: Courts can review the actions of public authorities to
ensure they comply with the law, protect rights, and adhere to principles
of fairness and reasonableness.
3. Administrative Tribunals and Ombudsmen: These bodies provide an
avenue for individuals to challenge administrative decisions and seek
redress.
4. Audits and Inspections: Independent audit bodies and inspectors
general review the financial and operational performance of public
entities to ensure proper use of resources.
5. Freedom of Information (FOI) Laws: FOI laws enable the public to
request and obtain information from public authorities, promoting
transparency.
6. Media and Civil Society: The press, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and advocacy groups play a crucial role in scrutinizing
government actions and holding officials accountable through
investigative journalism and public campaigns.
Benefits of Public Accountability
1. Improved Governance: Ensures that public authorities operate
efficiently, effectively, and ethically.
2. Public Trust: Enhances trust and confidence in government by
demonstrating that officials are answerable for their actions.
3. Prevention of Corruption: Reduces opportunities for corruption and
abuse of power by increasing oversight and transparency.
4. Better Decision-Making: Encourages informed and rational decision-
making by requiring officials to justify their actions.
5. Protection of Rights: Safeguards the rights and interests of individuals
by providing mechanisms for redress and oversight.
Challenges to Public Accountability
1. Lack of Transparency: Limited access to information can hinder efforts
to hold authorities accountable.
2. Weak Oversight Mechanisms: Inadequate or ineffective oversight
bodies can fail to enforce accountability.
3. Political Interference: Political pressures and interference can
undermine the independence and effectiveness of accountability
institutions.
4. Resource Constraints: Insufficient resources and capacity can limit the
ability of oversight bodies to perform their functions.
5. Complexity of Government Operations: The complexity and scale of
modern government can make it difficult to monitor and evaluate all
actions effectively.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 14 of 33

Case Studies and Examples
1. Freedom of Information Acts (FOIA): Many countries, like the United
States and the United Kingdom, have enacted FOIA laws to promote
transparency and allow public access to government information.
2. Public Accounts Committees (PACs): PACs in legislatures scrutinize
public expenditure and hold officials accountable for the use of public
funds.
3. Whistleblower Protections: Laws protecting whistleblowers encourage
the reporting of misconduct and corruption within public institutions.
Conclusion: The doctrine of public accountability is vital for ensuring
that public authorities act in the best interests of the public. By
promoting transparency, answerability, and responsibility, it helps to
prevent abuse of power, enhance public trust, and improve the overall
quality of governance. Effective accountability mechanisms are essential
for maintaining the integrity and legitimacy of democratic institutions.

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

The principle of natural justice is a foundational concept in
administrative law that ensures fairness and due process in
administrative actions. It is primarily concerned with two key principles:
"nemo judex in causa sua" (no one should be a judge in their own case)
and "audi alteram partem" (hear the other side).
Meaning of Natural Justice
1. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua: This principle ensures impartiality by
stating that no person should judge a case in which they have an interest.
It aims to prevent bias and conflicts of interest in decision-making.
2. Audi Alteram Partem: This principle ensures fairness by stating that all
parties involved in a dispute must be given an opportunity to present
their case. It requires that individuals affected by a decision have a
chance to be heard and to present evidence before any action is taken.
Constitutional Framework:
In many jurisdictions, the principles of natural justice are embedded
within the constitutional framework, though not always explicitly stated.
They are often derived from broader constitutional principles of fairness,
due process, and rule of law.
1. Due Process: In the United States, for example, the principles of
natural justice are reflected in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,
which guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law. This includes the right to a fair
hearing.
2. Rule of Law: In the United Kingdom, natural justice principles are part
of the common law tradition and are seen as fundamental to the rule of

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 15 of 33

law. They ensure that administrative decisions are made fairly and are
subject to judicial review if they violate principles of natural justice.
3. Fundamental Rights: In India, the principles of natural justice are
linked to Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and
Personal Liberty) of the Constitution. Indian courts have consistently held
that any administrative action affecting an individual's rights must
comply with the principles of natural justice.
Application in Administrative Law
Administrative law often involves decisions made by government
agencies that affect individuals' rights and interests. The principles of
natural justice ensure these decisions are made fairly and without bias.
1. Administrative Hearings: Before any adverse action is taken (such as
revoking a license or imposing a penalty), the affected party must be
given notice and an opportunity to be heard.

2. Judicial Review: Courts can review administrative decisions to ensure

they comply with the principles of natural justice. If a decision is found to
be biased or made without proper hearing, it can be quashed or sent
back for reconsideration.
3. Procedural Fairness: Administrative procedures must be fair and
transparent. This includes providing reasons for decisions, allowing
access to relevant information, and ensuring decision-makers are
impartial.
The principles of natural justice are crucial in maintaining the integrity of
administrative processes and protecting individual rights against
arbitrary or biased administrative actions.
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE: -
The principles of natural justice are fundamental in administrative law to
ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness in administrative actions.
These principles are typically summarized by two Latin maxims: "audi
alteram partem" (hear the other side) and "nemo judex in causa sua" (no
one should be a judge in their own cause).
1. Audi Alteram Partem (Right to a Fair Hearing):
- Notice: Before any adverse decision is made against an individual,
they should be given proper notice of the case against them. This notice
should include sufficient details to allow the individual to prepare an
adequate response.
- Opportunity to Present Case: The individual should be given an
opportunity to present their case, including submitting evidence and
arguments in their favor.
- Representation: In some cases, the individual should be allowed to be
represented by a lawyer or another representative.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 16 of 33

 - Disclosure of Evidence: All evidence against the individual should be
disclosed to them, and they should have the opportunity to challenge and
rebut this evidence.
- Right to Cross-Examine: The individual should have the opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses and challenge the veracity of their testimony.
- Reasoned Decision: The decision should be based on a rational
consideration of the evidence and arguments presented, and reasons
should be provided for the decision.
2. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (Rule Against Bias):
- Personal Bias: Decision-makers should not have any personal interest
in the outcome of the decision. Any personal relationship with the parties
involved can create a conflict of interest.
- Pecuniary Bias: Decision-makers should not have any financial
interest in the outcome. Even a small financial interest can be seen as a
potential source of bias.
- Subject Matter Bias: Decision-makers should not have a pre-conceived
opinion or prejudice regarding the subject matter of the decision.
- Institutional Bias: Situations where the institutional structure of the
body making the decision creates a potential for bias should be avoided.
This includes instances where the roles of investigator, prosecutor, and
judge are all performed by the same individual or body.
These principles ensure that administrative decisions are made
transparently, impartially, and fairly. They are essential in protecting
individual rights against arbitrary or unjust administrative actions and
help to maintain public confidence in administrative processes.
RULE AGAINST BIAS:
The rule against bias is a cornerstone of the principles of natural justice
under administrative law. This rule ensures that decision-makers act
impartially and without prejudice. It can be broken down into several key
aspects:
1. Personal Bias:
- This occurs when the decision-maker has a personal interest in the
outcome of the case. Personal bias can arise from relationships such as
family, friendship, or enmity with one of the parties involved.
- Example: A decision-maker should not preside over a case involving a
close friend or relative.
2. Pecuniary Bias:
- Pecuniary bias occurs when the decision-maker has a financial
interest in the outcome of the decision. Even a small financial stake can
be sufficient to disqualify the decision-maker due to the risk of bias.
- Example: A member of a regulatory board should not participate in
decisions affecting a company in which they hold shares.
3. Subject Matter Bias:

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 17 of 33

 - Subject matter bias arises when the decision-maker has a pre-existing
opinion or prejudice regarding the issue to be decided. This can be based
on prior involvement with the matter or strong opinions formed before
hearing the case.
- Example: If a decision-maker has publicly expressed strong views on a
matter before them, they may be considered biased.
4. Departmental or Institutional Bias:
- This form of bias occurs when the structure or functioning of the
institution leads to a perception of bias. For instance, if the same body is
responsible for investigating, prosecuting, and adjudicating a case, this
may create an appearance of bias.
- Example: An administrative agency that both investigates and decides
on regulatory breaches may need to ensure separation of these functions
to avoid institutional bias.
Tests to Determine Bias
Courts often use certain tests to determine whether bias exists:
1. Real Likelihood of Bias Test:
- This test examines whether a reasonable person, with knowledge of
all the circumstances, would think that there is a real likelihood of bias.
- Example: If a decision-maker's actions or relationships suggest a
genuine possibility of bias, this test would find bias present.
2. Reasonable Suspicion or Apparent Bias Test:
- This test is based on whether the circumstances would lead a
reasonable person to suspect that bias might influence the decision.
- Example: Even if there is no actual bias, if the situation creates an
appearance of bias, the decision may be questioned.
Case Law Examples
1. Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1852):
- This case involved a judge who had a financial interest in a company
involved in the litigation. The House of Lords held that the judge's
decision was invalid due to pecuniary bias.
2. Pinochet Case (1998):
- In this case, a judge's connection to Amnesty International, which was
involved in the case, was found to create a reasonable apprehension of
bias, leading to the decision being set aside.
Importance of the Rule Against Bias:
The rule against bias is crucial in maintaining the integrity of
administrative processes. It ensures that decisions are made fairly, based
on evidence and merit, without undue influence from personal interests
or prejudices. This helps to uphold public confidence in administrative
institutions and protects individuals' rights to fair treatment.
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM:

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 18 of 33

The rule of "audi alteram partem," a Latin phrase meaning "hear the
other side," is a fundamental principle of natural justice in administrative
law. This rule ensures that no person is condemned or adversely affected
without being given an opportunity to present their case. Here are the
key components and implications of this rule:
Key Components:
1. Notice:
- The person affected must be given proper and adequate notice of the
proceedings or actions being taken against them. The notice should
include sufficient details about the nature of the case, charges, or issues
involved to allow the individual to prepare an adequate defence.
- Example: If a government agency intends to revoke a professional
license, it must notify the license holder of the specific reasons and the
evidence against them.
2. Opportunity to Be Heard:
- The affected person must be given a reasonable opportunity to
present their case. This includes the right to present evidence, call
witnesses, and make arguments in their defence.
- Example: In disciplinary proceedings against an employee, the
employee should be allowed to present their side of the story and submit
any relevant evidence.
3. Representation:
- In some cases, individuals may have the right to be represented by a
lawyer or other representative, especially in complex cases where legal
expertise is necessary.
- Example: During a hearing before an administrative tribunal, the
individual may be allowed to have legal representation to ensure a fair
hearing.
4. Disclosure of Evidence:
- All evidence that will be used against the individual must be disclosed
to them in advance. This allows the person to prepare a response to the
evidence and challenge its validity.
- Example: If a regulatory body intends to impose sanctions on a
company, it must provide the company with all the evidence supporting
the alleged violations.
5. Right to Cross-Examine:
- The individual should have the opportunity to cross-examine
witnesses and challenge their testimony. This helps to ensure that the
evidence presented is reliable and accurate.
- Example: In a hearing before a professional conduct committee, the
accused professional should be allowed to question the witnesses who
testify against them.
6. Reasoned Decision:

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 19 of 33

 - The decision-making authority must provide a reasoned decision
based on the evidence and arguments presented during the hearing. This
helps to ensure transparency and accountability in the decision-making
process.
- Example: An administrative decision to impose a penalty should
include a detailed explanation of the reasons and the evidence relied
upon.
Importance in Administrative Law:
1. Fairness and Justice:
- The rule of audi alteram partem ensures procedural fairness and
justice. It guarantees that decisions are not made arbitrarily and that the
affected person has a fair chance to influence the outcome.
2. Transparency and Accountability:
- By requiring that reasons be given for decisions, this rule promotes
transparency and accountability in administrative processes. It helps to
build trust in administrative bodies and their decision-making processes.
3. Prevention of Errors:
- Allowing the affected person to present their case and challenge the
evidence can help prevent errors in decision-making. It ensures that all
relevant information is considered before a decision is made.
4. Protection of Rights:
- The rule protects individuals' rights by ensuring that they are not
deprived of their rights or interests without due process. This is
particularly important in cases involving deprivation of liberty, property,
or livelihood.
Case Law Examples
1. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964):
- In this case, the House of Lords held that the dismissal of a police
officer without a hearing violated the principle of natural justice. The
officer had a right to be heard before being dismissed.
2. Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863):
- The court held that even if a statute does not explicitly require a
hearing, the principles of natural justice imply that a person must be
given an opportunity to be heard before a significant decision affecting
them is made.
Conclusion:
The rule of audi alteram partem is a fundamental safeguard in
administrative law, ensuring that individuals are treated fairly and justly
in administrative proceedings. It promotes transparency, accountability,
and accuracy in decision-making, protecting individuals from arbitrary
and unjust actions by administrative authorities.
INCIDENTS OF AUDI ALTERM PARTEM

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 20 of 33

The principle of "audi alteram partem," which means "hear the other
side" or "let the other side be heard as well," is a fundamental aspect of
natural justice and administrative law. It ensures that no person is judged
without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to
respond to the evidence against them. This principle is pivotal in
administrative proceedings to prevent arbitrary and unjust decisions.
Here are a few notable incidents and cases where the principle of audi
alteram partem was applied or interpreted under administrative law:
1. Ridge v Baldwin (1964):
Facts: The case involved a Chief Constable, Mr. Ridge, who was
dismissed from his position without being given an opportunity to be
heard.
Ruling: The House of Lords held that the dismissal was void because
Ridge was not given a fair hearing, thereby breaching the principle of
audi alteram partem. This case re-emphasized the importance of natural
justice in administrative decisions.
2. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978):
Facts: Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the authorities
without giving her a chance to explain or respond.
Ruling: The Supreme Court of India ruled that the principles of natural
justice must be read into the provision of law authorizing the
impoundment of a passport. The court emphasized the necessity of a fair
hearing before any administrative action affecting the rights of an
individual is taken.
3. Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863):
Facts: The plaintiff's house was demolished by the Board of Works
because it was constructed without the necessary notice. The Board did
not give Cooper an opportunity to explain or defend himself before
demolishing the house.
Ruling: The court held that the Board of Works acted unlawfully by not
giving Cooper a fair hearing, reinforcing the necessity of audi alteram
partem in administrative actions.
4. Ridge v Baldwin (1964):
Facts: The dismissal of a Chief Constable without a hearing was
contested.
Ruling: The House of Lords emphasized that natural justice must be
observed in administrative actions affecting individuals' rights, marking a
significant development in administrative law.
5. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody
(1993):
Facts: Lifers (those serving life sentences) were not given reasons for the
Home Secretary's decisions on the minimum period they must serve
before being considered for parole.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 21 of 33

Ruling: The House of Lords held that fairness required the prisoners to
be informed of the reasons for decisions affecting their release dates,
establishing that the right to a fair hearing includes the right to be
informed of reasons for decisions.
6. Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975):
Facts: In this high-profile case, the election of Indira Gandhi was
challenged, and certain emergency provisions were invoked to insulate
the Prime Minister from judicial scrutiny.

Ruling: The Supreme Court of India highlighted that even in emergency

situations, the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes the
principles of natural justice, cannot be violated. This case underscored
the role of audi alteram partem in upholding democratic and legal
principles.
These cases collectively illustrate the vital role of the audi alteram
partem principle in ensuring fairness and justice in administrative
proceedings. Courts across various jurisdictions have consistently upheld
this principle to prevent arbitrary decision-making and to protect
individuals' rights.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
Exceptions to the rule of natural justice, which encompasses principles
like the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias, are recognized in
certain circumstances. These exceptions can include:
1. Emergency Situations: When immediate action is necessary to prevent
harm or danger, procedural fairness may be bypassed.
2. Statutory Exceptions: Specific legislation may explicitly exclude the
application of natural justice principles.
3. Confidentiality and Security: Matters involving national security or
sensitive information may limit the application of natural justice to
protect confidential information.
4. Contractual or Privilege Waiver: If parties have contractually agreed to
waive their rights to natural justice or if privilege is claimed, exceptions
may apply.
5. Impracticality: In cases where adhering to the principles would be
impractical or excessively burdensome, an exception might be
considered.
6. Non-Judicial Proceedings: Certain administrative or executive actions,
especially those not judicial in nature, may not strictly adhere to natural
justice principles.
These exceptions are typically interpreted narrowly and are subject to
judicial scrutiny to ensure they are justified and not abused.
DOCTRINE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 22 of 33

The doctrine of sovereign immunity, a principle under administrative law,
traditionally exempts the state or its agencies from being sued without its
consent. This doctrine is rooted in the idea that "the king can do no
wrong," reflecting the historical notion that a sovereign or state cannot
commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal
prosecution. However, modern interpretations and applications of this
doctrine vary significantly.
Traditional Doctrine
1. Absolute Sovereign Immunity: Under this traditional view, the state
and its officials are completely immune from legal action. This means
they cannot be sued for actions taken in their official capacity, regardless
of the circumstances.
2. Rationale: The reasoning behind this doctrine includes maintaining
respect for the state’s functions and preventing a flood of litigation that
could hinder governmental operations.
Modern Doctrine
1. Qualified Immunity: Many jurisdictions have shifted from absolute to
qualified immunity. Here, the state and its officials may still enjoy
immunity, but only under certain conditions. For example, they might be
immune for discretionary acts performed within the scope of their
authority but not for ministerial acts or those outside their legal
authority.
2. Statutory Waivers: Many countries and states have enacted laws that
waive sovereign immunity to some extent, allowing the state to be sued
under specific conditions. For example, the United States has the Federal
Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which allows for suits against the federal
government for certain torts committed by federal employees.
Indian Perspective
1. Constitutional Provisions: In India, Article 300 of the Constitution
deals with the liability of the government for tortious acts committed by
its servants. This article is interpreted to mean that the state can be held
liable for actions performed in its commercial capacity but not for those
performed in its sovereign capacity.
2. Judicial Interpretation: Indian courts have increasingly moved towards
limiting sovereign immunity. In cases like State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati
(1962) and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), the Supreme Court
of India has held the state liable for acts of negligence and custodial
deaths, respectively, highlighting the trend towards holding the state
accountable for wrongful acts.
Criticisms and Reforms
1. Criticisms: The doctrine of sovereign immunity has been criticized for
perpetuating injustice by allowing the state to avoid accountability.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 23 of 33

Critics argue that it is outdated and inconsistent with the principles of a
democratic society that values the rule of law and equal justice.
2. Reforms: There is a growing call for reforms to either abolish or
significantly limit sovereign immunity. Proposals often suggest adopting
more robust statutory frameworks that clearly define the circumstances
under which the state can be held liable, ensuring that citizens have
effective remedies against wrongful acts by the state.
Conclusion
The doctrine of sovereign immunity serves to balance the need for
efficient governmental functioning with the principles of accountability
and justice. While the traditional view provides broad immunity to the
state, modern legal systems are increasingly adopting a more nuanced
approach, allowing for liability in cases where the state’s actions have
caused harm. The evolution of this doctrine reflects the ongoing tension
between maintaining state functions and protecting individual rights.
LIABILITY IN ADMINISTRATION IN CONTRACT
The liability of administration in contract under administrative law refers
to the conditions and principles under which a government or its
agencies can be held accountable for contractual obligations. This area of
law ensures that the state, when engaging in contractual relationships,
adheres to legal principles and can be sued or held liable like any private
party.
General Principles
1. Legal Capacity: Governments and their agencies have the legal
capacity to enter into contracts, similar to private entities. This means
they can create binding agreements and must fulfill their contractual
obligations.
2. Public vs. Private Contracts: Contracts entered into by the
administration can be categorized into public (administrative) contracts
and private contracts. Public contracts are usually governed by public
law principles, whereas private contracts are governed by private law.
Types of Contracts
1. Government Procurement: One of the most common forms of
government contracts involves procurement for goods and services.
These contracts are typically subject to specific regulations to ensure
transparency, fairness, and value for money.
2. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs): These involve collaborations
between the government and private sector entities to provide public
services or infrastructure. They are often governed by detailed
agreements outlining the responsibilities and liabilities of each party.
3. Employment Contracts: Contracts between the government and its
employees, which are often subject to specific public sector employment
laws and regulations.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 24 of 33

Liability in Contractual Agreements
1. Breach of Contract: If the government fails to fulfill its contractual
obligations, it can be sued for breach of contract. This can include failure
to deliver goods or services, not making payments, or any other non-
performance of contractual duties.
2. Remedies: The remedies for breach of contract by the government
typically include specific performance, damages, or cancellation of the
contract. The type and extent of remedy depend on the terms of the
contract and applicable laws.
Sovereign Immunity and Contract Law
1. Waiver of Immunity: Many jurisdictions allow the government to be
sued for breach of contract, thereby waiving sovereign immunity in these
cases. This is crucial for ensuring that parties contracting with the
government have legal recourse in case of disputes.
2. Statutory Frameworks: Laws such as the Contract Disputes Act in the
United States provide a framework for resolving contractual disputes
with the government, outlining procedures for claims and appeals.
Special Considerations
1. Public Interest: In resolving contractual disputes involving the
government, courts often consider the public interest. This might
influence the interpretation of contract terms or the award of remedies,
balancing the need to uphold contractual obligations with the potential
impact on public services.
2. Good Faith and Fair Dealing: Governments are generally expected to
act in good faith and deal fairly in their contractual relationships. This
principle is essential for maintaining trust in public procurement and
other contractual arrangements.
Judicial Review
1. Judicial Review: Courts have the authority to review the actions of
government agencies in contract disputes, ensuring that they comply
with legal standards and principles. This includes assessing whether the
government has acted within its authority and adhered to procedural
fairness.
2. Administrative Tribunals: In some jurisdictions, specialized
administrative tribunals handle disputes involving government contracts.
These bodies provide an alternative to traditional courts, offering
expertise in public contract law and often more expedient resolutions.
Indian Perspective
1. Constitutional Provisions: Article 299 of the Indian Constitution lays
down the procedure for contracts by the government. It requires that
contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the Union or a
State are expressed to be made by the President or the Governor,
respectively.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 25 of 33

2. Judicial Interpretations: Indian courts have addressed numerous cases
involving government contracts. The Supreme Court of India, in cases
like R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Noble
Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa, has emphasized the need for fairness,
transparency, and adherence to procedural requirements in government
contracts.
Conclusion
The liability of administration in contract under administrative law
underscores the principle that governments, while enjoying certain
immunities and privileges, must honour their contractual commitments.
The evolving legal frameworks and judicial interpretations aim to strike a
balance between protecting public interests and ensuring that private
parties can rely on the enforceability of government contracts. This
ensures accountability, fairness, and transparency in governmental
dealings.
LIABILITY IN ADMINISTRATION IN TORTS
Liability of administration in tort under Administrative Law refers to the
circumstances and extent to which a government or its agencies can be
held liable for wrongful acts (torts) committed by its employees or
agents. This concept addresses the accountability of the state and its
various organs when their actions cause harm to individuals.
Historical Context
Traditionally, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the state was
considered immune from being sued in tort. This principle is rooted in
the idea that "the king can do no wrong." However, over time, the rigidity
of this doctrine has been relaxed to ensure that individuals have a
remedy for wrongful acts committed by government officials.
Modern Approaches
Different countries have developed various frameworks to address the
liability of the administration in tort:
1. United States:
- Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): Enacted in 1946, the FTCA allows
private parties to sue the United States in federal court for most torts
committed by persons acting on behalf of the government. However,
there are exceptions, such as claims arising from discretionary functions
or combatant activities during wartime.
2. United Kingdom:
- Crown Proceedings Act 1947: This act abolished the immunity of the
Crown, allowing for civil proceedings against the Crown for torts
committed by its servants and agents, similar to how private individuals
are treated.
3. India:

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 26 of 33

 - The Indian Constitution does not expressly provide for government
liability in tort. However, the courts have developed jurisprudence in this
area. Article 300 of the Constitution allows the government to be sued "in
relation to its affairs," and various judicial decisions have interpreted this
to include tortious acts.
Types of Liability
1. Vicarious Liability:
- The government can be held vicariously liable for torts committed by
its employees during the course of their employment. This is similar to
the principle applied to private employers.
2. Direct Liability:
- The government can also be held directly liable for torts arising out of
its policies, actions, or omissions that cause harm. This includes cases
where government agencies fail to perform their statutory duties.
Exceptions and Immunities
Despite the relaxation of sovereign immunity, several exceptions remain:
- Discretionary Function Exception: Governments are generally not liable
for acts involving discretion, even if the discretion is abused. This covers
policy-making and regulatory functions.
- Judicial and Legislative Immunity: Judges and legislators have immunity
from tort liability for acts performed within their official capacities.
- Military and Defence Activities: Certain military activities are exempt
from liability.
Judicial Trends
Courts play a crucial role in determining the extent of administrative
liability in tort.
Reasonableness: Courts often assess whether the government's actions
were reasonable under the circumstances.
Proportionality: The harm caused must be proportionate to the objective
sought by the government action.
Duty of Care: The existence of a duty of care and its breach are central to
establishing liability.
Conclusion
The liability of the administration in tort under administrative law
ensures a balance between holding the government accountable and
allowing it the necessary freedom to perform its functions effectively.
While the doctrine of sovereign immunity has been significantly eroded,
various exceptions and immunities still apply to protect essential
governmental functions. The evolution of this area of law continues to
reflect the need for justice and accountability in governance.
STATE LIABILITY AND COMPENSATORY JURISPRUDENCE
State liability and compensatory jurisprudence under administrative law
focus on the accountability of government authorities for wrongful

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 27 of 33

administrative actions and ensuring that affected individuals receive
appropriate remedies. These principles are integral to administrative law,
which governs the activities of administrative agencies and the
relationship between the state and its citizens.
State Liability in Administrative Law
Definition: State liability in administrative law involves holding the state
or its agencies accountable for damages arising from administrative
actions or omissions. This can include wrongful decisions, procedural
errors, or failure to act when required by law.
Legal Framework:
Constitutional Provisions: Many constitutions enshrine the right to
compensation for wrongful administrative actions.
Statutory Laws: Specific laws and regulations often outline the
circumstances under which the state can be held liable and the
procedures for seeking compensation.
Judicial Precedents: Court decisions play a significant role in shaping the
doctrine of state liability, interpreting statutes, and filling gaps in the law.
Types of Administrative Liability:
Misfeasance: Liability for wrongful actions taken by administrative
officials.
Nonfeasance: Liability for failure to act or fulfill a duty, resulting in harm.
Malfeasance: Liability for intentional wrongful acts by administrative
officials.
Scope of Liability:
Discretionary Actions: Courts are often reluctant to interfere with
discretionary decisions unless there is a clear abuse of power or violation
of rights.
Ministerial Actions: Liability is more straightforward for ministerial
actions, which involve the implementation of fixed duties without
significant discretion.
Compensatory Jurisprudence in Administrative Law
Definition: Compensatory jurisprudence in administrative law involves
the principles and mechanisms for awarding compensation to individuals
harmed by wrongful administrative actions. The objective is to provide
redress and restore the affected individual to their original position.
Principles:
Restitutio in Integrum: The aim is to restore the injured party to the
position they would have been in had the wrongful act not occurred.
Proportionality: Compensation should be proportional to the harm
suffered.
Equity and Fairness: Ensuring that compensation is just and equitable,
reflecting the nature and extent of the harm.
Types of Compensation:

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 28 of 33

Material Damages: Compensation for quantifiable losses such as financial
losses, property damage, and medical expenses.
Non-Material Damages: Compensation for non-quantifiable losses such as
emotional distress, pain and suffering, and loss of reputation.
Judicial Remedies:
Damages: Monetary compensation awarded to the injured party.
Restitution: Returning the injured party to their original state, such as
reinstating a job position.
Declaratory Relief: A court declaration that a particular administrative
action was wrongful, which can form the basis for further remedies.
Injunctions: Orders to prevent or compel specific actions by
administrative authorities.
State liability and compensatory jurisprudence under administrative law
are essential for ensuring that individuals receive justice and fair
compensation for wrongful administrative actions. These principles
reinforce the accountability of government authorities, uphold the rule of
law, and protect individual rights.
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Administrative tribunals are specialized quasi-judicial bodies established
to resolve disputes between individuals and public authorities, and to
adjudicate on various issues related to administrative law. They offer an
alternative to traditional courts, providing a more accessible, specialized,
and often faster means of resolving administrative disputes.
Characteristics of Administrative Tribunals
1. Specialization: Administrative tribunals are designed to handle specific
types of disputes, such as labour issues, immigration matters, tax
disputes, or social security claims. Their specialized knowledge allows for
more informed and effective decision-making.
2. Procedural Flexibility: Tribunals often have more flexible procedures
compared to regular courts, allowing for less formal and more expedient
resolution of disputes. This can make the process less intimidating and
more accessible for ordinary citizens.
3. Quasi-Judicial Nature: While administrative tribunals have judicial
functions, they do not have the same status as traditional courts. They
are typically part of the executive branch but operate independently to
ensure impartiality.
4. Expertise: Members of administrative tribunals are often experts in
the relevant field, providing informed and technically sound decisions.
This expertise contributes to the efficiency and quality of the adjudication
process.
Functions of Administrative Tribunals
1. Dispute Resolution: The primary function of administrative tribunals is
to resolve disputes between individuals and public authorities. They

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 29 of 33

provide a forum for individuals to challenge administrative decisions that
they believe are unfair or unlawful.
2. Adjudication: Tribunals adjudicate on a wide range of issues, including
appeals against administrative decisions, enforcement of regulations, and
determination of rights and obligations under administrative law.
3. Review and Oversight: Administrative tribunals review the legality and
fairness of administrative actions. They ensure that administrative bodies
comply with the law and adhere to principles of natural justice.
4. Protection of Rights: By providing a mechanism for individuals to
challenge administrative actions, tribunals protect the rights and
interests of citizens, ensuring that public authorities are held
accountable.
Advantages of Administrative Tribunals
1. Accessibility: Tribunals are generally more accessible to the public
than traditional courts. Their less formal procedures and focus on
specific areas of law make it easier for individuals to present their cases.
2. Efficiency: Tribunals are designed to handle cases more quickly than
courts, reducing the backlog of cases and providing timely resolution of
disputes.
3. Cost-Effectiveness: The procedural flexibility and specialization of
tribunals often result in lower costs for both the parties involved and the
state.
4. Expert Decision-Making: The expertise of tribunal members ensures
that decisions are well-informed and technically sound, particularly in
complex or specialized areas of law.
Limitations/Disadvantages of Administrative Tribunals
1. Independence and Impartiality: Although tribunals are designed to be
independent, their closeness to the executive branch can sometimes raise
concerns about impartiality.
2. Limited Jurisdiction: Tribunals have a limited scope and can only
address issues within their specific mandate. They do not have the broad
jurisdiction of traditional courts.
3. Enforcement of Decisions: The enforcement of tribunal decisions can
be challenging, particularly if the tribunal lacks the authority to compel
compliance.
4. Appeal Mechanisms: The availability and scope of appeals from
tribunal decisions vary by jurisdiction. In some cases, limited appeal
rights can restrict access to further judicial review.
Example:
India: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) adjudicates disputes
related to the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed
to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union.
Other examples include the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 30 of 33

environmental cases and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for tax
disputes.
Role in Administrative Law
Administrative tribunals play a crucial role in the administrative law
framework by providing an effective mechanism for resolving disputes
and ensuring that administrative actions comply with the law. They
enhance the accountability of public authorities, protect individual rights,
and contribute to the overall fairness and efficiency of the administrative
system. Through their specialized expertise and procedural flexibility,
administrative tribunals help maintain the balance between the power of
the state and the rights of citizens.
PROCEDURE AND POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was enacted by the Indian
Parliament to provide for the adjudication of disputes and complaints
related to the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed
to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or
any state. The Act aims to reduce the burden on courts and ensure
speedy justice in service matters.
Structure and Establishment:
1. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): Established under Section 4 of
the Act, the CAT adjudicates disputes related to the recruitment and
service conditions of personnel in public services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the Union.
2. State Administrative Tribunals (SATs): These tribunals can be
established by individual states to handle disputes related to state
government employees. However, not all states have established SATs.
3. Benches: The Act provides for the establishment of multiple benches of
CAT and SATs, as required, to ensure accessibility and efficient
functioning.
Composition:
1. Chairperson: Each tribunal is headed by a Chairperson who is either a
sitting or retired judge of a High Court or has held a high administrative
position.
2. Members: The tribunal consists of both Judicial Members and
Administrative Members. Judicial Members are judges or legal experts,
while Administrative Members are experienced civil servants or
administrators.
Powers and Procedure:
Powers:
1. Jurisdiction: The tribunals have jurisdiction over all service matters
concerning recruitment, promotions, transfers, disciplinary actions, and
other conditions of service for government employees.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 31 of 33

2. Authority: The tribunals have the authority to summon and enforce the
attendance of any person, require the discovery and production of
documents, receive evidence on affidavits, and requisition public records
from any court or office.
3. Decision-Making: The tribunals have the power to make final and
binding decisions on the matters brought before them, subject to appeal
as specified by the Act.
4. Contempt Powers: They possess powers similar to those of a High
Court to punish for contempt, ensuring compliance with their orders and
maintaining authority.
Procedure:
1. Filing of Applications: Aggrieved government employees can file
applications before the tribunal. Applications must be in the prescribed
form and accompanied by relevant documents and affidavits.
2. Preliminary Examination: Upon receipt of an application, the tribunal
conducts a preliminary examination to ascertain whether there is a prima
facie case for adjudication.
3. Hearing Process: The tribunal follows a judicial process, including
issuing notices to the parties, conducting hearings, examining witnesses,
and receiving evidence. The procedure is designed to be less formal and
more expeditious than regular courts.
4. Representation: Parties can appear in person or through legal
representatives. The tribunal may also allow non-lawyers to represent
parties in certain circumstances.
5. Interim Orders: The tribunal has the power to grant interim relief,
including stay orders or temporary injunctions, to prevent irreparable
harm pending the final decision.
6. Final Orders: After considering the evidence and arguments, the
tribunal issues a final order. The order is in writing and includes reasons
for the decision. It is binding on the parties and enforceable as a decree
of a civil court.
7.Review and Appeal: The tribunal has the power to review its own
decisions if there are errors apparent on the face of the record.
Aggrieved parties can appeal the tribunal’s decisions to the respective
High Court.
8. Compliance and Enforcement: The tribunal can issue directions to
ensure compliance with its orders. Non-compliance can lead to contempt
proceedings.
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has played a crucial role in
reducing the burden on regular courts and providing specialized,
efficient, and accessible forums for resolving service-related disputes for
government employees. The procedural flexibility, combined with the

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 32 of 33

expertise of tribunal members, ensures effective adjudication and timely
justice in administrative matters.

GQ’S LAW CLASSES; MOB – 8249198277 Page 33 of 33