ABSTRACT

Summary of Long & Short Answers – Concepts,

Essentials & Case Laws

Hemant Patil
III-II Batch of 2025 GLC

ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW
Contents
My Summary Understanding ................................................................................. 3
Long Answers .................................................................................................. 11
Nature, Definition, Scope & Reasons for its growth of Administrative Law in India (6) 11
Explain Audi Alteram Partem with Examples ....................................................... 12
Rule of Law in Constitutional Context & Landmark Judgements, Diceys Principles (4) 12
Administrative Tribunals Characteristics (2) ........................................................ 13
Public Corporations & its control (2) .................................................................. 14
Delegated Legislation & reasons for its growth, Permissible & Impermissible (3) ....... 15
Principle of Natural Justice with SC Judgements, Special Reference of working of
Tribunals (5) ................................................................................................. 16
Parliamentary & Judicial Control over Delegated Legislation................................... 17
Theory of Legitimate Expectations with examples (2) ........................................... 18
Separation of Powers in Indian Legal System, Propounded by Montesquieu (2) ......... 20
Tortious liability of government with Case Laws ................................................... 21
Importance of Writs with Case Laws .................................................................. 21
Administrative Discretion, Powers of Authorities in implementing Government Policies 22
How Judiciary Controls the Administrative Actions (2) .......................................... 23
Corporations, Its rights, Characteristics, Classification & Functions (2) .................. 23
Government Contract, Administrative Function Classifications ................................ 24
Droit Administratiff, Vigilance Commission & Ombudsman ..................................... 26
Institution of Ombudsman ............................................................................... 27
Differentiate Tribunals & Courts, Explain reasons for growth of Tribunals in India ...... 28
Define Civil Services, Functions, Powers & Duties of UPSC..................................... 29
Short Notes ..................................................................................................... 30
Contractual Liability of Government................................................................... 30
Advantages of Administrative Adjudication ......................................................... 31
Quo-Warranto ............................................................................................... 32
Transparency & Right to Info ............................................................................ 32
Judicial Review .............................................................................................. 33
Right to Information Act, 2005 (2) .................................................................... 34
Lok Pal ......................................................................................................... 35
AK Kraipak V. Union of India (2) ....................................................................... 36
Central Vigilance Function (2) .......................................................................... 37
Kinds of Corporations ..................................................................................... 37
Institutional Decisions ..................................................................................... 39
Estoppel & Waiver (2) ..................................................................................... 40
Public Interest Litigation .................................................................................. 40
Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU) ......................................................... 41

Page 1 of 48
Doctrine of Proportionality ............................................................................... 42
Kinds of Bias ................................................................................................. 43
Liability of Government Contract ....................................................................... 44
Doctrine of Ultra Vires..................................................................................... 45
Reserve Bank of India ..................................................................................... 45
Dr. Bonham's Case ......................................................................................... 46
Doctrine of Public Accountability ....................................................................... 47
Disclaimer .................................................................................................... 48

Page 2 of 48
My Summary Notes

Meaning Branch of Public Law, regulating state & individual relationships, Private Law regulate
relationship between 2 individuals, Uncodified Law, Source is Constitution but law is independent,
started evolution in 20th Century, To Regulate functions & powers of Administrative Authorities (like
violating individual rights), Perform Quasi functions (and share burden) for judicial, legislative &
executive. Objectives: To keep check on powers of Administrative Authorities, maintain rule of law,
maintain balance between administrative powers & individual liberties. Nature: Uncodified, Branch
of Public Law, regulate public/state relationships, Balancing authority powers & individual liberties,
deals only with administrative authorities, regulate powers, functions, organization and authority of
Administration Authorities, Judiciary led development of this law. Sources: Judicial Decisions,
Statutes, The Constitution, Committee Reports, Rules & Regulations, Administrative Practice, and
Principles of Natural Justice Scope: Pervasive legal discipline, Knowledge about the composition,
powers & functions of various Administrative Authorities, Administrative Process & Procedure to
discharge powers & functions, Method of controlling powers for Administrative Authorities - Judicial
control, Parliamentary Control, Provide remedies to individuals if rights are violated (constitutional
remedies like writ for fundamental rights violation & Ordinary remedies for violation of other legal
rights like injunctions, damages). Principal of Natural Justice.

Reasons for Growth: Change in the philosophy of Government (Lazes’ fair, Minimum Government
Control, Maximum Freedom), Social welfare State increased activities and work tremendously,
Administration Authorities required to support, and to regulate them, Administrative law grew.
Demand of People as they started knowing their rights, Inadequacy of legislative system gave rise
to delegated legislation to serve better and transferred burden to Administrative Authorities, Slow &
Expensive Judicial System, Executive similarly gave rise to Administrative Tribunals for interpreting
law & execution - following Principles of Natural Justice, Opportunity to experiment Flexibility to
create & end the rules (example Covid) and speed as compared to legislation in Parliament, Non-
technical character of Administrative Process Like Judicial Procedures, Admin authorities have
flexibility to simplify procedures, Evolution of socialistic pattern in the Society Like Public Services
(Government run Healthcare, Education, Transport, Banks, Social benefits) since India follow mixed
model of socialism & capitalism (through privatization).

Delegated (Subordinate) Legislation: Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. Legislative

authorising executive through transfer of limited power & authority to make law is delegated
legislation. Rules and regulations made by an authority under powers delegated by the primary
legislation, providing detailed provisions for law implementation. Legislation made by authority,
other than legislation, acting under authority delegated by the legislature. Reasons for Growth of
delegated legislation in India: Work Pressure of Parliament, Technicalities & Expertise, Flexibility,
Address Emergencies, Simplify the Complexities of Modern Administration. Classifications of
delegated legislation: Title based (Rules, Orders, Regulations, byelaws, Direction) and Nature
based {Normal within available boundaries of delegation from primary law (Positive - primary act
define this clearly and Negative with specific restraints) and Exceptional Henry VIIIth Clause with
no control on delegated powers, not even challengeable in courts} Legislative Control over Delegated
Legislation To keep check on the Delegated law making powers to Administrative Authorities by
exercising duty to ensure it is not misused or ultravires. 3 Checkpoints: Proceedings in the Parliament
(Parent Act is method to delegate powers to administrative authorities, Through Procedures (such
as Memorandum, debate & discussions, ensuring no essential & ultra vires functions delegated Delhi
Laws case, asking questions and giving notice under Rule 59 between Rajya Sabha & Lok Sabha,
Direction by Speaker, Scrutiny through special committee etc established, Parent Act should have
provision of delegation, its nature and boundaries), Laying on the Table and Scrutiny Committee

Laying on the Table: Parent/Enabling Act is where delegated legislation derives its power from.
Tabled on both houses of the Parliament for necessary approvals for laws/regulations made by
Administrative Authorities (If directed in the parent act). Objects/Purpose: To keep check on its
agent (Administrative Authorities) how they are using delegated powers, Ability to Legislation to
challenge the rules/regulations made by Administrative Authorities when necessary and
approve/reject as appropriate. Non-compliance of this laying procedure: As directed in the parent
act. Non-compliance makes such laws made by Administrative Authorities Void Ab Initio. If not
directed laying on the table as pre-requisite in the parent act, then this procedure is not necessary

Page 3 of 48
and such laws made will remain valid as directed by Supreme Court in Narender Kumar v. Union of
India. Scrutiny Committee: Lok Sabha (15 Members - NOT Ministers - of all parties in proportion,
Speaker nominates them, duration 1 year, one amongst 15 is selected as Chairman for 1 year,
Quorum 1/3rd 5 Members) & Rajya Sabha (15 Members, 1 Selected Chairman by VP, all for 1 year
or until new committee is in place, Ministers CAN be members). Functions of Scrutiny Committee
Validate Regulations made by Administrative Authorities if they are within Constitutional general
provisions Boundaries, Is there any Ultra Vires aspect beyond the powers given by the Parent Act?
Whether the rules made are in accordance of Parliament Act (Procedural & other aspects)? whether
there is any imposition of Tax? and validate parent Act procedural compliances such as laying on the
table.

Principles of Natural Justice: Not codified, All authorities must follow. Ingrained through A14 of
Constitution (Equality before law and equal protection of law). Objects: Supreme court in AK Kriapak
v. UoI stated that Principles of Natural justice is to secure the justice and prevent the miscarriage of
justice. Principles: 1. Nemo judex in causa sua - No man be judge in own (interested parties)
case. Rule against Bias (Pecuniary e.g. monitory interest in subject matter such as judge being
shareholder of company involved in the matter Jeejeebhoy v. Collector, Personal (relationship with
party, Mineral Development v State of Bihar New government terminating the 99 years mining lease
& license revocation for personal interest of minister), Departmental/Official - Gulapali Nageshwar
Rao v. AP Transport Corporation or Subject Matter. Justice should not only be done, but also seen to
be done. 2. Audi alterem parten - No party goes unheard. Rule of Fair hearing and NO
discrimination. Notice (to affected party for making statement, against whom judgement is about to
happen) and Hearing (Maneka Gandhi v. UoI Passport impounding case, Olga Tellis v. BMC eviction
without notice & fair hearing is violation of Natural Justice)

Requirements of fair hearing: Adjudicating authority to Accept all relevant material produced (No
refusal for acceptance), Adjudicating authority Disclose evidences submitted to parties, Opportunity
to concerned person for rebuttal for evidences presented & defend (like cross examination, Right to
know the evidence) Exceptions to Principles of Natural Justice: Exclusion by statutory provision
(must not be unconstitutional) Gulaapalli Nageshwar Rao v. AP Transport Corporation Even if
provision is statutory, it can’t be unconstitutional, Exclusion by Constitutional Provision (Doctrine of
pleasure - Public Servants are terminated at the pleasure of President), Exclusion in case of
legislative Act (Legislative Acts Plenary or Subordinate, are not subject to the principles of Natural
Justice while making the law, No right to hear during the law making process, Charanlal Sahu v. UoI
Law made for compensating Bhopal Gas tragedy had inadequate compensation, however Supreme
Court confirmed No right to be heard during the law making process During Emergency: Prompt
action for Public Safety & Health, Babulal v. State of Maharashtra 1961 Detain person dangerous to
society without giving opportunity to be heard is valid, Nathubai v. Muncipal Corporation 1954
Bombay High court, Demolition of old dangerous building posing risk to all for public safety, Public
Interest: UoI v. Tulsiram Patel Seeking Military sensitive information under Right to Information,
Maneka Gandhi passport impounding case. Impracticality: If any authority is dealing with large
number of people, not everyone may get opportunity to be heard, Radha Krishnan v. Osmania
University 1964 MBA Entrance Exam paper was leaked, candidates request Not to cancel exam on
account of their efforts was overruled by Authorities since they have no ability to verify if leaked
question paper reached who all. Exclusion in case of Confidentiality Like Access to Police FIR details
for non-relevant parties.

Reasoned Decision (Speaking order): Introduction (2 Principles of Natural Justice No one goes
unheard and no judge decides own case), Reasoned decision is 3rd Piller as accepted by US and
India (Not UK who consider it as part of 2 Principles), Lord Chancellor Earle Chain established this,
Decision from Adjudicating Authority must accompany basis/proper reason for the support of their
judgement, Judgement must speak for itself. Why? To establish that Principles of Natural justice
followed, Constitutional directions, and statutory needs/provisions. Object? Siemens Mfg Co. v. UoI
Public (and subsequently Private) Law must state reasons for every judgement, Check on Arbitrary
Powers, Satisfaction of Parties, Opportunity to appeal needs clear reasons for previous judgement.
Effects of Non-compliance: Rise of Corruption, Control arbitrariness, No clarity - opaque decisions,
Anumati v. Sadda Khan West Bengal Authority can issue or revoke/cancel any license without giving
reasons, giving rise to arbitrary powers, violation of constitutional provisions.

Page 4 of 48
Writs Introduction: Powers only with SC (A32 for violations of Only Fundamental Rights Chapter 3,
Articles 12-35 of Constitution) and HC having wider powers than SC (A226 FR & Legal rights
violations), ibi jus ubi remedium rights come with remedies, Courts can issue writs to protect such
rights from violations. What is Writ? A direction from either SC or HC to individual or authority to do
or not do certain act. Types of Writ: Habeas Corpus (to have the body - unlawful detention, not
produced before magistrate within 24 hours, protect a person's right to personal liberty and demand
the production of an unlawfully detained individual), Mandamus (to a public authority commanding
them to perform a legal duty or exercise a legal power that they have failed to perform), Quo
warranto (question the legality of a person holding a public office and to demand the authority by
which they hold it), Prohibition (pre-decision ultravires, to prevent an inferior court or tribunal from
exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law) and Certiorari (post-decision ultravires, to quash
a decision or order of an inferior court or tribunal on the grounds of excess of jurisdiction or error of
law).

Habeas Corpus: Legal remedy under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution that
allows an individual to challenge their unlawful detention, ensuring that they are brought before a
court to determine the legality of their confinement. Latin Word 'To produce the body'. Its order
issued by the court (HC/SC) for relieve unlawfully detained person. Object: Not to punish, but quick
& immediate remedy/release of unlawfully detained person. Who can apply: Detained person, his
near ones, Charanjit Lal v. UoI. any person on behalf of prisoner or Suo Moto action by court.
Grounds for issuing writ Unlawful detention Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration 1980 Justice Krishna
Iyer also included inhumane & torturous treatment to prisoner in jail.

Mandamus: Legal order issued by a court to compel an authority to (or not to) perform a specific
duty that it is legally obligated (by constitution or any other law) to carry out. Latin Word To
Command. Conditions: Right (Umakant v State of Bihar Some junior was promoted out of turn, but
applicant wasn’t qualified for this right, No Right No Mandamus), Duty (Vikram Narayan Singh V
Court of UP Pension to elderly was not disbursed by District Commissioner Public Interest MC Mehta
v UoI Ganga River Tanneries polluting river) Public Duty created by law (Not Applicable to Private
Duty such as corporations, Gujrat State Financial Corporation v Lotus Hotel Public duty to disburse
requested loan to valid applicant as per valid agreement II Commerce v. State of Madras Private
contracts do not fall under Mandamus purview) Grounds Error of jurisdiction (Lack or Ultra Vires),
Violating Principles of Natural justice, and Abuse of jurisdiction. Who may apply? Those whose rights
are violated or anyone on behalf, Against? Law made Public Authority Birendra Kumar v. UoI 1992
Despite of paid bills, telephone department disconnected his phone. Against who writ CAN NOT be
issued? President, and Governor.

Writ of Prohibition Writ issued by a higher court to prevent a lower court or tribunal restraining
from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting in a manner contrary to law. Order of court to any person
or authority to do (or not to do) an act. ONLY issues if authority (inferior court/tribunal) is acting
ultra-vires or exercising rights not vested in, not otherwise. Designed to protect the justice from
miscarriage. Can be issued only before decision/judgement. Object Restrain judicial or quasi-judicial
inferior authorities from exercising powers not vested in them. Grounds Error of jurisdiction (Excess
beyond permissible limits or Lack of such limits), Abuse of jurisdiction within available powers, and
Violating principles of Natural justice (Rule against bias and rule against fair hearing). Possible victim
or his representative can apply, against such authorities.

Certiorari: A legal remedy used to quash decisions or orders of lower courts, tribunals, or authorities
that have acted in excess of their jurisdiction. Means in latin To Certify Recall all papers related to
any (possible ultra vires and violation of the principles of natural justice) judgement by lower courts
to verify and take necessary action, This writ is a Jurisdictional, AND Remedial, Only Post Judgement
action, AK Kripak v UoI Writ of Certiorari can be issued against administrative authorities. Object:
To keep check on misuse of powers by judicial/quasi-judicial/administrative authorities through ultra-
vires actions, Grounds to issue Issued ONLY after completion/judgement of matter under discussion.
Excess jurisdiction, Lack of jurisdiction, Abuse of jurisdiction, and Violation of the Principles of Natural
justice. Victim or his representative can apply for the writ. Again authorities. Malini Rajan v. Anand
Shankar 1951.

Quo Warranto: Meaning A writ used to challenge the appointment or election of a person to a
public office, questioning their legal authority to hold that position. Object To determine whether a

Page 5 of 48
person holding a public office has the legal authority or right to do so. Why? when there is a doubt
regarding the eligibility or qualification of an individual holding a public office, and it is necessary to
ascertain if they meet the prescribed legal requirements. Essentials: The office in question must be
a public office (Anand Bihari v. Ram Sahay), The person against whom the writ is filed must hold the
office, in recent period, without a valid legal right and the petitioner must have an interest in the
office and be able to show that they are personally aggrieved by the appointment. UNR Rao v. Smt
Indira Gandhi 1971 Indira Gandhi continuing to operate as caretaker PM after requesting President
to dissolve Lok Sabha. Valid per Article 75 for a minister to continue holding the office until the next
elected minister takes over. Who? Aggrieved party or 3rd party. This is discretionary power of court
to issue Quo Warranto writ.

Administrative Tribunals Not defined anyplace such as constitution, or any other law. A136, 227
and 323 (B) in the Constitution only refer the term Tribunal. What? They are the specialized quasi-
judicial bodies established by the government to adjudicate on specific areas of administrative law,
providing an alternative forum for resolving disputes outside the regular court system. Object: To
ensure efficient and specialized adjudication of disputes in administrative matters, allowing for
quicker resolution and expertise in specific areas. Purpose: To relieve the burden on regular courts,
expedite the resolution of administrative disputes, and provide a forum with specialized knowledge
in specific fields. Essentials: Established by a statute or executive order with specific jurisdiction,
They possess quasi-judicial powers to adjudicate on matters within their defined scope, They follow
procedural rules laid down in the statute that established them, and Their decisions are subject to
judicial review by higher courts.

Difference between Courts & Administrative Tribunals Jurisdiction: Courts have broad
jurisdiction while Administrative Tribunals are specialized bodies focusing on specific areas of
administrative law. Procedure and Expertise: Courts follow formal legal procedures and rely on
established legal precedents, whereas Administrative Tribunals have streamlined procedures and
possess specialized expertise in their respective fields. Composition and Appointment: Courts are
typically composed of appointed judges with legal backgrounds, while Administrative Tribunals may
include both legal experts and subject matter specialists, often with fixed-term appointments. Durga
Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh Tribunal and courts are not the same, Tribunal is in the wider ambit
of courts. Bharat Bank v. Employees Tribunals are quasi adjudicatory bodies, but not full-fledged
courts. Examples Income Tax Tribunal, National Green Tribunal etc. Characteristics Statute created,
Not a court, Bound by the Principles of Natural justice, Not under Government Control, Not bound
by CPC/CrPC Procedures, Tribunal procedure is regarded as a judicial procedure, and Independent
entity. Have similar characteristics as of the courts, but not all. Similarities between Courts and
Tribunals: Both are adjudicatory bodies, Both are established by the State, Both are bound by the
Principles of Natural Justice, Both are required to give reason for decision, Both are independent
with no interference from state administration, Both perform judicial functions

Judicial Review: The power of the courts to examine & potentially invalidate actions, decisions, or
laws made by government authorities or administrative bodies if they are found to be unlawful,
unconstitutional, or beyond the scope of their authority. It serves as a check to ensure that public
officials act within the confines of the law and adhere to principles of fairness and reasonableness.
Judicial review helps uphold the rule of law and protect individual rights in administrative matters.
Judiciary interpret law & protect constitutional boundaries, US Supreme Court case Marbury v
Medison 1803 led to Doctrine of Judicial Review, Under Indian Constitution Article 13, Judiciary can
make law void if it is ultravires and in conflict with constitutional provisions such as Fundamental
rights and is a part of basic structure of constitution (Minerva Mills v UoI 1980 & IR Cohleo 2007).
Features Power Used by both SC (A32) and HC (A226), Review of both Centre and State Laws,
Limitation (1951) 9th Schedule excluded from Judiciary Review, Review covers only laws, Is NOT
Automatic, Decision in judicial review cases (Making law Void, No issue or Partial law against FR to
be made void through Doctrine of separable legislation). Decision effective from the date of
judgement. Criticism of Judicial review: Undemocratic (Judiciary above democracy), Lack of Clarity
(in more than 1 article), Delay in the system, Tends to undermine powers of parliament and make
it appear less responsible (they actually tend to ignore constitutional boundaries while making a law)
and Judicial tyranny.

Audi Alterem Partem: A fundamental principle, translates to "hear the other side" in Latin. It
embodies the concept of natural justice, ensuring that no individual's rights or interests are adversely

Page 6 of 48
affected without affording them a fair opportunity to present their case. Any decision-maker must
provide notice to the affected party, disclose relevant evidence, and provide them with an
opportunity to be heard. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India 1969 AIR 823, where the Supreme Court
emphasized the importance of affording a fair hearing before taking any adverse action against a
person. Types of Judge Biases include Personal, Pecuniary and Subject Matter (Official Bias).

Public Corporations: Also known as Statutory Corporations, are created through legislative
enactments. Government Departments (Post, Shipping etc) and Government Companies (Govt
owning more than 51%, BHEL, HEL etc) To avoid concentration of wealth through private entities &
drive public welfare were the objectives during state transition from police state to welfare state.
Entities established by the government to perform specific functions of public interest. They possess
a distinct legal identity, separate from the government, and often operate in commercial or quasi-
commercial fields. These corporations have a degree of autonomy in their operations and decision-
making. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram 1975, where the Supreme Court held that these entities,
although created by the government, must function independently and adhere to principles of natural
justice, including Audi Alteram Partem, in their administrative actions & need for fairness and
transparency in the functioning of Public Corporations. Features/Characteristics: Special Statute,
Owned by Govt, Separate Legal Entity, Capital funding by Govt, Financial Autonomy, Management
by Board of Directors (Nominated/Appointed but not controlled by Govt), Own Staff (Not civil
Servants), Make own rules & regulations, Considered as a State, Service motive, Public
Accountability, Parliamentary/Legislative Control and Separate Property/Funds. Types of Public
Companies: Commercial (Hindustan Machine Tools), Development (ONGC), Social Service
(ESIC/Housing Boards) and Financial (RBI/SBI/LIC). Employees are NOT Government Employees &
do not get same level of protection. Types of Control over Public Companies: Parliamentary, Judicial,
Government and Public

Theory of Legitimate Expectations: Explain fair expectations & legal expectations. Schmidt v.
Secretary of State 1958 Students travelling for education on valid VISA cannot be cancelled before
their studies through not extending it. They made their decision basis the rules available and
reasonable expectation that it will allow them to complete their education. However, in this case,
despite recognizing Mr. Schmidt's legitimate expectation, the court found that the public interest in
deporting individuals involved in criminal activities could, in some cases, outweigh individual
expectations. Individuals have a right to expect a certain level of treatment or benefit from public
authorities based on their past practices, representations, or policies. This expectation arises when
a public authority has made a clear, unambiguous promise or representation to an individual, and
the individual has relied on it to their detriment. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma
recognized and affirmed the right of individuals to have their legitimate expectations protected

Tortious liability of government: Constitution A300 makes Union & State liable for torts
committed by the Government. Sovereign (Defense, Foreign Affairs and Police) and Non-sovereign
(Both State & Non-state can do such as Roads, Healthcare) functions of the state. Only non-
sovereign function related Torts impose liability. Legal responsibility of the government for wrongful
acts or omissions that cause harm to individuals or their property. Government can be held liable for
negligence or intentional wrongdoing by its officials or agents. State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidyawati
government can be held liable for tortious acts committed by its employees (driver) in the course of
their official duties.

Corporations (rights, Characteristics, Classification & Functions): Legal entities created by

the government to carry out specific public functions. They possess a separate legal identity from
the government and often engage in commercial or quasi-commercial activities. These entities have
certain rights, such as the ability to own property and enter into contracts. Corporations can be
classified into statutory and non-statutory bodies, with statutory corporations being established by
a specific law or statute. They serve various functions, ranging from providing essential services like
railways and telecommunication to engaging in economic activities like trading or manufacturing.
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram even though these entities are created by the government, they must
operate independently and adhere to principles of natural justice in their administrative actions.

Droit Administratiff: Droit Administratif, originating from French administrative legal system. It
encompasses rules and principles governing the actions of administrative authorities and regulates
relations between administration & citizens. These are rules NOT made by parliament (or principles),

Page 7 of 48
but developed by Administrative Courts. This body of law grants certain privileges and immunities
to administrative bodies, allowing them to function efficiently. The key principles include legal
protection of individuals against abuse of administrative power, the notion of the State as a service
provider, and the principle of legality, ensuring actions of the administration are based on law. The
principles (Legality, Service Public, Equality before the Law, Continuity of Public Services, and
Responsibility). Dicey criticised the exclusion of Administrative Law from civil law. Smt. Somawanti
v. State of Punjab SC applied principles of Droit Administratif, emphasizing that the state must be
held liable for tortious acts committed by its employees in the course of their official duties.

Institution of Ombudsman: Also known as the Lokpal (Central) or Lokayukta (State), is an

independent body established to investigate complaints of maladministration or corruption in public
offices. It serves as a mechanism for citizens to hold public officials accountable for their actions.
The Ombudsman has the authority to conduct inquiries, recommend corrective measures, and, in
some cases, initiate disciplinary proceedings against erring officials. Lok Prahari v. Union of India –
SC held importance of establishing effective Ombudsman institutions to combat corruption and
maladministration in public offices.

Civil Services (Functions, Powers & Duties of UPSC): Administrative machinery responsible for
implementing government policies and programs. UPSC (conducting examinations for recruitment
to various civil services, advising the government on appointments – (Seeking UPSC advise is
generally compulsory for Government, however advise acceptance is NOT mandatory), promotions,
and transfers, and ensuring the adherence to rules and regulations governing civil servants). Council
of Ministers headed by PM can enhance UPSC mandate/functions. UPSC Report tabled at the
Parliament annually by The President [Memorandum in report consisting UPSC advises
acceptance/rejections (with reasons for approval from parliamentary committee) and actions taken
by Government], Exclusions include backward class reservations/appointments or making any rules,
appointment of Chairmans for Tribunals, Temporary postings (under 1 year). Parliament Approval is
required (14 days in advance) for any changes made by The President in the UPSC mandate/function.
UPSC advise is not binding, however any Government is answerable for rejections. UPSC has edge
(being Constitutional body) over Central Vigilance Commission (created through Executive resolution
and conferred statutory status in OCT2003). Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab SC - role of UPSC in
ensuring the merit-based selection and appointment of civil servants, thereby upholding the integrity
and efficiency of the administrative machinery.

Right to Information Act, 2005: A pivotal legislation that empowers citizens to access information
held by public authorities. Timely information to citizen requests for Government Information under
Public Authorities, officially inspect Government work and take sample of material used in any work.
Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions. Any information which can be
disclosed in the Parliament can be requested. Amendment empowered even NRIs to file for RTI,
hence SC seeking Government to clarity on the Portals how they can. Public Authorities are bound
to furnish requested information within 30 days, or First appeal within next 30 days or second appeal
to State Information Commission within the 90 days. After which one can file writ in the High court.
Exclusion Military, sovereign & integrity of Union matters, Copyrighted and protected information,
and intelligence/security information. RTI is a constitutional & legal and Fundamental right. RTI is
Fundamental Right under Article 19(1). Delayed information (Rs.250/- per day) or false information
(upto Rs.25,000/-) are deducted from officer's personal salary. To make RTI Stronger, pendency
reduction, pruning exemption list, bringing political parties under RTP and protection to whistle-
blowers (various murders/suicides and assaults on the RTI activists) must be adopted. It promotes
transparency and accountability in government functioning by allowing individuals to request and
receive information about government actions, decisions, and policies. Central Board of Secondary
Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay 2011 SC affirmed the importance of citizens' right to information
as a fundamental aspect of a democratic society and upheld the applicability of the RTI Act to private
entities performing public functions.

AK Kraipak V. Union of India (1969 AIR 823): Dr. A.K. Kraipak, an expert in radiology, was denied
promotion by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) from the post of Assistant Director of
Health Services to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services, on the grounds that he did not
possess the requisite administrative experience. The Supreme Court held that administrative
experience was not a relevant criterion for promotion in this case, as the post was a technical one.

Page 8 of 48
The judgment emphasized that promotions should be based on expertise and suitability for the
position, and not solely on administrative experience.

Estoppel & Waiver: Estoppel refers to a principle that prevents a person from asserting a right or
fact that is contrary to their previous statements, conduct, or representations. Person alleging
contrary fact should not be heard. Rule formulated in Picards v. Sears 1837 (Sold property when he
was not owner, buyer acted upon the representation of seller, and afterwards seller wanted to set
aside the sale when he became owner through succession). Pratima Choudhary v. Kalpana Mukherjee
2014 To prevent unfairness or injustice when one party has relied on the other's statements or
actions. Essentials of Estoppel: Representation (believed by other, only present & past and NOT
future, declaration or omission, direct or through agent), Party acted basis the representation
(Innocence or mistake included), Other party must have altered their position basis representation.
Kinds of Estoppel: By Record (judgement as estopple, res judicata not same case opens again), By
Deed (Not applicable in Indian Law, Only in English Law, Parties are bound) or by Conduct (Matter
in Pias/Public, Conduct bounds) Exclusions where Estopple is NOT applicable: Criminal/Quasi
Criminal cases, Against statute/act, against minor, Fraud/Negligence on party claiming for estopple.
unlawful transfer of property and when truth of fact is known to both parties. Doctrine of Promissory
Estopple (New or Quasi Estopple): Equity to avoid injustice. To cover future contracted events. Motilal
Padmpat Sugar Mills v. State of UP Huge Investment against Chief Secretary Promise of 3 years
future total tax holiday policy, which was subsequently altered. Applicable to future promises. Other
party in valid agreement changes its position basis future promise. Such promise is treated as
binding by the Court even if it is supported without consideration. Waiver, is voluntary
relinquishment or abandonment of a legal right, often demonstrated through explicit actions or
inaction. Once waived, it cannot be reclaimed or restored. Essentials: Person must have knowledge
about his rights and his relinquishment of his rights must be voluntary. Fundamental Rights cannot
be waived off. It implies the intentional giving up of a known right, and can have legal consequences.
One landmark case demonstrating the application of estoppel is Union of India v. Anglo Afghan
Agencies SC held that the government could be estopped from going back on its representations if
another party had relied on those representations to their detriment.

Doctrine of Public Accountability: Public officials and institutions are answerable and responsible
for their actions and decisions. It holds them to a high standard of transparency, integrity, and
efficiency in the performance of their duties. Public servants are held accountable for any misuse of
power or violation of legal norms, ultimately serving the best interests of the public. Vineet Narain
v. Union of India (1998) SC laid down guidelines to enhance accountability and transparency in public
administration, particularly in cases of corruption and malfeasance.

Dr. Bonham's Case: Bonham's Case (1610) Dr. Bonham, a physician, was fined by the Royal
College of Physicians for practicing without a license. However, the court ruled that the college's
power to fine was limited by the principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause. This
established the precedent that even administrative bodies must operate within the bounds of natural
justice and that their decisions can be subject to judicial review.

Central Vigilance Function: Initially an Executive Resolution made this body, later on in 2003 got
statutory status. Have 1 Central Vigilance PM, Home Minister & Opposition Leader selects, President
Appoints for 4 years or 65 Age. Not further eligible for any other Government employment. Can be
removed by President after Supreme Court Enquiry on grounds such as conflict of interest,
misconduct or incapacity. Organization: Commissioner and NOT more than 2 Vigilance
Commissioners to assist him. Own Secretariat, Technical Examiners (Reviewing Engineering Projects
of Central Govt etc) and Departmental Inquiries Team. Investigate Government & Affiliates
departments & Employees. Limited authority to submit investigation reports to CBI. The system put
in place to combat corruption and promote integrity within government organizations. It involves
the establishment of vigilance units or cells within various departments and ministries to prevent,
detect, and investigate cases of corruption or misconduct by public servants. These units are
responsible for maintaining a vigilant watch over the activities of officials and taking corrective
measures when wrongdoing is identified. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is the apex body
overseeing this function at the national level. Advise Centre and other Govt Entities. Vineet Narain
v. Union of India SC issued directives to enhance vigilance and transparency in public administration,
particularly in cases of corruption and malfeasance. Jurisdiction & Powers: Vested with powers to
regulate own procedure. It has civil court powers and proceedings are judicial in nature. All ministries

Page 9 of 48
in Union has Chief Vigilance Officer (CVOs) to collect intelligence, investigate allegations, and
appropriately report to concerned disciplinary authority.

Lokpal: Expansion of bureaucracy leads to expanded administration, hence powers & their misuse
(corruption). To address citizen grievances (such as Abuse of powers, Maladministration, corruption,
Nepotism, or misbehaviour) against Government Administration, we have 1) Ombudsman 2)
Administrative Courts and 3) Procurator Systems. The Lokpal (Ombudsman in India, Lokpal &
Lokayukta Act, 2013) is an independent ombudsman institution (Independent of Parliament,
Executive & Judiciary with No powers to reverse/quash decisions or control over administration or
courts) established in India to investigate and address complaints of corruption against public
officials, including the Prime Minister and Members of Parliament. It was created with the aim of
promoting transparency and accountability in government affairs. Chairperson + Maximum 8
Members (50% from Judicial). Chairperson Selection Committee (PM, Lok Sabha Speaker, Opposition
Leader, CJI or his nominee, & eminent Jurist basis recommendation from all 4 with appointment
from The President). Lokpal has power of Superintendence over investigation agencies such as CBI
for cases referred to them, including power to confiscate & attach Public Official Properties acquired
through corrupt means. Clear timelines such as Preliminary Inquiry (3 + 3 months), Investigation
(6 + 6 months) and Trial (1Y + 1 Y) through special courts. Fully or Partially Government financed
agencies come under purview, but not the Government Aided institutions. Institutions receiving 10L
or more Foreign Source donations (like NGO) are under purview. The Lokpal has the authority to
conduct inquiries, recommend corrective measures, and, in some cases, initiate disciplinary
proceedings against erring officials (including the judges). Maharashtra in 1971 was the First state
to set-up Lokayukta. Common Cause v. Union of India SC directed the government to implement
the provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, and appoint a Lokpal at the earliest.
Shortcomings (Why Lokpal is a failure?): No Suo Moto actions, Heavy punishment against
false/frivolous complaints which deter complainants, Anonymous Complaints NOT allowed, 7 Year
Limitation period, Non-transparent procedure dealing with PM enquiry. 2019 Pinaki Ghosh (Retired
SC Judge) was the first Appointed Lokpal.

Page 10 of 48
Long Answers

Nature, Definition, Scope & Reasons for its growth of Administrative Law in India (6)
Nature of Administrative Law: Administrative Law is a branch of public law that focuses on the
structure, powers, and procedures of administrative agencies and their interactions with citizens. It
serves as a legal framework to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in the actions and
decisions of government authorities. It governs the exercise of administrative powers, remedies
available to citizens, and the principles that guide administrative actions.

Definition of Administrative Law: Administrative Law can be defined as the body of law that
governs the organization, powers, functions, and responsibilities of administrative authorities, as
well as the legal principles and procedures that regulate their actions and decisions. It provides a
mechanism for individuals to challenge and seek redressal against administrative actions that may
affect their rights or interests.

Scope of Administrative Law in India: The scope of Administrative Law in India is broad and
encompasses various aspects, including:
1. Delegated Legislation: Administrative agencies often have the authority to create rules
and regulations known as delegated legislation. These rules have the same legal force as
laws passed by the legislature and are subject to judicial review.
2. Judicial Review: Administrative Law provides for the judicial review of administrative
actions, allowing courts to examine the legality, reasonableness, and fairness of
administrative decisions. The concept of judicial review ensures that administrative
authorities act within their jurisdiction and in accordance with the law.
3. Public Authorities: Administrative Law governs the actions of public authorities, including
government departments, regulatory bodies, and quasi-judicial bodies. It defines their
powers, procedures, and limitations.
4. Fundamental Rights: Administrative actions must not infringe upon an individual's
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Administrative Law ensures that the
rights to equality, life, liberty, and due process are upheld.
5. Natural Justice: The principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and
the rule against bias, play a significant role in Administrative Law. These principles ensure
that individuals are treated fairly and impartially by administrative authorities.
Reasons for the Growth of Administrative Law in India:
1. Rise of Administrative Agencies: With the expansion of the government's role in various
sectors such as education, health, environment, and economy, there has been a
corresponding increase in administrative agencies. These agencies perform functions that
were traditionally within the domain of the legislature and the executive.
2. Complexity of Governance: As society becomes more complex, the functioning of the
government becomes intricate as well. Administrative agencies are needed to handle
technical, specialized, and intricate matters that cannot be adequately addressed by the
general principles of law.
3. Need for Expertise: Many issues require specialized knowledge and expertise for effective
decision-making. Administrative agencies are staffed with professionals who can make
informed decisions in technical areas.
4. Efficiency and Flexibility: Administrative agencies can respond more swiftly to changing
circumstances and emerging challenges compared to the legislative process. They can adapt
regulations and policies to address new situations efficiently.
5. Accountability and Transparency: The growth of administrative agencies has
necessitated mechanisms to ensure accountability and transparency. Administrative Law
establishes procedures for citizens to challenge decisions and seek redressal, thus
maintaining a balance between governmental power and individual rights.
6. Globalization and Regulation: In a globalized world, administrative agencies play a crucial
role in regulating international trade, environment protection, intellectual property, and
other matters that transcend national borders.
In short, Administrative Law in India encompasses the legal principles and procedures that regulate
administrative agencies, their actions, and their interactions with citizens. Its growth is driven by
the increasing complexity of governance, the need for specialized expertise, and the demand for
accountability and transparency in administrative actions. This branch of law serves as a vital tool

Page 11 of 48
to ensure that administrative authorities act within their jurisdiction, adhere to legal norms, and
uphold individual rights.

Explain Audi Alteram Partem with Examples

Definition of Audi Alteram Partem: "Audi Alteram Partem" is a fundamental principle of natural
justice, often expressed as "hear the other side" or "let the other side be heard." It embodies the
idea that no person should be condemned or adversely affected by a decision without being given a
fair opportunity to present their case, arguments, and evidence before an impartial and unbiased
authority.
Examples of Audi Alteram Partem:
1. Disciplinary Proceedings: In the context of administrative law, when a government
employee is facing disciplinary action, the principle of audi alteram partem requires that the
employee is given a chance to present their version of events, provide explanations, and
offer evidence before any punitive action is taken.
2. Contract Termination: If a government contract is to be terminated due to alleged breach
of terms, the party facing termination must be given an opportunity to explain their position,
rectify any issues, and provide reasons to contest the termination.
3. Suspension of License: When a license or permit is being suspended or revoked by a
regulatory authority, the affected party should be allowed to present arguments in their
defense and challenge any allegations that have led to the suspension.
Landmark Case Law: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case is considered a
pivotal moment in the expansion of the right to personal liberty and the principle of audi alteram
partem in India. In this case, Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded without providing her with
any opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental
right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the principle of natural justice, including the right to
be heard, must be followed before depriving a person of this right. The court stated, "The concept
of reasonableness and fair procedure must run through the entire fabric of Article 21 like a golden
thread." This case reaffirmed that the right to be heard is not merely a procedural formality but an
essential safeguard against arbitrary actions by the state.
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985): In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of audi alteram partem in administrative proceedings. The court held that even in
situations where a statutory provision does not explicitly require giving a hearing, the principles of
natural justice, including the right to be heard, must be followed if the decision adversely affects the
rights of an individual.

Rule of Law in Constitutional Context & Landmark Judgements, Diceys Principles (4)
Introduction to Dicey's Principles of Rule of Law: Albert Venn Dicey, a British jurist, formulated
the concept of the "Rule of Law," which has been widely influential in various legal systems, including
India. Dicey's principles emphasize the supremacy of law, equality before the law, and the protection
of individual rights. These principles play a crucial role in the constitutional context, ensuring that
government actions are consistent with the principles of fairness, justice, and legality.
Dicey's Three Principles of Rule of Law:
1. Supremacy of Law: This principle states that the law is the supreme authority, and every
person, including government officials, is subject to it. No one is above the law, and the
government's actions must be based on legal authority.
2. Equality Before the Law: All individuals, regardless of their status, are equal before the
law. No one should be subjected to special treatment or discrimination. The law must be
applied impartially to all.
3. Individual Rights: Dicey highlighted the importance of protecting individual rights. He
believed that the rule of law ensures that individuals' rights are safeguarded through
established legal procedures and remedies.
The principle of the "Rule of Law" is a fundamental concept in constitutional law that underpins the
structure and functioning of a democratic society. It separates civilized society from jungle rule. It
ensures that government actions are governed by established laws and procedures, preventing
arbitrary exercise of power and safeguarding individual rights. In the constitutional context, the Rule
of Law acts as a foundational pillar upon which the entire legal and political system is built.
Key Elements of Rule of Law:
1. Supremacy of Law: The Rule of Law emphasizes that all individuals and institutions,
including government bodies and officials, are subject to and accountable under the law. No
one is above the law, and everyone must abide by its provisions.

Page 12 of 48
 2. Equality Before the Law: The principle mandates that all individuals are equal before the
law, irrespective of their status, wealth, or power. No one should receive preferential
treatment, and legal procedures and remedies must be equally accessible to all.
3. Predictability and Certainty: The law must be clear, accessible, and predictable. Citizens
should be able to understand the rules that govern their conduct, and legal decisions should
be based on established laws rather than on arbitrary or subjective considerations.
4. Fairness and Justice: The Rule of Law requires that legal processes and decisions are fair,
just, and transparent. This includes ensuring procedural fairness, protection of individual
rights, and adherence to due process.
5. Protection of Rights: The Rule of Law safeguards individual rights by providing
mechanisms to challenge government actions that infringe upon those rights. It ensures that
citizens have the right to challenge administrative decisions, seek remedies for violations,
and obtain redress through impartial courts.
6. Limited Government Power: The Rule of Law places limitations on the exercise of
government power, preventing arbitrary or unchecked authority. Government actions must
be authorized by law and should not exceed the scope of authority granted by the
Constitution.
Role in the Constitutional Context:
1. Constitutional Supremacy: In a constitutional democracy, the Constitution is the highest
law, and all laws and government actions must conform to its provisions. The Rule of Law
ensures that governmental authority is derived from and exercised within the framework of
the Constitution.
2. Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Rule of Law safeguards fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. Government actions that violate these rights can be
challenged in courts, ensuring that citizens are protected from unjust encroachments on
their liberties.
3. Separation of Powers: The principle of Rule of Law supports the separation of powers by
ensuring that each branch of government operates within its designated sphere of authority.
No branch can exceed its powers or interfere with the functions of another branch.
4. Judicial Review: The judiciary plays a critical role in upholding the Rule of Law by reviewing
the constitutionality of laws and governmental actions. This ensures that laws and actions
align with constitutional principles and values.
5. Limiting Arbitrary Actions: The Rule of Law curbs the potential for arbitrary actions by
government officials. Administrative decisions must be based on established laws and
procedures, promoting consistency and fairness.
Landmark Judgments in Indian Constitutional Context:
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): In this historic case, the Supreme Court
of India upheld the supremacy of the Constitution and the principle of rule of law. The court
held that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution is not absolute and is subject to
certain essential features that cannot be altered. This case affirmed the idea that even the
constitutional amendments must adhere to the principles of justice, equality, and
fundamental rights.
2. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976): Popularly known as the "Habeas Corpus case,"
this judgment is a crucial example of the importance of the rule of law in preventing arbitrary
executive action. The Supreme Court ruled that during a state of emergency, the right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 could be suspended, which drew criticism. This case
underscored the significance of the judiciary's role in upholding fundamental rights, even
during exceptional circumstances.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): As mentioned earlier, this case expanded the
scope of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 and emphasized the principles of
fairness and procedural due process. The judgment highlighted that any law affecting
personal liberty must satisfy the test of reasonableness and follow the principles of natural
justice, including audi alteram partem.
4. S. P. Gupta v. President of India (1982): In this case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the
principle of equality before the law and ruled that the Chief Justice of India's advice should
be obtained while appointing judges to the higher judiciary. The case emphasized the
importance of upholding the rule of law in judicial appointments to ensure an impartial and
independent judiciary.

Administrative Tribunals Characteristics (2)

Introduction to Administrative Tribunals: Administrative Tribunals are specialized quasi-judicial
bodies established by the government to adjudicate disputes and grievances arising from
administrative and regulatory decisions. These tribunals provide an alternative forum to resolve

Page 13 of 48
disputes involving administrative matters, thereby reducing the burden on regular courts and
ensuring expert handling of complex issues.
Characteristics of Administrative Tribunals:
1. Expertise and Specialization: Administrative Tribunals are staffed with members who
possess expertise and knowledge in specific areas such as taxation, labor, environment,
intellectual property, and more. This specialization enables them to comprehend technical
aspects of cases and render informed decisions.
2. Exclusive Jurisdiction: Tribunals are often granted exclusive jurisdiction over certain types
of cases or disputes. This means that cases falling within their domain must be heard by the
tribunal instead of regular courts.
3. Speedy Resolution: One of the primary reasons for establishing administrative tribunals is
to expedite the resolution of disputes. By focusing solely on administrative matters, these
tribunals can provide quicker remedies than traditional courts.
4. Procedural Flexibility: Administrative Tribunals are not bound by formal legal procedures,
which can sometimes be lengthy and complex. Instead, they have the flexibility to adopt
procedures that suit the nature of the dispute, ensuring efficiency.
5. Technical Approach: Given the specialized nature of the cases they handle, administrative
tribunals often take a more technical approach, relying on expert testimony and evidence to
arrive at decisions.
6. Quasi-Judicial Functions: While administrative tribunals are not part of the regular
judiciary, they perform quasi-judicial functions. They have the authority to make decisions,
hear evidence, and issue orders, which are binding on the parties involved.
7. Appeal Mechanism: In most cases, decisions of administrative tribunals can be appealed
to higher courts. This ensures that there is a mechanism for review and correction of errors,
maintaining fairness in the process.
8. Independence and Impartiality: Like the judiciary, administrative tribunals must uphold
principles of independence and impartiality. Members are expected to render decisions
without bias and without being influenced by external factors.
9. Adjudication of Administrative Disputes: The primary function of administrative
tribunals is to adjudicate disputes arising from administrative actions, decisions, or
regulations. They play a crucial role in ensuring that government actions are in accordance
with the law.
10. Exclusivity in Certain Areas: Administrative tribunals are commonly established in areas
where specialized knowledge is required, such as employment disputes, tax appeals,
environmental issues, and intellectual property disputes.

Public Corporations & its control (2)

Introduction to Public Corporations: Public corporations, also known as government-owned
corporations or statutory corporations, are entities established by the government to undertake
specific functions of public interest. They are distinct from regular government departments and
agencies and often operate in commercial or industrial sectors. Public corporations have a separate
legal identity and enjoy a certain degree of autonomy while being subject to governmental control
and accountability.
Characteristics of Public Corporations:
1. Separate Legal Entity: Public corporations are distinct legal entities separate from the
government. They can sue and be sued in their own name, enter into contracts, and own
property.
2. Commercial Activities: While established to fulfill public objectives, public corporations
engage in commercial or business activities. For instance, public corporations may operate
in sectors like railways, banking, telecommunications, and energy.
3. Autonomy and Flexibility: Public corporations typically have a degree of operational
autonomy compared to government departments. They can make decisions related to
management, operations, and personnel matters independently.
4. Statutory Creation: Public corporations are established through specific legislation enacted
by the government. The legislation defines their objectives, functions, powers, structure,
and operational framework.
5. Financial Autonomy: Public corporations often have their own sources of revenue, such as
fees, charges, and profits from their operations. They manage their finances independently,
although they may be subject to government oversight.
Controls on Public Corporations in Indian Administrative Law:
1. Statutory Framework: Public corporations are created by specific statutes that outline
their functions, powers, structure, and mode of operation. These statutes set the legal
framework within which the corporation must operate.

Page 14 of 48
 2. Government Control: Although public corporations have a degree of autonomy, the
government exercises control over them through their governing boards, which are typically
composed of government-appointed members. These boards oversee major decisions and
policy matters.
3. Policy Directives: The government can issue policy directives to public corporations,
guiding their activities to align with broader national objectives. These directives ensure that
the corporation's activities remain consistent with government policies.
4. Financial Accountability: Public corporations are subject to financial controls, including
audit and reporting requirements. Their financial records are audited by government-
appointed auditors to ensure transparency and accountability.
5. Parliamentary Oversight: Many public corporations are accountable to the Parliament
through committees like the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Committee on Public
Undertakings (CPU). These committees examine the functioning, performance, and financial
aspects of public corporations.
6. Judicial Review: Decisions and actions of public corporations can be subject to judicial
review by courts to ensure that they conform to legal and constitutional standards. Courts
can intervene if a corporation's actions are deemed arbitrary, unreasonable, or against the
public interest.
7. Policy Guidelines: The government may issue policy guidelines to direct the activities of
public corporations. These guidelines help maintain consistency and ensure that the
corporation's actions align with broader governmental objectives.

Delegated Legislation & reasons for its growth, Permissible & Impermissible (3)
Definition of Delegated Legislation: Delegated legislation, also known as subordinate or
secondary legislation, refers to laws made by individuals or bodies other than the legislature but
with the authority granted by an enabling statute. It involves the transfer of legislative power from
the primary law-making body (usually the legislature) to other entities or authorities to create
detailed rules, regulations, and orders that are necessary to implement the broader provisions of a
statute.
Reasons for the Growth of Delegated Legislation:
1. Complexity: Modern societies require intricate and technical regulations that often cannot
be covered comprehensively in primary legislation. Delegated legislation allows for detailed
rules to be formulated by experts who possess specialized knowledge in various fields.
2. Efficiency: Legislative bodies may not have the time or resources to deal with every minute
aspect of governance. Delegated legislation enables quicker and more flexible responses to
emerging issues.
3. Expertise: Delegated legislation permits the involvement of experts in relevant fields,
ensuring that regulations are well-informed and technically sound.
4. Changing Circumstances: The dynamic nature of society and technology necessitates the
adaptation of laws to changing circumstances. Delegated legislation enables adjustments
without requiring an entirely new statute.
5. Customization: Different regions or sectors may have specific requirements. Delegated
legislation allows for tailoring rules to address regional or sectoral needs.
Permissible and Impermissible Delegated Legislation:
Permissible Delegated Legislation: Permissible delegated legislation adheres to certain principles
and limitations. Its essentials include:
1. Clear Enabling Act: There must be a valid enabling statute that confers authority on the
delegated body to make regulations. The extent of delegation must be well-defined.
2. Purpose and Scope: The delegated legislation must be within the scope of the parent
statute's objectives and must not extend beyond what is necessary to fulfill those objectives.
3. Procedural Safeguards: The procedure for enacting delegated legislation should be well-
defined and transparent. Adequate notice, public consultation, and accountability
mechanisms should be in place.
4. Subject Matter Expertise: Delegated bodies should have expertise relevant to the subject
matter to ensure that regulations are well-informed and effective.
5. No Contravention of Fundamental Rights: Delegated legislation must not violate
fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Impermissible Delegated Legislation: Impermissible delegated legislation goes beyond the
boundaries set by the enabling statute. It may include:
1. Excessive Delegation: If the parent statute delegates too much discretionary power
without defining clear limits, it may lead to impermissible delegated legislation.

Page 15 of 48
 2. Delegation of Essential Legislative Functions: Delegated legislation cannot involve the
delegation of essential legislative functions, such as policy-making or fundamental changes
to the law.
3. Uncontrolled Discretion: If the enabling statute lacks checks and balances or procedural
safeguards, it might lead to unchecked and arbitrary regulations.
4. Ultra Vires: If the delegated legislation goes beyond the scope of the enabling act or
conflicts with it, it is considered ultra vires and void.
Boundaries and Judicial Review: Courts play a significant role in ensuring that delegated
legislation remains within its boundaries. They review the validity of regulations to determine if they
conform to the principles of the enabling statute. If a regulation is found to be ultra vires or beyond
the scope of the enabling act, courts may declare it void.

Principle of Natural Justice with SC Judgements, Special Reference of working of Tribunals (5)
The principle of natural justice is a fundamental legal principle that embodies the concept of fairness,
equity, and procedural regularity in administrative and judicial proceedings. It ensures that decisions
affecting an individual's rights, interests, or privileges are made in a just and unbiased manner. The
two primary principles of natural justice are:
1. Audi Alteram Partem: This Latin phrase translates to "hear the other side." It requires
that all parties involved in a case should have the opportunity to present their case,
evidence, and arguments before a decision is made.
2. Nemo Iudex in Causa Sua: This principle means "no one should be a judge in their own
cause." It ensures that the decision-maker must be impartial and free from bias or personal
interest that might influence their judgment.
Here are some landmark Supreme Court judgments that have clarified and upheld the principle of
natural justice in Indian jurisprudence:
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case is a cornerstone in the evolution of
the principle of natural justice in India. The Supreme Court held that the right to personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to be heard. It emphasized that
the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable. This judgment expanded
the scope of natural justice by linking it to the broader concept of fundamental rights.
2. A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970): In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that
members with expertise and specialization in relevant fields should be appointed to
administrative tribunals. The presence of technical members ensures that decisions are well-
informed and balanced, thus upholding the principle of natural justice.
3. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985): This case reiterated the principle of audi alteram
partem and held that even when a statute doesn't explicitly require a hearing, the principles
of natural justice must be followed if a decision adversely affects individual rights. The court
reaffirmed the universality of the principle.
4. S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990): This case reaffirmed that natural justice is a
fundamental principle applicable to all quasi-judicial or administrative decisions. It
emphasized that a decision-maker must act fairly, impartially, and without bias.
5. S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1981): In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of providing a fair hearing before taking adverse actions. The court held that the
principles of natural justice should be followed even in administrative proceedings when the
decision affects a person's rights or interests.
6. Chairman, Railway Board v. C. R. Rangadhamaiah (2010): This case dealt with the
right to cross-examine witnesses in disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court held that
the principles of natural justice encompass the right to cross-examine witnesses if their
evidence is used against the accused. Denying this right would violate the principles of
natural justice.
Principle of Natural Justice in the Working of Tribunals
The principle of natural justice is of utmost importance in the functioning of administrative tribunals.
These specialized bodies play a quasi-judicial role, making decisions that directly affect individuals'
rights, interests, and privileges. The application of natural justice in the context of tribunals ensures
fairness, transparency, and accountability in their proceedings. Here's how the principle is applied
in the working of tribunals:
1. Audi Alteram Partem (Right to be Heard): This principle requires that parties affected
by a decision must be given a fair opportunity to present their case, evidence, and
arguments. In the context of tribunals:
o Notice: Parties should receive proper notice of proceedings, including the nature of
allegations or issues being considered. This ensures that parties have adequate time
to prepare their case.

Page 16 of 48
 o Representation: Tribunals often allow parties to be represented by legal counsel.
This is particularly important for individuals who might not possess the expertise to
present their case effectively.
o Cross-Examination: Depending on the circumstances, parties might have the right
to cross-examine witnesses whose evidence is presented against them. This is
crucial for testing the veracity of evidence.
2. Impartiality and Bias (Nemo Iudex in Causa Sua): The principle ensures that tribunal
members are impartial and unbiased. Tribunals must be free from any conflict of interest
that might affect their decision-making:
o Appointment: Tribunal members should be appointed based on their expertise,
qualifications, and integrity. A transparent appointment process reduces the risk of
bias.
o Disclosure: Members should disclose any potential conflicts of interest they might
have in a case. If a member has a personal interest, they should recuse themselves
from the proceedings.
3. Reasoned Decisions: Tribunals are often required to provide reasons for their decisions.
This enhances transparency and accountability:
o Justification: A reasoned decision helps parties understand the basis for the
tribunal's conclusions. It ensures that the decision is not arbitrary and provides a
foundation for judicial review.
4. Procedural Fairness: The principle of natural justice ensures that tribunals follow fair
procedures throughout the course of proceedings:
o Unbiased Decision-Making: The tribunal should evaluate evidence objectively and
impartially, without being influenced by external factors.
o Opportunity to Present Case: All parties should have an equal opportunity to present
their case without undue hindrance.
o No Ex Parte Decisions: Tribunals should avoid making decisions in the absence of
one of the parties. Ex parte decisions are generally discouraged unless there are
compelling reasons.

Parliamentary & Judicial Control over Delegated Legislation

Delegated Legislation: Delegated legislation refers to laws or regulations made by authorities
other than the legislature, based on the authority given to them by an enabling or parent statute. It
allows administrative bodies, government officials, and agencies to create detailed rules and
regulations to implement the broader provisions of a statute. Delegated legislation is an essential
tool in modern governance as it enables flexibility and responsiveness to changing circumstances.
Methods of Parliamentary Control:
1. Affirmative Resolution: In this method, the delegated legislation is presented before the
parliament for approval. The legislation cannot come into effect unless it receives the
parliament's affirmative vote. This ensures parliamentary oversight over important
regulations.
2. Negative Resolution: Under this method, the delegated legislation automatically comes
into effect unless the parliament objects within a specified period. If any member of
parliament objects, the regulation can be annulled. This method is less effective in
scrutinizing regulations.
3. Scrutiny Committees: Parliamentary committees are set up to review and scrutinize
delegated legislation. In India, the Committee on Subordinate Legislation examines whether
the regulations conform to the intended purpose of the parent statute and ensures that they
do not violate fundamental rights.
4. Debate and Discussion: Parliament can hold debates and discussions on significant
regulations. While these discussions might not lead to a binding vote, they serve to highlight
the concerns and potential issues related to the delegated legislation.
Methods of Judicial Control:
1. Ultra Vires Doctrine: If the delegated legislation goes beyond the powers granted by the
enabling statute or is inconsistent with it, it can be declared ultra vires (beyond authority)
by the courts, rendering it invalid.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights: Courts can strike down delegated legislation if it
violates fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. The principle of natural justice
and equality can also be invoked in this context.
3. Substantive Ultra Vires: If the delegated legislation is inconsistent with the parent
statute's purpose or is unreasonable, courts can declare it to be substantively ultra vires.
4. Procedural Ultra Vires: If the procedure prescribed by the enabling statute for making
delegated legislation is not followed, the courts can declare it procedurally ultra vires.

Page 17 of 48
 5. Illegality and Irrationality: Courts can review delegated legislation for illegality,
irrationality, or unreasonableness. If a regulation is found to be irrational or unreasonable,
it can be quashed.
6. Excessive Delegation: Courts can intervene if the delegation of power to make regulations
is excessive or if the enabling statute does not provide clear limits on the authority.

The importance of parliamentary and judicial control over delegated legislation becomes even
more significant in the context of a welfare state. A welfare state aims to ensure the well-being
and socio-economic advancement of its citizens by providing essential services, social safety
nets, and equal opportunities. In such a state, the role of the government expands significantly,
leading to the creation of a multitude of laws and regulations. Here's why parliamentary and
judicial control are crucial in a welfare state:

1. Protection of Citizens' Rights: In a welfare state, citizens rely on the government to

provide essential services and support. Any delegated legislation that affects their rights,
benefits, or access to services must be closely scrutinized. Parliamentary control ensures
that regulations are aligned with the intended purpose of the welfare programs and do not
infringe upon citizens' rights or dignity.
2. Accountability and Transparency: Welfare programs often involve significant public
resources. Parliamentary control mechanisms, such as scrutiny committees, debates, and
discussions, promote transparency and accountability in the use of public funds. This
prevents misuse of resources, corruption, and ensures that welfare programs genuinely
benefit the intended recipients.
3. Balancing Flexibility with Protection: Delegated legislation offers flexibility in
implementing and adapting welfare programs to evolving needs. However, this flexibility
should not compromise citizens' rights or dilute the intended benefits. Judicial control
ensures that regulations do not exceed the scope of the enabling statute, protecting citizens'
interests while allowing administrative efficiency.
4. Ensuring Effective Implementation: In a welfare state, the efficient implementation of
programs is vital. Delegated legislation provides the details necessary for smooth execution.
Parliamentary control mechanisms allow elected representatives to assess whether the
regulations adequately support program objectives and benefit the target population.
5. Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups: Welfare states often cater to marginalized and
vulnerable groups. Parliamentary and judicial control ensure that regulations do not
discriminate against these groups or inadvertently exclude them from accessing services.
This protection is essential for upholding the principles of social justice and equality.
6. Preventing Mismanagement and Overreach: The expansive nature of a welfare state
can lead to a vast array of regulations. Without proper control mechanisms, there is a risk
of mismanagement, overregulation, and arbitrary decision-making. Both parliamentary and
judicial control ensure that regulations are well-founded, reasonable, and in line with the
principles of natural justice.
7. Upholding Rule of Law: In a welfare state, where government intervention is extensive,
upholding the rule of law becomes paramount. Both parliamentary and judicial control over
delegated legislation ensure that the government acts within the bounds of its authority,
respecting established legal norms and principles.

Theory of Legitimate Expectations with examples (2)

The theory of legitimate expectations is a legal doctrine that seeks to ensure fairness and justice in
administrative decision-making. It recognizes that individuals have a right to expect that public
authorities will Honor their commitments, assurances, or representations, especially when
individuals have relied on these expectations to their detriment. This doctrine is grounded in
principles of procedural fairness, natural justice, and the rule of law. Let's delve deeper into the
theory and discuss its significance:
Key Elements of the Theory:
1. Representation or Promise: A legitimate expectation arises when a public authority
makes a clear and unambiguous representation, promise, or assurance to an individual or a
group. This can be in the form of official statements, policies, or practices.
2. Legitimate Reliance: The individual or group must have reasonably relied on the
representation to their detriment. The reliance should be justifiable and based on a genuine
belief in the authority's commitment.

Page 18 of 48
 3. Unfairness or Injustice: If the public authority deviates from its representation without
valid and justifiable reasons, it would lead to unfairness or injustice to the individuals who
have relied on those expectations.
Importance and Implications:
1. Procedural Fairness: The theory of legitimate expectations ensures that individuals are
treated fairly by public authorities. It prevents arbitrary or capricious decision-making and
promotes adherence to established norms and expectations.
2. Transparency and Accountability: Public authorities are held accountable for their
representations and promises. They cannot backtrack on commitments without providing
reasonable explanations, enhancing transparency in governance.
3. Protection of Rights: Legitimate expectations safeguard individuals' rights by preventing
authorities from arbitrarily changing their stance, which could negatively impact individuals'
interests.
4. Rule of Law: The theory upholds the rule of law by requiring public authorities to act in
accordance with established principles and norms, even in administrative matters.
Examples of Legitimate Expectations:
1. Land Acquisition: If a government announces that certain land will not be acquired for a
specific purpose and individuals invest in developing it based on that announcement, they
acquire a legitimate expectation that the land will not be acquired for that purpose.
2. Employment Benefits: If an employer assures employees of a certain pension scheme, the
employees acquire a legitimate expectation that the scheme will be implemented, and the
employer cannot later withdraw the promise arbitrarily.
3. Government Schemes: When a government announces a scheme to grant benefits to a
certain class of people, individuals falling within that class acquire a legitimate expectation
to receive those benefits.
Limitations of the Theory:
1. Balancing Act: The doctrine of legitimate expectations must be balanced with other
principles, such as administrative efficiency and public interest. In some cases, overriding
public interest might justify departing from legitimate expectations.
2. Reasonable Expectations: Not every expectation is legitimate. The expectation must be
reasonable and justifiable based on the authority's representation and the circumstances.
Case: Bhagwati Developers Private Limited v. Peerless General Finance and Investment
Company Limited (2019)
Background: In this case, the question was whether the company could challenge the imposition
of a new tax by the state government, despite an earlier representation that no such tax would be
imposed.
Key Elements of Legitimate Expectations:
1. Representation or Promise: The state government had issued a notification exempting
the company from certain taxes, leading the company to expect that it would not be
subjected to those taxes.
2. Legitimate Reliance: The company relied on the government's representation and
proceeded with its business operations accordingly, expecting to be exempt from those
taxes.
3. Unfairness or Injustice: When the government later imposed the taxes, the company
argued that this decision was unfair and unjust, given their reliance on the government's
earlier promise.
Court's Decision: The Supreme Court of India held that the doctrine of legitimate expectations was
applicable in this case. The court emphasized that legitimate expectations are an important facet of
the rule of law and must be upheld to ensure fairness and transparency in administrative actions.
The court ruled that if a public authority makes a clear and unequivocal promise or representation,
and an individual or entity relies on it to their detriment, the authority is bound to honor that
expectation, unless there are overriding public interests that justify a departure.
Significance and Implications:
1. Procedural Fairness: The case reaffirmed the principle of procedural fairness by requiring
public authorities to act in accordance with their representations, ensuring that individuals
are treated fairly.
2. Transparency and Accountability: The judgment emphasized the need for transparency
and accountability in administrative actions, discouraging public authorities from arbitrarily
changing their stance without valid reasons.
3. Protection of Rights: The case highlighted that legitimate expectations safeguard
individuals' interests and rights, preventing authorities from acting unfairly or unjustly.

Page 19 of 48
 4. Balancing of Interests: While upholding legitimate expectations, the court recognized that
there could be cases where overriding public interests might justify a departure from these
expectations.

Separation of Powers in Indian Legal System, Propounded by Montesquieu (2)

The concept of separation of powers is a fundamental principle in democratic governance, aiming to
prevent the concentration of power in a single authority and ensure checks and balances among
different branches of government. While the strict separation of powers as found in some
constitutions might not be entirely present in the Indian legal system, the doctrine's essence is still
upheld through a system of checks and balances among the legislative, executive, and judicial
branches. Here's how the principle of separation of powers is applied in the Indian legal system:
1. Legislative Branch: In India, the legislative branch is responsible for making laws. The
Parliament at the central level and State Legislatures at the state level enact laws that govern various
aspects of the country. While the legislature's primary function is lawmaking, it also exercises
oversight over the executive branch through mechanisms such as question hour, debates, and
committees.
2. Executive Branch: The executive branch, led by the President at the central level and the
Governors at the state level, is responsible for implementing laws. The Prime Minister at the central
level and Chief Ministers at the state level head the respective governments and are responsible for
policy implementation. However, ministers who are members of the legislature ensure a linkage
between the legislative and executive branches.
3. Judicial Branch: The judiciary is entrusted with interpreting laws and ensuring their
constitutionality. The Supreme Court of India, along with the High Courts and lower courts, exercises
judicial review over legislative and executive actions. This allows the judiciary to strike down laws
or actions that are deemed unconstitutional, thereby ensuring a balance of power and protecting
citizens' rights.
Checks and Balances in the Indian Legal System:
1. Judicial Review: The doctrine of judicial review allows the judiciary to review the
constitutionality of laws and executive actions. The judiciary can strike down laws or actions
that violate the Constitution, thereby ensuring the executive and legislative branches adhere
to constitutional limits.
2. Legislative Oversight: The legislature exercises oversight over the executive through
mechanisms such as debates, questions, and parliamentary committees. This ensures that
the executive is held accountable for its actions.
3. Appointment Mechanisms: The appointment of judges, senior civil servants, and
constitutional functionaries requires collaboration between the executive and the judiciary,
preventing one branch from having unchecked power.
4. Impeachment Process: The constitution provides for the impeachment of the President,
judges, and other high officials through a parliamentary process, providing a mechanism for
checks and balances over their actions.
5. Non-Interference in Judicial Proceedings: The judiciary is generally insulated from
interference by the executive. The principle of judicial independence prevents the executive
from influencing judicial decisions.
The concept of separation of powers was propounded by the French political philosopher Baron de
Montesquieu in his influential work "The Spirit of the Laws" (1748). Montesquieu's theory laid the
foundation for the modern understanding of the distribution of powers in democratic systems. His
theory emphasized the need to prevent the concentration of power in a single authority to safeguard
individual liberties and prevent tyranny. Here's a brief overview of Montesquieu's ideas on the
separation of powers:
Three Branches of Government: Montesquieu proposed the division of government into three
distinct branches:
1. Legislative Branch: Responsible for making laws. It represents the will of the people and
plays a critical role in shaping policies.
2. Executive Branch: Charged with implementing and enforcing laws. It executes the
decisions made by the legislative branch and manages day-to-day governance.
3. Judicial Branch: Tasked with interpreting laws and ensuring their constitutionality. It
provides a mechanism for settling disputes and upholding justice.
Checks and Balances: Montesquieu believed that each branch of government should have some
degree of influence over and control over the actions of the other branches. This system of checks
and balances would prevent any single branch from becoming too powerful and infringing upon
individual rights.
Reasoning Behind the Separation: Montesquieu argued that by separating the powers of
government, the potential for abuse and tyranny could be minimized. He believed that if one branch

Page 20 of 48
had unchecked power, it could lead to the suppression of individual rights and freedoms. By
distributing authority, the government would be more accountable and less prone to abuses.
Influence on Modern Governance: Montesquieu's ideas had a profound impact on the
development of modern democratic systems. His theory provided the intellectual foundation for the
structuring of government institutions in many democratic countries, including the United States.
The United States Constitution, for example, embodies Montesquieu's principles by dividing power
among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches and establishing a system of checks and
balances.

Tortious liability of government with Case Laws

Tortious liability refers to the legal responsibility of a party for committing a civil wrong, known as a
tort, which causes harm or injury to another party. When it comes to the government, tortious
liability arises when government actions or omissions result in harm to individuals or their property.
Governmental tort liability is an important aspect of administrative law and ensures that citizens can
seek redress when they suffer harm due to government actions. In India, tortious liability of the
government is governed by various legal principles and precedents. Here's an overview:
Government's Dual Role: In many legal systems, the government operates in two capacities:
sovereign and non-sovereign. Sovereign functions involve the exercise of state power, such as
legislating, governing, and maintaining law and order. Non-sovereign functions include commercial
activities and services provided to citizens. Tortious liability is more likely to apply to the
government's non-sovereign functions.
Vicarious Liability: The government can be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its
employees or agents committed during the course of their employment. This principle is based on
the concept of respondent superior, which means "let the superior answer." If a government
employee, while acting within the scope of their employment, commits a tort, the government can
be held liable for the employee's actions.
Exceptions to Liability: While the government can be held liable for torts, certain exceptions exist,
including:
1. Sovereign Immunity: The government is generally immune from liability for actions taken
in its sovereign capacity. However, this immunity may be waived in certain cases.
2. Policy Decisions: Courts are generally reluctant to interfere with policy decisions taken by
the government, as long as the decisions are made in good faith and are within the scope of
its authority.
3. Discretionary Functions: The government is protected from liability for actions taken
under discretionary powers, as long as they are exercised reasonably and in good faith.
Case Law: M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of
India held the government liable for the escape of oleum gas from a factory in Delhi. The court ruled
that the government had a duty to ensure the safety of citizens, and its negligence in regulating the
factory's operations led to the harm suffered by the residents. This case highlighted the principle
that the government can be held liable for its negligence in non-sovereign functions.

Importance of Writs with Case Laws

Writs are formal orders issued by courts or judicial bodies with the authority to review and supervise
the actions of public authorities, individuals, or bodies exercising quasi-judicial or administrative
functions. In India, writs are an essential tool for safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring the
rule of law. They enable the judiciary to correct violations of rights, prevent abuse of power, and
uphold the principles of justice.
Types of Writs:
1. Habeas Corpus: A writ that ensures an individual's right to personal liberty by preventing
unlawful detention or imprisonment. It requires the person detaining another to produce the
detainee before the court to ascertain the legality of their detention.
2. Mandamus: A writ that commands a public official or body to perform their legal duty or to
refrain from acting beyond their authority. It is issued to correct nonfeasance or misuse of
power.
3. Prohibition: A writ issued by a higher court to prevent a lower court or tribunal from
exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to the rules of natural justice.
4. Certiorari: A writ that is issued to quash a decision, order, or proceedings of an inferior
court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority if it's found to be illegal or beyond jurisdiction.
5. Quo Warranto: A writ that inquires into the legality of a person holding a public office,
demanding them to show by what authority they hold the office.
Importance of Writs:

Page 21 of 48
 1. Protection of Fundamental Rights: Writs serve as a powerful means to safeguard
fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. They ensure that individuals have access
to legal remedies when their rights are violated.
2. Judicial Review: Writs allow the judiciary to review and correct decisions of administrative
bodies and authorities, preventing abuse of power and ensuring legality.
3. Ensuring Accountability: Writs hold public officials accountable for their actions and
decisions. They prevent arbitrary or unjust exercises of authority.
4. Upholding the Rule of Law: Writs are an embodiment of the rule of law, ensuring that
government actions are in accordance with established legal norms and principles.
Relevant Case Laws:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of
India recognized the "basic structure" doctrine, stating that certain features of the Constitution
cannot be altered by constitutional amendments. This case exemplifies the court's use of the writ of
Certiorari to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and protect its essential features.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope
of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the procedure
established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable. This case illustrates the importance of the writ
of Habeas Corpus in protecting individual liberties.
Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): In this case, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional
validity of a law that provided for reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. The court used the writ of Mandamus to ensure that the executive follows the constitutional
provisions and guidelines while implementing affirmative action policies.

Administrative Discretion, Powers of Authorities in implementing Government Policies

Administrative discretion refers to the authority granted to administrative agencies, officials, or
bodies to make decisions and take actions within a certain range of choices, without being bound by
strict rules or guidelines. It allows administrators to adapt to complex and dynamic situations while
implementing government policies and programs. While administrative discretion provides flexibility,
it also poses challenges in terms of ensuring accountability, preventing abuse of power, and
maintaining consistency in decision-making. Let's delve into the concept of administrative discretion
and the powers of authorities to use it in implementing government policies:
Key Aspects of Administrative Discretion:
1. Flexibility: Discretion allows administrators to respond to unique circumstances and tailor
their actions to specific situations, ensuring that policies are effectively implemented.
2. Expertise: Administrators often possess specialized knowledge that enables them to make
informed decisions that might not be possible through strict adherence to rigid rules.
3. Complexity: In complex situations, rigid rules may not cover all aspects. Discretion allows
administrators to consider various factors and make well-informed decisions.
4. Accountability: While discretion provides flexibility, it must be exercised responsibly and
transparently to prevent arbitrary decision-making and abuse of power.
Powers of Authorities in Using Administrative Discretion:
1. Policy Implementation: Authorities have the power to adapt government policies to real-
world situations, ensuring that policies achieve their intended objectives.
2. Case-by-Case Assessment: Discretion enables authorities to assess individual cases on
their merits, avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach.
3. Balancing Interests: Authorities can use discretion to balance competing interests and
achieve the best outcome for all stakeholders.
4. Efficient Resource Allocation: Discretion allows administrators to allocate resources
efficiently based on prevailing circumstances.
5. Emergencies and Uncertainty: Discretion becomes crucial during emergencies or
situations of uncertainty when strict adherence to rules might hinder effective action.
Challenges and Concerns:
1. Inconsistency: Excessive discretion might lead to inconsistent decisions, creating confusion
and undermining the rule of law.
2. Accountability: Unbridled discretion can result in decisions that lack transparency and
accountability, leading to abuse of power.
3. Discrimination: Discretionary decisions could be influenced by personal biases, leading to
discrimination or unequal treatment.
4. Capture by Interest Groups: Interest groups might influence discretionary decisions,
compromising the public interest.
Case Law Example:
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope
of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that

Page 22 of 48
administrative discretion must be exercised fairly, justly, and reasonably. It highlighted the
importance of transparency and the requirement that discretionary decisions be subject to judicial
review.

How Judiciary Controls the Administrative Actions (2)

The judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring that administrative actions are carried out in accordance
with the law, the Constitution, and the principles of justice. The principle of judicial review empowers
the judiciary to review and control the actions of administrative agencies, officials, and bodies to
prevent abuse of power, protect individual rights, and uphold the rule of law. Here's a detailed
explanation of how the judiciary exercises control over administrative actions:
1. Judicial Review: Judicial review is the primary mechanism through which the judiciary exercises
control over administrative actions. It allows courts to examine the legality, constitutionality, and
reasonableness of administrative decisions, ensuring that they are consistent with the law and do
not violate fundamental rights.
2. Grounds for Judicial Review: Courts can review administrative actions on various grounds,
including:
 Ultra Vires: Ensuring that administrative actions are within the scope of the authority
granted by the law or statute.
 Procedural Fairness: Verifying that proper procedures, natural justice, and due process
were followed.
 Unreasonableness: Assessing whether the decision is irrational, arbitrary, or lacking a
rational basis.
 Mala Fides: Examining whether the action was taken in bad faith or with improper motive.
 Legitimate Expectations: Ensuring that authorities fulfill legitimate expectations created
by their own actions.
 Equality and Non-Discrimination: Ensuring that actions do not discriminate unfairly or
violate the principle of equality.
3. Types of Judicial Control: Judicial control over administrative actions can occur through various
mechanisms:
 Writs: Writs such as Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto allow courts to
issue orders directing authorities to perform specific actions, quash decisions, or inquire into
the legality of actions.
 Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Courts can take up cases on behalf of the public or
individuals who might not have the means to approach the court themselves.
 Appeals: Individuals aggrieved by administrative decisions can appeal to higher courts to
have those decisions reviewed and possibly overturned.
 Specialized Tribunals: Tribunals established by law can exercise judicial control over
administrative decisions within their jurisdiction.
4. Role of Principles of Natural Justice: Principles of natural justice, which include the right to a
fair hearing, impartiality, and absence of bias, ensure that administrative decisions are made fairly.
Courts can strike down decisions that violate these principles.
5. Judicial Activism: Judicial activism involves courts taking an active role in reviewing and
correcting administrative actions to ensure justice. This approach allows the judiciary to proactively
protect citizens' rights and hold the executive accountable.
Case Law Example: Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): In this landmark case,
the Supreme Court of India upheld the doctrine of the "basic structure" of the Constitution, ruling
that certain essential features of the Constitution could not be amended. The court exercised control
over legislative and executive actions to protect the Constitution's core values.

Corporations, Its rights, Characteristics, Classification & Functions (2)

Corporations: Rights, Characteristics, Classification, and Functions
A corporation is a legal entity created by law, distinct from its owners, which has rights,
responsibilities, and legal capacity. Corporations play a significant role in modern economies,
facilitating business activities and allowing individuals to pool resources for common goals. Here's a
detailed discussion on corporations, including their rights, characteristics, classification, and
functions:
Characteristics of Corporations:
1. Legal Entity: A corporation is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, meaning it can
own property, enter contracts, and engage in legal actions in its own name.
2. Limited Liability: Shareholders' liability is generally limited to the amount of their
investment. Their personal assets are not at risk for the corporation's debts or obligations.

Page 23 of 48
 3. Perpetual Existence: A corporation's existence is not affected by changes in ownership or
management. It continues to exist even if shareholders or key personnel change.
4. Centralized Management: Corporations are managed by a board of directors elected by
shareholders. Day-to-day operations are typically handled by officers appointed by the
board.
5. Transferable Ownership: Shares of a corporation can be easily bought, sold, or
transferred, allowing for greater liquidity and investment.
6. Separation of Ownership and Control: Shareholders may not be directly involved in the
corporation's management, leading to the separation of ownership and control.
Classification of Corporations:
1. By Purpose:
o For-Profit Corporations: Operate to generate profits for shareholders.
o Non-Profit Corporations: Operate for charitable, educational, or other non-profit
purposes.
2. By Ownership:
o Public Corporations: Shares are publicly traded on stock exchanges, and
ownership is widespread.
o Private Corporations: Shares are held by a limited number of individuals and are
not publicly traded.
Rights of Corporations:
1. Legal Rights: Corporations have legal rights similar to individuals, such as the right to enter
contracts, sue, and be sued.
2. Property Rights: Corporations can own and manage property, assets, and intellectual
property.
3. Limited Liability: Shareholders' liability is limited to their investment.
4. Right to Borrow: Corporations can raise funds by issuing bonds or borrowing from financial
institutions.
5. Right to Sue and Be Sued: Corporations can initiate legal proceedings and be subject to
legal actions.
Functions of Corporations:
1. Business Activities: Corporations engage in various business activities, such as
manufacturing, services, trade, and technology development.
2. Economic Growth: Corporations contribute to economic growth by generating revenue,
creating jobs, and driving innovation.
3. Investment Opportunities: Corporations provide investment opportunities for individuals
looking to gain from the corporation's success.
4. Wealth Creation: Successful corporations generate profits for shareholders, contributing
to their financial well-being.
5. Resource Pooling: Corporations pool resources from multiple shareholders, enabling large-
scale operations and investments.
6. Corporate Social Responsibility: Many corporations engage in philanthropy,
environmental initiatives, and social programs, contributing to society's welfare.

Government Contract, Administrative Function Classifications

Government Contract: Overview and Key Considerations
A government contract is an agreement between a government agency and a private individual,
business, or organization for the provision of goods, services, or works. Government contracts play
a significant role in public procurement and are subject to specific regulations and requirements to
ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability in the use of public funds. Here's an overview of
government contracts and key considerations associated with them:
Key Considerations for Government Contracts:
1. Legal Framework: Government contracts are governed by a combination of laws,
regulations, and policies specific to each jurisdiction. These frameworks ensure that
contracts are awarded and executed in a transparent and accountable manner.
2. Procurement Process: Governments typically follow a formal procurement process that
includes solicitation of bids or proposals, evaluation, selection, and contract award. This
process varies based on the nature of the contract and the government's rules.
3. Competitive Bidding: Many government contracts require competitive bidding, where
interested parties submit bids or proposals in response to a public solicitation. This promotes
fairness and prevents favouritism.
4. Transparency: Governments are expected to be transparent in their contracting processes.
Contracts, bid documents, and related information may be subject to public scrutiny to
ensure accountability.

Page 24 of 48
 5. Equal Opportunity: Government contracts often include provisions to ensure equal
opportunity and prevent discrimination based on factors such as race, gender, or ethnicity.
6. Conflict of Interest: Contractors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could
compromise the fairness or integrity of the procurement process.
7. Performance Standards: Contracts outline specific performance standards, timelines,
quality requirements, and other terms that the contractor must adhere to.
8. Compensation: The contract specifies the compensation or payment terms, which may be
fixed, cost-reimbursable, or based on a combination of factors.
9. Intellectual Property: Ownership and rights to intellectual property developed during the
execution of the contract are often addressed in government contracts.
10. Dispute Resolution: Procedures for resolving disputes between the government and the
contractor, such as mediation or arbitration, are commonly included in contracts.
Types of Government Contracts:
1. Fixed-Price Contracts: The contractor agrees to provide goods or services for a
predetermined price, regardless of actual costs. These contracts transfer more risk to the
contractor.
2. Cost-Reimbursement Contracts: The government reimburses the contractor for allowable
costs incurred during the project, often with a negotiated fee or profit.
3. Time and Materials Contracts: These contracts combine elements of fixed-price and cost-
reimbursement contracts. The contractor is paid for the time and materials used, plus a fixed
fee.
4. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts: These contracts provide
flexibility for the government to order varying quantities of goods or services within a
specified time frame.
Importance and Challenges:
 Economic Impact: Government contracts contribute significantly to the economy by
stimulating economic activity and providing business opportunities to private enterprises.
 Ensuring Accountability: Proper execution of government contracts ensures that public
funds are used efficiently and effectively.
 Ensuring Fairness: Transparent and competitive procurement processes ensure fairness in
awarding contracts and prevent corruption.
 Challenges: Challenges in government contracting include ensuring proper oversight,
preventing fraud and misuse of funds, and addressing concerns related to transparency and
efficiency.
Classification of Administrative Functions
Administrative functions refer to the various tasks and activities carried out by administrative bodies,
agencies, or officials within a government to ensure the smooth functioning of public services and
the implementation of government policies. These functions can be broadly classified into several
categories based on their nature and purpose. Here are the primary classifications of administrative
functions:
1. Legislative Functions: These functions involve the creation and enactment of laws and
regulations. While the primary legislative function is usually performed by the legislative branch
(parliament or congress), administrative bodies may also have a role in drafting regulations that
provide detailed guidelines for implementing laws.
2. Executive Functions: Executive functions are concerned with the implementation of laws,
policies, and decisions made by the legislative branch. These functions involve carrying out day-to-
day operations, executing policies, managing resources, and delivering public services.
Administrative agencies and officials play a significant role in performing executive functions.
3. Judicial Functions: Judicial functions within the administrative context involve resolving
disputes, interpreting laws, and ensuring compliance with regulations. Administrative tribunals and
bodies often handle specific disputes related to administrative matters, providing an alternative to
traditional courts for administrative law-related cases.
4. Regulatory Functions: Regulatory functions involve setting rules, standards, and guidelines to
regulate various sectors and activities within society. Regulatory bodies are responsible for
monitoring compliance, enforcing regulations, and ensuring public safety, consumer protection, and
fair competition.
5. Service Functions: Service functions encompass activities aimed at providing various services
to citizens, businesses, and the community. These services can include healthcare, education, public
transportation, social welfare, and more. Administrative bodies manage and deliver these services
to the public.
6. Planning and Policy Functions: Planning and policy functions involve formulating long-term
strategies, policies, and plans to address societal issues, promote economic growth, and achieve
social objectives. Administrative bodies play a role in drafting and implementing these policies.

Page 25 of 48
7. Coordination Functions: Coordination functions involve managing the interactions and
relationships between various government departments, agencies, and levels of government.
Administrative bodies facilitate communication, collaboration, and coordination among different
entities to ensure coherent and effective governance.
8. Financial Functions: Financial functions involve managing public finances, budgeting, revenue
collection, and financial planning. Administrative bodies ensure that government funds are allocated,
spent, and accounted for in a responsible and transparent manner.
9. Record-Keeping and Documentation Functions: Administrative bodies are responsible for
maintaining records, documents, and archives related to government activities, decisions, and
transactions. Proper record-keeping ensures transparency, accountability, and accessibility of
information.
10. Information and Communication Functions: Information and communication functions
involve disseminating information, providing public access to government data, and maintaining
communication channels between the government and the public.
11. Human Resource Functions: Human resource functions include recruitment, training,
management, and administration of government personnel. Administrative bodies ensure that
qualified individuals are employed and adequately trained to perform their roles effectively.

Droit Administratiff, Vigilance Commission & Ombudsman

Droit Administratif
Droit Administratif, often translated as "Administrative Law," is a unique branch of law that governs
the relationships between individuals and public authorities, as well as the functioning and powers
of administrative bodies and agencies. Originating in France, droit administratif has had a significant
influence on administrative law systems in various countries, particularly in civil law jurisdictions.
Let's explore the concept of droit administratif in more detail:
Key Features of Droit Administratif:
1. Separation of Powers: Droit administratif emphasizes the separation of administrative
functions from judicial and legislative functions. Administrative bodies exercise executive
powers, and droit administratif ensures checks and balances in this context.
2. Governmental Action: The focus of droit administratif is primarily on the actions and
decisions of the government and administrative bodies, rather than on private individuals or
entities.
3. Public Interest: Droit administratif takes into account the public interest and the
government's role in promoting the welfare of society while balancing individual rights.
4. Discretion and Control: The exercise of administrative discretion is a key feature.
However, this discretion is subject to legal controls, ensuring that it is exercised reasonably
and in accordance with legal principles.
5. Specialized Administrative Courts: Some legal systems with a droit administratif
tradition have established specialized administrative courts to handle disputes arising from
administrative decisions, ensuring expertise and specialization.
Origin and Influence:
Droit administratif emerged in France during the 19th century as a response to the expanding role
of the state in various areas of public life. The principles of droit administratif were codified in the
"Code Napoléon" (Code Civil) and later developed further through case law and legal writings. The
principles of droit administratif have had a significant influence on the legal systems of other civil
law jurisdictions, particularly in Europe and parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. These principles
have contributed to the development of administrative law in these countries, emphasizing the
importance of legal controls over governmental actions.
Significance and Challenges:
1. Balancing State Power and Individual Rights: Droit administratif seeks to strike a
balance between the state's need for authority and the protection of individual rights and
freedoms.
2. Ensuring Administrative Accountability: The principles of droit administratif help ensure
that administrative bodies are accountable for their actions and decisions.
3. Legal Certainty: The codification of administrative law principles provides legal certainty
and predictability in dealings with administrative bodies.
4. Complexity and Expertise: The intricate nature of administrative law, as governed by droit
administratif, requires specialized legal knowledge and expertise.
Vigilance Commission: Role, Functions, and Significance
A Vigilance Commission, also known as an Anti-Corruption Commission or Integrity Commission, is
an independent oversight body established by the government to combat corruption, promote
transparency, and ensure accountability in public administration. Vigilance Commissions play a

Page 26 of 48
crucial role in upholding ethical standards, preventing abuse of power, and fostering good
governance. Here's an overview of the role, functions, and significance of Vigilance Commissions:
Role and Objectives:
1. Anti-Corruption Measures: The primary role of a Vigilance Commission is to prevent and
combat corruption within government agencies and public institutions.
2. Transparency and Accountability: Vigilance Commissions work to ensure that
government actions are transparent, accountable, and in accordance with established rules
and procedures.
3. Whistleblower Protection: They create mechanisms for reporting corruption and
protecting whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing within the government.
4. Investigative Authority: Vigilance Commissions often have the authority to investigate
allegations of corruption, misuse of power, and ethical violations by public officials.
5. Policy Recommendations: They may recommend policy changes and reforms to enhance
integrity, prevent corruption, and improve governance.
Functions and Powers:
1. Investigations: Vigilance Commissions conduct investigations into allegations of corruption
and unethical conduct by public officials.
2. Surveillance: They monitor government activities to identify potential instances of
corruption or abuse of power.
3. Whistleblower Protection: Vigilance Commissions establish mechanisms to protect
individuals who report corruption from retaliation.
4. Educational Programs: They conduct awareness campaigns and educational programs to
promote ethical behavior and raise awareness about corruption issues.
5. Advisory Role: Vigilance Commissions may provide advice to government agencies on ways
to improve transparency and prevent corruption.
6. Recommendations and Reports: They issue reports with findings and recommendations
based on their investigations.
Significance and Impact:
1. Corruption Prevention: Vigilance Commissions play a critical role in preventing corruption,
fostering a culture of integrity, and deterring public officials from engaging in unethical
behavior.
2. Public Trust: Their actions enhance public trust in government institutions by
demonstrating a commitment to transparency and accountability.
3. Ethical Governance: Vigilance Commissions promote ethical governance practices, thereby
improving the overall functioning of public administration.
4. Effective Public Service: By investigating and addressing corrupt practices, they
contribute to the efficient and effective delivery of public services.
5. Enhanced Rule of Law: Vigilance Commissions contribute to upholding the rule of law by
ensuring that government actions are consistent with legal and ethical standards.
Challenges and Considerations:
1. Independence: Vigilance Commissions must be truly independent from political influence
to effectively combat corruption.
2. Resource Constraints: Adequate resources are required for investigations, staff training,
and public awareness campaigns.
3. Political Will: Effective anti-corruption efforts require strong political will and commitment
to implement the recommendations of Vigilance Commissions.

Institution of Ombudsman
An Ombudsman, often referred to as a "public advocate" or "ombuds," is an independent official
appointed to investigate complaints and grievances against government agencies, public institutions,
and officials. The role of the Ombudsman is to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness in
administrative actions, and to protect the rights and interests of citizens. Ombudsman institutions
exist in many countries as a mechanism for citizens to seek redress and hold government entities
accountable. Here's an overview of the role, functions, and significance of Ombudsmen:
Role and Objectives:
1. Complaint Resolution: The primary role of an Ombudsman is to receive and investigate
complaints from individuals who believe they have been treated unfairly, unjustly, or
improperly by government agencies or officials.
2. Redress and Remedies: Ombudsmen facilitate redress by working to resolve complaints
and grievances through mediation, negotiation, and recommendations for corrective actions.
3. Improving Public Services: By identifying systemic issues, inefficiencies, and
shortcomings in government services, Ombudsmen contribute to the improvement of public
administration and service delivery.

Page 27 of 48
 4. Promoting Accountability: Ombudsmen hold public officials and institutions accountable
for their actions and decisions, ensuring that they adhere to legal and ethical standards.
5. Transparency: Ombudsmen contribute to transparency by investigating complaints
impartially and making their findings and recommendations public.
Functions and Powers:
1. Investigations: Ombudsmen investigate complaints related to administrative actions,
decisions, and behavior of government entities and officials.
2. Mediation: They facilitate dialogue between complainants and government agencies to
resolve disputes and find mutually acceptable solutions.
3. Recommendations: Ombudsmen make recommendations for corrective actions,
improvements, and changes to administrative processes to prevent similar issues in the
future.
4. Advocacy: They advocate for fairness, transparency, and accountability in government
actions and decision-making.
5. Awareness and Education: Ombudsmen raise awareness about citizens' rights, the role
of the Ombudsman institution, and avenues for seeking redress.
Significance and Impact:
1. Citizen Empowerment: Ombudsmen empower citizens by providing a platform to voice
concerns and seek resolution, even when dealing with powerful government entities.
2. Confidence in Governance: The presence of an independent Ombudsman institution
fosters public trust in government institutions by demonstrating a commitment to
transparency and accountability.
3. Conflict Prevention: By addressing complaints and grievances at an early stage,
Ombudsmen contribute to the prevention of conflicts and disputes.
4. Administrative Improvement: Recommendations made by Ombudsmen often lead to
improvements in government processes, procedures, and service delivery.
Challenges and Considerations:
1. Independence: Ombudsmen must maintain independence from political influence to
effectively investigate complaints and grievances.
2. Resource Constraints: Adequate resources are essential for conducting thorough
investigations and providing effective redress.
3. Limited Enforcement Power: Ombudsmen's recommendations are usually non-binding,
which can limit their impact if government agencies choose not to implement them.
The Institution of Ombudsman:
1. Independence: The Ombudsman institution is typically established as an independent and
autonomous body to ensure that investigations are conducted impartially and without
influence from political or administrative pressures.
2. Government Oversight: Ombudsman institutions operate as a check on government
power, ensuring that citizens have a mechanism to seek redress when they feel wronged by
government actions.
3. Non-Judicial Remedy: The institution of Ombudsman provides a non-judicial avenue for
individuals to resolve complaints and grievances, thereby reducing the burden on the judicial
system.
4. Expertise: Ombudsmen often possess specialized knowledge and expertise in
administrative matters, enabling them to assess complaints effectively.
5. Educational and Preventive Role: Ombudsman institutions play an educational role by
raising awareness about citizens' rights and promoting good governance practices. They also
contribute to the prevention of conflicts by addressing issues before they escalate.
6. Recommendations and Advocacy: Ombudsman institutions make recommendations for
corrective actions, policy changes, and administrative improvements based on their
investigations. They also advocate for transparency and fairness in government operations.
Variations and Adaptations:
The concept of the Ombudsman has been adapted and implemented in various countries and
jurisdictions, leading to variations in structure, scope, and jurisdiction. Some Ombudsman
institutions specialize in certain sectors (e.g., human rights, financial institutions) while others have
a broader mandate.

Differentiate Tribunals & Courts, Explain reasons for growth of Tribunals in India
Differentiating Tribunals and Courts:
Tribunals:
1. Specialization: Tribunals are specialized bodies established to deal with specific areas of
law or expertise, such as tax, labor, environmental, or administrative matters.

Page 28 of 48
 2. Procedure: Tribunals often have simplified procedures compared to traditional courts,
allowing for quicker resolution of cases and reduced legal formalities.
3. Expertise: Tribunal members typically have expertise in the subject matter they handle,
ensuring informed and specialized decisions.
4. Flexibility: Tribunals can adapt their procedures to the specific needs of the cases they
handle, providing more flexibility compared to courts.
5. Quasi-Judicial Functions: Tribunals perform quasi-judicial functions, making decisions
that affect the rights and interests of individuals or organizations.
Courts:
1. General Jurisdiction: Courts have a broader jurisdiction and can hear a wide range of
cases, both civil and criminal, that fall under their legal authority.
2. Legal Formalities: Courts follow formal legal procedures and adhere to the rules of
evidence, resulting in more complex and time-consuming processes.
3. Judicial Review: Courts have the authority to conduct judicial review, ensuring that laws
and government actions are consistent with the constitution.
4. Precedent: Courts create legal precedents through their decisions, which influence future
cases and contribute to the development of the legal system.
5. Adversarial System: Courts often follow an adversarial system, where parties present their
arguments and evidence, and judges make impartial decisions.
Reasons for the Growth of Tribunals in India:
1. Specialization: As laws and regulations become more complex, the need for specialized
expertise in certain areas of law increases. Tribunals offer a forum for handling specific legal
issues efficiently.
2. Case Backlog: Traditional courts often face heavy caseloads, leading to delays in justice
delivery. Tribunals can help alleviate this backlog by focusing on particular types of cases.
3. Quicker Resolution: Tribunals typically have streamlined procedures, enabling faster
resolution of cases compared to traditional courts.
4. Technical Matters: Many legal disputes involve technical or specialized subject matters,
such as taxation or environmental regulations. Tribunals with experts can address these
issues more effectively.
5. Efficiency: Tribunals can adopt procedures that suit their specific needs, which often results
in quicker decisions and reduced legal costs.
6. Decentralization of Dispute Resolution: Establishing tribunals allows for the
decentralization of dispute resolution, making justice more accessible to citizens across
different regions.
7. Reducing Court Burden: By delegating certain types of cases to tribunals, regular courts
can focus on more complex and general legal matters.
8. Government Accountability: Administrative and regulatory matters often involve disputes
between citizens and government bodies. Tribunals provide a specialized avenue for
addressing such grievances.
9. Judicial Workload: Diverting specific cases to tribunals can help alleviate the burden on
traditional courts, allowing them to focus on constitutional, civil, and criminal matters.

Define Civil Services, Functions, Powers & Duties of UPSC

Civil services refer to the administrative machinery and personnel responsible for implementing
government policies, managing public affairs, and delivering public services. Civil servants, also
known as bureaucrats or public servants, play a critical role in the functioning of the government by
executing various administrative tasks, policy implementation, and ensuring the smooth operation
of public institutions. They are the backbone of government administration and contribute to the
effective governance of a country.
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC): Functions, Powers, and Duties
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is a constitutional body established under Article 315
of the Indian Constitution. It is responsible for conducting examinations for recruitment to various
civil services and posts within the central government of India. The UPSC plays a pivotal role in
selecting candidates for prestigious administrative positions and ensuring the merit-based selection
of civil servants. Here are the key functions, powers, and duties of the UPSC:
Functions:
1. Recruitment: The primary function of the UPSC is to conduct competitive examinations for
the recruitment of candidates to various civil services, including the Indian Administrative
Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS), Indian Foreign Service (IFS), and other central
government services.
2. Conducting Examinations: The UPSC conducts a range of examinations, such as the Civil
Services Examination (CSE), Engineering Services Examination (ESE), Combined Defence

Page 29 of 48
 Services Examination (CDSE), and others, to select candidates for different categories of
posts.
3. Advisory Role: The UPSC provides advice to the President and the Governors of states on
matters related to appointments, promotions, and transfers of civil servants.
4. Disciplinary Matters: The UPSC is consulted on disciplinary matters affecting civil servants
and can be approached for advice on allegations of misconduct or violations of the code of
conduct.
5. Appointment of Officers: The UPSC plays a role in the appointment of officers at various
levels in the civil services, ensuring merit-based selections.
Powers:
1. Autonomy: The UPSC operates autonomously and independently in conducting
examinations and making recommendations for appointments.
2. Constitutional Power: The UPSC is established under the Constitution of India, giving it
constitutional legitimacy and authority.
3. Rule-Making Authority: The UPSC has the authority to prescribe rules for the recruitment
process, examination procedures, and other related matters.
4. Selection of Experts: The UPSC can involve experts from various fields to assist in the
evaluation and assessment of candidates in specialized examinations.
Duties:
1. Conducting Examinations: The UPSC is duty-bound to conduct examinations in a fair and
transparent manner to ensure the selection of deserving candidates.
2. Safeguarding Merit: The UPSC's foremost duty is to safeguard the principle of meritocracy
in the recruitment and selection process.
3. Maintaining Standards: The UPSC ensures that the recruitment process maintains high
standards of integrity, competence, and suitability for various positions.
4. Equal Opportunity: The UPSC is responsible for providing equal opportunity to all
candidates, regardless of their background, to participate in the examination process.

Short Notes
Contractual Liability of Government
Contractual liability of the government is a significant aspect of administrative law that pertains to
the legal responsibilities and obligations of government entities when entering into contracts. In the
Indian context, the principles governing contractual liability of the government are largely shaped
by statutes, judicial precedents, and administrative practices. Let's delve into this topic with a
comprehensive examination, including definitions, essential components, relevant acts, landmark
cases, and exclusions.

Definition and Essential Components: Contractual liability of the government refers to the
accountability of government bodies or agencies for the fulfilment of contractual obligations. This
liability arises when the government, acting as a contracting party, enters into agreements with
private individuals, entities, or other governments for various purposes, such as procurement, public
works projects, and services. The government, like any other contracting party, is bound by the
terms and conditions of the contract.
Essential components of contractual liability include:
1. Offer and Acceptance: There must be a valid offer from one party and a clear acceptance
by the other. Both parties should have the legal capacity to enter into a contract.
2. Consideration: A contract must involve a quid pro quo, where both parties provide
something of value to each other.
3. Intention to Create Legal Relations: Both parties should intend for the contract to create
legally binding obligations.
4. Legal Object: The contract's purpose must not be illegal or against public policy.
5. Certainty of Terms: The terms and conditions of the contract should be clear and specific.
Relevant Acts: The primary statute governing contractual liability of the government in India is the
Indian Contract Act, 1872. This Act lays down the general principles of contract law applicable to
both government and private parties. Government contracts are subject to the same rules of offer,
acceptance, consideration, and other fundamental elements as contracts between private parties.
Landmark Cases:
1. State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid: This case established that the government can be held
liable for breach of contract like any other party, and remedies available to private parties
for breach of contract can be sought against the government as well.

Page 30 of 48
 2. Union of India v. Rallia Ram: The Supreme Court ruled that the government is bound by
the terms of the contract, and if it breaches those terms, it can be held liable to compensate
the other party.
Exclusions and Limitations: While the government can be held liable for contractual breaches,
certain exclusions and limitations exist. These include:
1. Sovereign Immunity: The doctrine of sovereign immunity, though limited, can protect the
government from certain claims arising from contracts. However, this immunity is not
absolute and can be waived in specific cases.
2. Public Policy: If a contract is against public policy or in violation of laws, the government's
liability may be limited or excluded.
3. Government's Discretion: Government contracts often involve discretionary decisions,
and the government might be exempted from liability if the breach was due to a bona fide
exercise of discretion.
In conclusion, contractual liability of the government involves the legal obligations that government
entities bear when entering into contracts. This liability is governed by the Contract Act, 1872, and
supported by judicial interpretations. While the government can be held accountable for contractual
breaches, considerations such as sovereign immunity, public policy, and governmental discretion can
impact the extent of this liability. The legal framework surrounding governmental contractual liability
continues to evolve in line with modern jurisprudence, ensuring that government contracts uphold
the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Advantages of Administrative Adjudication

Administrative adjudication, a crucial facet of administrative law, involves the resolution of disputes
and the application of legal rules by administrative agencies or bodies. This process provides an
alternative to traditional court proceedings and has several advantages in the context of modern
jurisprudence and the Indian legal system. Below, I elaborate on the advantages of administrative
adjudication, supported by relevant definitions, illustrations, legal provisions, and landmark cases:
Definition and Explanation: Administrative adjudication refers to the process by which
administrative agencies or bodies make determinations on legal rights, obligations, or duties of
individuals, entities, or even the government itself. It is distinct from regular court proceedings and
is often used by specialized administrative bodies to address issues within their respective domains.
Advantages:
1. Expertise and Specialization: Administrative agencies are often staffed with experts in
their respective fields. This specialized knowledge enables them to better understand
complex technical, scientific, or industry-specific matters, resulting in more informed and
accurate decisions.
Illustration: In environmental matters, an environmental agency's expertise in assessing
pollution levels and their impact on ecosystems allows for informed decision-making on
regulatory actions.
2. Efficiency and Speed: Administrative adjudication is generally quicker than traditional
court proceedings. This efficiency reduces the burden on overloaded courts and provides
timely resolutions to disputes.
Legal Provision: The Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 in India aims to expedite
the resolution of disputes related to service matters of government employees through the
Central Administrative Tribunal.
3. Reduced Formalities: Administrative proceedings are often less formal than court
proceedings. This can facilitate access to justice for individuals who might find traditional
litigation intimidating or expensive.
4. Cost-Effectiveness: Administrative adjudication tends to be less expensive than court
litigation. This is particularly beneficial for parties who cannot afford the high costs
associated with a full-fledged court trial.
Landmark Case: In the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, the Supreme Court
emphasized the importance of having administrative tribunals for certain matters to reduce
legal expenses and ensure quicker justice.
5. Flexibility: Administrative agencies have the flexibility to design procedures that suit the
specific nature of the issues they deal with. This adaptability allows for tailored approaches
to dispute resolution.

Page 31 of 48
 6. Technical Expertise: Administrative agencies can make decisions based on their technical
expertise, ensuring that the adjudication process is well-informed and up-to-date with
industry standards and practices.
7. Resource Allocation: Administrative adjudication enables the judiciary to focus on more
substantial constitutional and legal issues, freeing them from handling a large number of
cases that can be resolved through administrative bodies.
8. Confidentiality: Certain administrative matters, such as trade secrets or sensitive personal
information, can be handled confidentially within the administrative process, protecting the
interests of the parties involved.
9. Appeal Mechanism: While administrative decisions can be challenged in higher courts, this
hierarchical appeal mechanism often ensures that only substantial legal issues are elevated
to the courts, avoiding overburdening the judiciary with routine matters.

Quo-Warranto
"Quo warranto" is a Latin term that translates to "by what authority." It is a legal remedy used to
challenge a person's right to hold a public office, position, or authority. This remedy focuses on
ensuring that individuals occupying public offices or positions do so lawfully and in accordance with
the qualifications and requirements set by law. In the Indian legal context, quo warranto is an
important concept within the realm of administrative law. Let's explore this concept further, including
its definition, essentials, relevant acts, and landmark case law:

Definition and Essentials: Quo warranto is a legal action that seeks to inquire into the authority
or right of an individual to hold a public office. It is filed to challenge the eligibility, qualifications, or
legal authority of a person to occupy a particular position.
Essential elements of a quo warranto action include:
1. Public Office: The remedy of quo warranto is applicable only to public offices or positions,
not private ones.
2. Lack of Qualification or Authority: The petitioner must demonstrate (burden of proof)
that the person holding the office lacks the necessary qualifications or legal authority to do
so.
3. Legal Right to Challenge: The petitioner must have a personal interest in the matter and
must demonstrate that the continued occupancy of the office affects their legal rights.
Landmark Case Law: The landmark case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Election Commission
of India (2016) is of utmost significance in understanding the concept of quo warranto in India. In
this case, the petitioner, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, sought the issuance of a writ of quo warranto
challenging the election of Ms. Jayalalitha as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner
contended that Ms. Jayalalitha's conviction in a disproportionate assets case rendered her
disqualified from holding public office. The Supreme Court, while addressing the question of whether
quo warranto could be invoked against the Chief Minister, held that quo warranto was available
against any person who held a public office created by the Constitution, statute, or other legal
provisions. The Court emphasized that the remedy of quo warranto was a valuable constitutional
remedy to ensure that persons holding public offices did so in accordance with the law. While the
Court dismissed the petition on the specific facts of the case, it reaffirmed the importance of the quo
warranto remedy in upholding the purity of public offices.

Transparency & Right to Info

Transparency and Right to Information: An Elaborative Discussion
Transparency and the Right to Information (RTI) are fundamental principles that play a pivotal role
in modern governance and administrative law. They empower citizens with the ability to access
government information, hold public authorities accountable, and ensure the effective functioning of
democratic societies. This discussion will delve into the concepts of transparency and the Right to
Information, including their definitions, key components, legal framework, landmark cases, and their
relevance in contemporary jurisprudence:
Transparency:
Definition: Transparency refers to the open sharing of information, data, and processes within
government and other public institutions. It involves making information readily accessible to the
public, thereby promoting accountability, preventing corruption, and enabling informed decision-
making.
Key Components:

Page 32 of 48
 1. Access to Information: Public institutions provide access to information about their
activities, decisions, and policies, allowing citizens to understand how government functions
and how resources are utilized.
2. Disclosure: Governments proactively disclose relevant information, rather than waiting for
requests. This proactive approach increases public trust and minimizes the need for citizens
to file formal requests.
3. Accountability: Transparency fosters accountability by allowing citizens to scrutinize
government actions and hold officials responsible for their decisions and behavior.
4. Participation: Transparency encourages citizen engagement in the policymaking process,
ensuring that decisions are informed and reflect the interests of the public.
Right to Information (RTI):
Definition: The Right to Information (RTI) is a legal framework that grants citizens the right to
access information held by public authorities. It empowers citizens to request and obtain information
related to government activities, decisions, policies, and expenditure.
Legal Framework: In India, the Right to Information Act, 2005 is the primary legislation that
provides citizens with the right to access information held by public authorities. The Act is based on
the premise that transparency is essential for a functioning democracy and aims to promote
accountability and good governance.
Key Provisions of the RTI Act:
1. Public Authorities: The Act covers all government and public authorities at central, state,
and local levels.
2. Information Disclosure: Public authorities are required to proactively disclose certain
categories of information, including their functions, decisions, and budgets.
3. Request for Information: Citizens can file a request for specific information from public
authorities. Authorities are obligated to provide the requested information within a stipulated
timeframe.
4. Exceptions: The Act includes provisions for protecting certain sensitive information, such
as national security, commercial interests, and personal privacy.
Landmark Case: The case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay
(2011) is a landmark judgment that affirmed the importance of the RTI Act in promoting
transparency and accountability. The Supreme Court held that the right to information is a
fundamental right flowing from the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution. The case clarified that citizens have the right to access information held by public
authorities, subject to reasonable restrictions.
Relevance in Contemporary Jurisprudence:
1. E-Governance and Digitalization: Advances in technology have facilitated the digital
dissemination of information, making transparency more achievable and efficient.
2. Anti-Corruption Measures: Transparency and the RTI Act are essential tools in combating
corruption by exposing corrupt practices and enabling public scrutiny.
3. Participatory Democracy: Transparency and the RTI Act promote citizen participation in
governance, leading to policies that better reflect the needs of the people.
4. Government Accountability: Public officials and authorities are held accountable for their
decisions and actions, enhancing overall governance.
5. Citizen Empowerment: The right to information empowers citizens to actively engage in
civic affairs and demand greater accountability from the government.

Judicial Review
Judicial Review: An In-Depth Exploration

Judicial review is a cornerstone of modern legal systems and administrative law, allowing courts to
assess the legality and constitutionality of government actions, decisions, and policies. It serves as
a mechanism to ensure the separation of powers, uphold the rule of law, and protect individual
rights. This comprehensive discussion on judicial review will cover its definition, principles, grounds,
scope, relevant acts, landmark cases, and its significance in contemporary jurisprudence:
Definition and Principles: Judicial review refers to the authority of courts to review and potentially
invalidate actions taken by the executive and legislative branches of government. It ensures that
these actions are consistent with the constitution, statutes, and established legal principles.
Key principles of judicial review include:
1. Supremacy of the Constitution: The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any
law or action inconsistent with it can be struck down by the courts.

Page 33 of 48
 2. Separation of Powers: Judicial review maintains a balance of power among the three
branches of government—executive, legislative, and judiciary—preventing any branch from
overstepping its authority.
3. Rule of Law: Judicial review ensures that government actions adhere to established legal
principles, preventing arbitrary and unlawful exercises of power.
Grounds for Judicial Review: Courts can exercise judicial review on various grounds, including:
1. Unconstitutionality: Actions that violate constitutional provisions or principles are subject
to review.
2. Ultra Vires: Government actions that go beyond the powers conferred upon them by law
can be invalidated.
3. Procedural Impropriety: Judicial review can be invoked if proper procedures are not
followed in making decisions.
4. Irrationality: If a decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have
made it, it may be quashed.
5. Illegality: Actions that contravene existing laws or regulations can be challenged.
Scope and Relevant Acts: The scope of judicial review varies among legal systems. In India, the
power of judicial review is derived from the Constitution of India itself. Article 13 empowers courts
to strike down laws that violate fundamental rights, and Article 32 and Article 226 provide for the
enforcement of fundamental rights through writs. Additionally, various statutes may provide for
specific mechanisms of judicial review in specialized areas, such as administrative law,
environmental law, and consumer protection law.
Landmark Cases:
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: This case in India marked a turning point in
constitutional law. The Supreme Court held that while the Parliament can amend the
Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: In this case, the Supreme Court broadened the scope
of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and established the principle of procedural
fairness.
Significance in Contemporary Jurisprudence:
1. Protection of Fundamental Rights: Judicial review ensures that government actions do
not infringe upon individuals' fundamental rights.
2. Check on Executive Power: It prevents misuse or abuse of executive authority by holding
government actions accountable.
3. Constitutional Interpretation: Courts play a crucial role in interpreting constitutional
provisions and maintaining their sanctity.
4. Accountability and Transparency: Judicial review promotes transparency and holds the
government accountable for its decisions.
5. Human Rights Protection: Courts use judicial review to protect human rights and ensure
adherence to international obligations.

Right to Information Act, 2005 (2)

The Right to Information Act, 2005: A Comprehensive Overview
The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) is a significant piece of legislation in India that
empowers citizens to access information held by public authorities. It aims to promote transparency,
accountability, and good governance by allowing citizens to scrutinize government actions, decisions,
and policies. This detailed discussion will cover the various aspects of the RTI Act, including its
objectives, provisions, procedures, exemptions, impact, and its role in contemporary Indian
jurisprudence:
Objectives: The primary objectives of the RTI Act include:
1. Promoting Transparency: The Act aims to bring transparency in the functioning of
government bodies by making information accessible to the public.
2. Enhancing Accountability: By enabling citizens to access information, the Act promotes
accountability by subjecting government actions to public scrutiny.
3. Empowering Citizens: The Act empowers citizens to participate in democratic processes
and hold government authorities responsible for their decisions.
Key Provisions and Procedures:
1. Scope: The RTI Act applies to all government and public authorities at the central, state,
and local levels.
2. Information Disclosure: Public authorities are required to proactively disclose certain
categories of information on their websites or through other means.

Page 34 of 48
 3. Request for Information: Citizens can file a formal request for specific information from
public authorities. The request should be made in writing or electronically.
4. Timeframe: Authorities must respond within 30 days of receiving the request. In case of
life or liberty of a person being involved, the response must be provided within 48 hours.
5. Fees: A nominal fee is charged for filing an RTI application. Fees vary based on the type of
information and the mode of request.
6. Exemptions: While the Act promotes transparency, certain categories of information are
exempted from disclosure, such as matters related to national security and personal privacy.
7. Appeal Mechanism: If the information is denied or not provided within the specified time,
the applicant can file an appeal to a higher authority within the same public authority or to
the Information Commission.
8. Information Commissions: Central Information Commission (CIC) at the central level and
State Information Commissions (SICs) at the state level oversee the implementation of the
Act and hear appeals.
Impact and Significance:
1. Empowerment of Citizens: The RTI Act has empowered citizens to access government
information, encouraging active participation in governance.
2. Enhanced Accountability: Public officials are more accountable for their actions, as they
know that their decisions are subject to public scrutiny.
3. Corruption Control: The Act has helped expose cases of corruption, promoting
transparency and accountability.
4. Strengthening Democracy: The Act contributes to a more informed citizenry, facilitating
better decision-making and policy formulation.
5. Good Governance: The Act promotes transparency and accountability, key pillars of good
governance.
6. Judicial and Media Accountability: Both the judiciary and the media have been held
accountable for their decisions and actions under the RTI Act.
Challenges and Future Considerations: While the RTI Act has been instrumental in promoting
transparency and accountability, challenges remain, including the misuse of the Act, the need for
efficient implementation, and addressing issues related to exemptions and delays.

Lok Pal
Lokpal: A Detailed Overview
The Lokpal is an anti-corruption ombudsman institution established to address issues related to
corruption in public offices and government agencies. The concept of a Lokpal has been an important
part of India's anti-corruption discourse, and the institution was formally established through the
Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. This comprehensive discussion will cover various aspects of the
Lokpal, including its objectives, structure, powers, challenges, and its role in contemporary Indian
governance:
Objectives: The primary objectives of the Lokpal are to:
1. Combat Corruption: The Lokpal is aimed at investigating and preventing corruption by
public officials, including those in high-ranking positions.
2. Enhance Accountability: By investigating allegations of corruption, the Lokpal promotes
accountability and ensures that public officials are held responsible for their actions.
3. Safeguard Public Resources: The institution aims to protect public resources from misuse
and embezzlement, thereby ensuring effective utilization for public welfare.
Structure and Composition: The Lokpal is composed of a chairperson and a maximum of eight
members, including judicial and non-judicial members. The appointment process involves a selection
committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of the Opposition
in the Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India, and an eminent jurist nominated by the President.
Powers and Functions:
1. Investigative Authority: The Lokpal has the authority to investigate allegations of
corruption against public officials, including high-ranking politicians and bureaucrats.
2. Jurisdiction: It covers matters involving the Central government, its employees, and
entities under its control.
3. Prosecution: The Lokpal can initiate prosecution in cases where it finds evidence of
corruption.
4. Whistleblower Protection: The Act provides protection to whistleblowers who expose
corruption.
5. Public Awareness: The Lokpal educates the public about the ill effects of corruption and
encourages citizens to report instances of corruption.

Page 35 of 48
Challenges and Criticisms:
1. Delayed Implementation: The establishment of the Lokpal was delayed for several years
after the passage of the legislation, leading to concerns about political will.
2. Jurisdictional Issues: The Lokpal's jurisdiction covers only central government entities,
leaving out state-level corruption.
3. Autonomy: Concerns have been raised about the autonomy of the institution due to the
appointment process involving politicians.
4. Capacity and Resources: Adequate resources and capacity are essential for the effective
functioning of the Lokpal.
Role in Contemporary Indian Governance:
1. Corruption Deterrence: The mere presence of the Lokpal acts as a deterrent against
corruption among public officials.
2. Accountability: The Lokpal ensures accountability by providing a mechanism for citizens to
file complaints against corrupt officials.
3. Transparency: Investigations and proceedings conducted by the Lokpal contribute to
transparency in the government's functioning.
4. Public Trust: The Lokpal enhances public trust in government institutions by demonstrating
the commitment to addressing corruption.
In conclusion, the Lokpal is a crucial institution in India's fight against corruption. While its
establishment and functioning have faced challenges, it remains an important mechanism for
ensuring transparency, accountability, and good governance. The role of the Lokpal in contemporary
Indian governance underscores the commitment to upholding the principles of integrity, fairness,
and justice in public administration.

AK Kraipak V. Union of India (2)

A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India: Case Analysis

Background: The case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India is a landmark judgment in Indian
administrative law that dealt with the appointment of members to the Indian Administrative Service
(IAS) and the Indian Police Service (IPS) through the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control,
and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The case involved allegations of arbitrariness and unfairness in the
selection process.
Facts: The case revolved around the appointments of probationary officers to the IAS and IPS. The
selection process involved the formation of a selection board consisting of members from the
administrative and police services. The petitioner, A.K. Kraipak, contended that the selection process
was unfair and arbitrary because the members of the selection board were not adequately qualified
to assess the suitability of candidates. The petitioner also argued that the rules allowed for excessive
delegation of power to state governments.
Party Positions: The petitioner, A.K. Kraipak, argued that the selection process was vitiated by the
lack of qualified members in the selection board. He contended that the appointments were arbitrary
and violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought the quashing of the appointments
made under the impugned rules. The Union of India, representing the government, defended the
selection process and argued that the classification of candidates was not arbitrary. The government
contended that the selection board members had sufficient expertise to evaluate the candidates.
Judgment: The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justice K. Subba Rao, ruled in favour
of the petitioner and held that the appointments made under the impugned rules were arbitrary and
lacked fairness. The Court held that the members of the selection board did not have the necessary
qualifications to assess the suitability of candidates for the IAS and IPS (against the Government
issued Indian Forest Services Recruitment). The Ex-officio Chairman of Selection Board applied for
the same position as well as he was on the selection board for this position. The Court observed that
the selection process should be based on the assessment of the individual's personality, character,
and potential, and this assessment required expertise. The Court also emphasized that
administrative tribunals should be established to handle such matters where technical expertise is
required for decision-making. The Court held that an expert body should be constituted to determine
the suitability of candidates for the IAS and IPS.
Judgment Analysis: The judgment in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India marked a significant shift in
administrative law jurisprudence in India. It highlighted the importance of expertise and
specialization in administrative decision-making processes. The Court emphasized that decisions
affecting an individual's career and prospects should be made by qualified experts to ensure fairness

Page 36 of 48
and transparency. The case laid the foundation for the establishment of administrative tribunals in
India, which have become an integral part of the administrative justice system. The judgment
underscored the principle that decision-making bodies should be composed of individuals with the
necessary expertise to make informed and fair decisions.

Central Vigilance Function (2)

The Central Vigilance Function: An In-Depth Examination
The central vigilance function is a critical aspect of governance that focuses on preventing corruption,
promoting transparency, and ensuring accountability in government organizations and public
institutions. It involves the establishment of mechanisms to detect and address instances of
misconduct, fraud, and unethical behavior within the government.
Definition and Objectives: The central vigilance function refers to the system and mechanisms
put in place to monitor, prevent, and address corruption, fraud, and other unethical practices within
government organizations. Its primary objectives include:
1. Preventing Corruption: The central vigilance function aims to deter and prevent corrupt
practices by implementing effective anti-corruption measures.
2. Ensuring Transparency: It promotes transparency by monitoring the conduct of officials
and ensuring that government actions are accountable and free from manipulation.
3. Detecting Misconduct: The function includes mechanisms to detect instances of
misconduct, unethical behavior, and misuse of power within government organizations.
Components of the Central Vigilance Function:
1. Vigilance Units: Government organizations often have dedicated vigilance units responsible
for detecting, investigating, and preventing corruption and other wrongdoings.
2. Whistleblower Protection: Providing protection to whistleblowers who report instances of
corruption or misconduct is crucial to ensure a safe environment for reporting.
3. Code of Conduct: Developing and enforcing a comprehensive code of conduct for
government officials and employees to ensure ethical behavior.
4. Investigations: Conducting thorough and impartial investigations into alleged cases of
corruption, fraud, and misconduct.
5. Awareness and Training: Promoting awareness about ethics and integrity through training
programs, workshops, and campaigns.
Legal Framework: The Vigilance Manual, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Act, 2003, and
various service rules provide the legal framework for the central vigilance function in India. The CVC
Act establishes the Central Vigilance Commission, an apex vigilance institution that supervises
vigilance activities, promotes integrity, and advises on anti-corruption measures.
Challenges:
1. Political Interference: Maintaining the independence and autonomy of vigilance bodies
can be challenging due to potential political influence.
2. Lack of Awareness: Limited awareness about vigilance procedures and protection
mechanisms among employees can hinder the effectiveness of the function.
3. Whistleblower Retaliation: Fear of retaliation or lack of proper protection can discourage
whistleblowers from reporting misconduct.
4. Resource Constraints: Adequate funding and resources are required to establish and
maintain effective vigilance mechanisms.
Role in Contemporary Governance:
1. Corruption Prevention: The central vigilance function plays a pivotal role in preventing
corrupt practices within government organizations, contributing to good governance.
2. Transparency and Accountability: By monitoring and investigating government actions,
the function ensures transparency and holds officials accountable for their conduct.
3. Public Trust: An efficient vigilance system enhances public trust in government institutions
by demonstrating the commitment to ethical behavior and integrity.
4. Effective Governance: Vigilance mechanisms contribute to efficient and responsible
governance by deterring misconduct and fraud.

Kinds of Corporations
In the realm of Administrative Law, corporations are entities that often operate within a regulatory
framework defined by statutes, and their functions and powers are subject to legal scrutiny. In India,
the administrative control over corporations is governed by various statutes. Let's delve into different
kinds of corporations and their attributes:

Page 37 of 48
 1. Statutory Corporations:
o Definition: Statutory corporations are entities created by a specific statute or law.
o Illustration: The Airports Authority of India (AAI) is a statutory corporation
established under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994.
o Objects: The objects of a statutory corporation are explicitly mentioned in the
enabling statute. For example, AAI aims to provide safe and efficient air
transportation services.
2. Government Companies:
o Definition: Government companies are formed under the Companies Act, 2013,
and are owned by the government.
o Illustration: National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) is a government company
established under the Companies Act.
o Objects: Government companies may engage in various activities, such as power
generation, with the primary objective of serving public interest.
3. Municipal Corporations:
o Definition: Municipal corporations are local governing bodies responsible for urban
administration.
o Illustration: The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) is a municipal
corporation governing Mumbai.
o Objects: Municipal corporations are tasked with providing civic amenities, urban
planning, and local governance.
Objects, Functions, Powers, and Boundaries:
 Objects: The objects of a corporation are the specific purposes for which it is established.
These are explicitly stated in the relevant statutes.
 Functions: Functions represent the day-to-day activities that a corporation undertakes to
achieve its objects. For instance, a municipal corporation's functions include waste
management and urban planning.
 Powers: Powers refer to the legal authority granted to a corporation to carry out its
functions. These powers are outlined in the enabling statutes.
 Boundaries: The boundaries of a corporation are defined by the legal framework that
establishes it. These boundaries dictate the extent of its authority and operations.
Relevant Acts and References:
 The Airports Authority of India Act, 1994.
 Companies Act, 2013.
 Relevant municipal laws governing municipal corporations.
Let's take the example of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), a prominent government
company, to explore its objects, functions, powers, and boundaries.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL):
1. Objects:
o The objects of BHEL, as outlined in its Memorandum of Association, include the
design, engineering, manufacturing, construction, testing, commissioning, and
servicing of a wide range of products and services related to the power and
industrial sectors.
o BHEL aims to contribute to the development of the power industry and other key
sectors in the country.
2. Functions:
o BHEL is involved in the design, manufacturing, and supply of power plant
equipment, including boilers, turbines, generators, and associated auxiliaries.
o The company engages in the construction, commissioning, and servicing of power
plants and industrial facilities.
o BHEL also conducts research and development activities to enhance its
technological capabilities and contribute to advancements in the power sector.
3. Powers:
o The powers of BHEL are derived from the Companies Act, 2013, and other relevant
statutes. These powers enable the company to carry out its functions efficiently.
o BHEL has the authority to enter into contracts, acquire assets, and engage in
financial transactions necessary for the fulfilment of its objects.
4. Boundaries:
o The boundaries of BHEL are defined by the legal framework that establishes
government companies under the Companies Act, 2013.

Page 38 of 48
 o BHEL operates within the boundaries set by its Memorandum of Association and
the statutory provisions governing government companies.
Relevant Acts and References:
 Companies Act, 2013.
 Memorandum of Association of BHEL.
 Other relevant statutes related to the power sector and industrial development.

Institutional Decisions
Institutional Decisions in the Context of Administrative Law: An In-Depth Analysis
Administrative law governs the actions and decisions of government agencies and administrative
bodies. The concept of institutional decisions within administrative law pertains to the choices,
determinations, and actions taken by these government institutions while exercising their powers
and fulfilling their functions. These decisions have a significant impact on individuals, businesses,
and society as a whole. This discussion will explore the significance of institutional decisions in
administrative law, their legal framework, principles, judicial review, and their broader implications:
Significance of Institutional Decisions:
1. Exercise of Discretion: Administrative bodies often have discretionary powers to make
decisions within their jurisdiction. These decisions can range from granting licenses and
permits to imposing penalties or making policy choices.
2. Protection of Rights: Administrative decisions can impact the rights of individuals and
entities. These decisions must adhere to the principles of fairness, natural justice, and due
process to safeguard these rights.
3. Public Interest: Institutional decisions are expected to promote the public interest,
ensuring that government actions are rational, transparent, and accountable.
4. Checks and Balances: Administrative law provides a framework to prevent abuse of power
by administrative bodies, ensuring that their decisions are lawful, reasonable, and within the
scope of their authority.
Legal Framework:
1. Delegated Authority: Administrative bodies derive their authority from statutes,
regulations, and constitutional provisions. They exercise powers delegated by the legislature.
2. Procedural Fairness: Principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the
duty to give reasons, guide the decision-making process to ensure fairness.
3. Judicial Review: Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review, allowing courts to
assess the legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness of the decisions.
Principles Governing Institutional Decisions:
1. Rule of Law: Administrative decisions must adhere to the rule of law, ensuring that they
are consistent with statutory provisions and constitutional principles.
2. Reasonableness: Decisions must be reasonable, logical, and based on relevant evidence.
They should not be arbitrary or irrational.
3. Proportionality: The actions taken by administrative bodies should be proportionate to the
objectives they seek to achieve.
4. Consistency: Administrative decisions should be consistent with previous decisions and
established legal principles.
Judicial Review of Institutional Decisions:
1. Ultra Vires: Courts can review decisions that go beyond the authority granted by law,
ensuring that administrative bodies stay within their legal limits.
2. Procedural Impropriety: Judicial review can be invoked if the decision-making process
lacks fairness, such as not providing a fair hearing to affected parties.
3. Unreasonableness: Courts can intervene if a decision is so unreasonable that no
reasonable decision-maker would have arrived at it.
Broader Implications:
1. Individual Rights: Institutional decisions impact the rights of individuals, ensuring that
their interests are safeguarded against arbitrary or unfair actions.
2. Good Governance: The process and outcome of institutional decisions contribute to the
principles of good governance, promoting transparency, accountability, and integrity.
3. Legal Precedent: Judicial decisions resulting from the review of administrative decisions
set legal precedents that guide future decisions and actions.

Page 39 of 48
Estoppel & Waiver (2)
Estoppel and Waiver in the Context of Administrative Law: A Detailed Analysis

Estoppel and waiver are legal doctrines that play a significant role in administrative law. They pertain
to situations where a party's actions, representations, or silence affect their legal rights, obligations,
or claims. These doctrines ensure fairness, prevent injustice, and maintain consistency in
administrative proceedings. Let's explore the concepts of estoppel and waiver in the context of
administrative law:
Estoppel: Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a party from asserting a claim or a right that
contradicts their previous conduct, representations, or assurances, when another party has relied
on such conduct to their detriment. In administrative law, estoppel can arise when a government
agency or official's representations or actions induce a party to believe a certain state of affairs and
act upon it.
Types of Estoppel:
1. Promissory Estoppel: If a government agency makes a promise, assurance, or
representation to a party, and that party relies on it to their detriment, the agency may be
estopped from later denying or acting contrary to that promise.
2. Equitable Estoppel: This arises when one party's conduct leads another party to reasonably
believe that certain facts or legal rights exist. If the relying party takes action based on this
belief, the first party may be estopped from denying those facts or rights.
Waiver: Waiver refers to the voluntary relinquishment or abandonment of a right, claim, or privilege
by a party. It is the intentional and informed action of giving up a legal right, even if temporarily,
either explicitly or through conduct. In administrative law, waiver may occur when a party
intentionally gives up certain procedural rights or defenses during administrative proceedings.
Key Aspects:
1. Voluntary Act: Waiver must be a voluntary and intentional act. It cannot be imposed by
one party upon another.
2. Knowledge and Understanding: The party waiving a right must have full knowledge and
understanding of the consequences of their action.
3. Relinquishment of Rights: Waiver involves giving up or relinquishing certain rights or
claims.
Significance in Administrative Law:
1. Procedural Fairness: Estoppel and waiver ensure procedural fairness by preventing
administrative bodies from acting inconsistently with their previous representations or
allowing parties to manipulate proceedings.
2. Equitable Considerations: These doctrines prevent a party from taking advantage of their
own actions that have caused another party to rely on a certain state of affairs.
3. Preserving Consistency: Estoppel and waiver help maintain consistency and integrity in
administrative proceedings by preventing parties from changing their positions to suit their
interests.
Application Examples:
1. Estoppel: If a government agency informs a business that they can operate without a
specific license and the business invests in the operation based on that information, the
agency may be estopped from later requiring the license.
2. Waiver: If an individual participates in an administrative hearing without raising a specific
defense, they may be considered to have waived that defense for the proceedings.
Cautionary Note: While estoppel and waiver play crucial roles in ensuring fairness, their application
can be complex and context-specific.

Public Interest Litigation

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): A Comprehensive Overview

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a legal mechanism that enables citizens to seek justice for public
issues and societal concerns through the courts. PIL empowers individuals, activists, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), and other entities to bring matters of public importance to the
attention of the judiciary. This discussion will delve into the concept, objectives, characteristics,
evolution, impact, and challenges of Public Interest Litigation:
Concept and Objectives: Public Interest Litigation is a legal action initiated in the interest of the
public or society at large, rather than for personal gain. The primary objectives of PIL include:

Page 40 of 48
 1. Access to Justice: PIL expands the reach of justice to marginalized and underprivileged
individuals and groups who may not have the means to approach the courts directly.
2. Promoting Justice: PIL seeks to ensure justice, fairness, and equity in society by
addressing issues affecting the public at large.
3. Accountability: PIL holds government bodies and authorities accountable for their actions
or inactions that may violate constitutional rights or public interest.
4. Judicial Activism: PIL encourages the judiciary to proactively address social issues,
contributing to the development of law and policy.
Characteristics of PIL:
1. Wide Scope: PIL covers a broad range of issues, including environment, human rights,
corruption, gender equality, health, education, and more.
2. Standing: PIL allows even individuals who are not directly affected by an issue to file
petitions on behalf of affected groups or the general public.
3. Pro Bono Legal Aid: Lawyers often provide their services pro bono (free of charge) in PIL
cases to promote the public interest.
4. Supplementing Government Efforts: PIL often supplements governmental efforts by
highlighting issues that may have been overlooked.
Evolution and Impact:
1. Origin: PIL gained prominence in India during the 1980s when the judiciary expanded the
scope of locus standi (standing to sue) to make justice accessible to marginalized
communities.
2. Environmental Protection: PIL has been instrumental in environmental conservation,
leading to landmark judgments on issues like pollution control, wildlife protection, and forest
conservation.
3. Human Rights: PIL has played a significant role in advancing human rights by addressing
issues such as bonded labor, child labor, and custodial torture.
4. Transparency and Accountability: PIL has been effective in exposing corruption,
nepotism, and abuse of power in government institutions.
5. Access to Health and Education: PIL has been used to advocate for improved healthcare
facilities, nutrition programs, and access to quality education for all.
Challenges and Criticisms:
1. Overburdened Judiciary: An increase in PIL cases can burden the judiciary and lead to
delays in addressing other cases.
2. Misuse and Frivolous Petitions: Some PIL cases may be filed for personal or political
motives rather than genuine public interest concerns.
3. Lack of Implementation: Successful PIL judgments may face challenges in effective
implementation due to administrative and executive barriers.
4. Conflict of Interests: Balancing competing public interests can be complex, leading to
judicial decisions that may not fully satisfy all stakeholders.
Global Perspective: While PIL originated in India, similar concepts exist in other countries under
different names, such as "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" (SLAPP) in the United
States.

Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU)

Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU): An In-Depth Exploration

The Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU) is a parliamentary committee in India that plays a
crucial role in overseeing the functioning and performance of government-owned enterprises, also
known as public sector undertakings (PSUs). Established to ensure transparency, accountability, and
efficient management of PSUs, COPU examines various aspects of these enterprises to ensure that
they are functioning in the best interests of the public. This discussion will provide a comprehensive
overview of the Committee on Public Undertakings, including its composition, functions, role,
significance, and impact:
Composition: The Committee on Public Undertakings is a parliamentary committee composed of
members from both houses of Parliament – the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya
Sabha (Council of States). The committee's composition reflects the proportional representation of
political parties in the Parliament.
Functions and Role: The primary functions and role of COPU include:

Page 41 of 48
 1. Examination of Reports: COPU examines reports prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India (CAG) related to the performance and finances of PSUs.
2. Evaluation of Performance: The committee assesses the performance of PSUs based on
the audit reports and other relevant information.
3. Scrutiny of Policies: COPU scrutinizes the policies and programs adopted by PSUs,
ensuring that they align with national objectives and public interest.
4. Financial Accountability: The committee reviews the financial management practices of
PSUs to ensure judicious use of public funds and resources.
5. Transparency and Accountability: COPU aims to enhance transparency, accountability,
and good governance in the functioning of PSUs.
Significance and Impact:
1. Oversight: COPU plays a critical role in exercising parliamentary oversight over
government-owned enterprises, ensuring that they are functioning efficiently and effectively.
2. Accountability: By evaluating the performance and financial management of PSUs, COPU
ensures that these entities are held accountable to taxpayers and the public.
3. Policy Improvement: COPU's scrutiny of PSU policies helps identify areas for policy
improvement and alignment with the government's objectives.
4. Efficiency Enhancement: The committee's recommendations and reports contribute to
enhancing the efficiency and competitiveness of PSUs.
5. Transparency: COPU's examination and discussions on PSU matters promote transparency
in the functioning of these enterprises.
Procedure and Process:
1. Reference from Speaker/Chairman: The Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of
the Rajya Sabha refer audit reports of PSUs to COPU for examination.
2. Consideration of Reports: COPU considers these reports and may also examine the
response of the concerned ministries or departments.
3. Summoning Witnesses: The committee has the authority to summon officials, experts,
and stakeholders to provide evidence and insights.
4. Recommendations: COPU prepares reports and recommendations based on its
examinations, which are presented to the Parliament for further consideration.
Challenges:
1. Limited Implementation: While COPU recommendations carry significant weight, the
implementation of these recommendations can sometimes face challenges due to
administrative barriers.
2. Resource Constraints: COPU's effectiveness can be hindered by limited resources and time
constraints in conducting comprehensive examinations.
Influence on Public Governance: The Committee on Public Undertakings plays a vital role in
enhancing the efficiency, transparency, and accountability of government-owned enterprises. By
evaluating their performance, financial management, and policies, COPU contributes to good
governance practices and ensures that these enterprises operate in the best interests of the public
and the nation. COPU serves as a crucial link between Parliament, government-owned enterprises,
and the public. Its examination of reports, evaluation of performance, and scrutiny of policies
contribute to the overall development and responsible management of public sector undertakings in
India.

Doctrine of Proportionality
Doctrine of Proportionality: A Comprehensive Overview

The Doctrine of Proportionality is a fundamental principle of administrative law that seeks to ensure
that government actions and decisions are not excessive in relation to the intended purpose or
objective. It is a means of striking a balance between the government's legitimate objectives and
the rights and interests of individuals. The doctrine requires that any limitations imposed by the
government on fundamental rights should be proportionate, necessary, and not go beyond what is
required to achieve the intended goal. The Doctrine of Proportionality is widely recognized as a
crucial aspect of upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights in administrative actions.
Components of the Doctrine:
1. Legitimate Aim: The government's objective or aim must be legitimate, such as the
protection of public order, national security, or the prevention of crime.

Page 42 of 48
 2. Rational Connection: There must be a rational connection between the government's
action and the legitimate aim it seeks to achieve. The means chosen should logically
contribute to achieving the intended goal.
3. Necessity: The government's action must be necessary to achieve the legitimate aim. This
means that no less restrictive alternative should be available.
4. Proportionality Stricto Sensu: The benefits of the government's action should outweigh
the harm caused to individual rights. The action should not be disproportionately harsh or
intrusive.
Case Law Example: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Background: Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the government under the Passport
Act, 1967, on the grounds of national security. She challenged this decision, arguing that her right
to travel abroad (a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution) was being violated
without due process of law.
Application of Proportionality: The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, applied the Doctrine
of Proportionality to evaluate the government's action. It held that the right to travel abroad was a
fundamental right and any restriction on it had to adhere to the principles of reasonableness and
proportionality. The court examined whether the impounding of the passport was a proportionate
response to the government's legitimate aim of national security.
Judgment: The court found that the impounding of the passport was not accompanied by a proper
hearing, and the reasons provided were vague and unsatisfactory. The court ruled that the
impounding order was arbitrary and violated Maneka Gandhi's right to travel abroad. It emphasized
the importance of providing reasons and allowing individuals to be heard before their rights are
restricted.
Impact: The Maneka Gandhi case is a landmark judgment that reinforced the significance of the
Doctrine of Proportionality in administrative law. It highlighted the necessity for government actions
to be proportional and justifiable, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.
In conclusion, the Doctrine of Proportionality is a cornerstone of administrative law that ensures the
government's actions are reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to their intended objectives. It
serves as a crucial safeguard for protecting individual rights while allowing legitimate government
aims to be pursued.

Kinds of Bias
Kinds of Bias in the Context of Administrative Law: An In-Depth Analysis

Bias refers to a predisposition or inclination that may influence a person's judgment, decisions, or
actions in an unfair or partial manner. In administrative law, bias is a significant concern as it can
undermine the fairness, impartiality, and integrity of administrative proceedings. Different kinds of
bias can arise in administrative processes, and addressing them is crucial to upholding the principles
of justice and due process. Let's explore the various kinds of bias that can impact administrative
law:
1. Personal Bias: Personal bias occurs when an individual involved in an administrative process
holds a strong personal interest, connection, or prejudice that might affect their ability to make an
unbiased decision. This bias can arise due to relationships, financial interests, or personal
animosities.
2. Prejudicial Bias: Prejudicial bias involves preconceived notions, stereotypes, or prejudices that
influence an individual's judgment. This bias can arise from personal beliefs, cultural influences, or
societal attitudes, leading to unfair decisions.
3. Institutional Bias: Institutional bias is systemic and can affect entire administrative bodies or
institutions. It arises when the policies, practices, or procedures of an organization inherently favour
or discriminate against certain groups, often leading to unjust outcomes.
4. Confirmation Bias: Confirmation bias occurs when individuals seek, interpret, or remember
information in a way that confirms their existing beliefs or expectations. This bias can lead to
incomplete or one-sided assessments of evidence.
5. Cognitive Bias: Cognitive biases are mental shortcuts or patterns of thinking that can lead to
errors in judgment. These biases include availability bias (relying on readily available information),
anchoring bias (being influenced by initial information), and framing bias (being swayed by how
information is presented).

Page 43 of 48
6. Self-Interest Bias: Self-interest bias emerges when individuals are motivated by personal gain,
advancement, or protection of their own interests. This bias can lead to decisions that prioritize self-
interest over the public good.
7. Groupthink Bias: Groupthink bias occurs when individuals within a group conform to the
dominant opinions or decisions of the group, suppressing dissenting views and independent critical
thinking. This can hinder open and unbiased decision-making.
Addressing Bias in Administrative Law:
1. Recusal: Individuals with a potential bias may be required to recuse themselves from a
decision-making process to ensure impartiality.
2. Disclosure: Individuals with potential bias should disclose any relevant interests,
relationships, or biases to prevent any doubts about their impartiality.
3. Impartial Decision-Makers: Ensuring that administrative bodies are composed of diverse
and impartial decision-makers can mitigate various kinds of bias.
4. Procedural Fairness: Providing opportunities for affected parties to present their views,
cross-examine witnesses, and provide evidence can counteract bias by promoting a balanced
decision-making process.
5. Transparency: Transparent decision-making processes can help identify and address biases
through accountability and scrutiny.
6. Judicial Review: Courts can review administrative decisions to determine if bias has
influenced the outcome and ensure fairness.

Liability of Government Contract

Liability in Government Contracts: An Elaborate Examination
The liability associated with government contracts refers to the legal obligations and responsibilities
that arise when the government enters into contractual agreements with private individuals,
companies, or entities. These obligations can encompass a range of scenarios, from breaches of
contract to issues related to performance, compensation, and remedies. Understanding government
contract liability is crucial for both parties to ensure compliance, mitigate risks, and resolve disputes.
Let's explore the various aspects of liability in government contracts:
Types of Liability in Government Contracts:
1. Breach of Contract: If either party fails to fulfill its contractual obligations, a breach of
contract occurs. The non-breaching party may seek remedies such as damages, specific
performance, or termination of the contract.
2. Performance Liability: The government is generally liable to ensure that its contractors
perform as stipulated in the contract. Likewise, contractors are liable to provide the specified
goods or services.
3. Quality and Specifications: The government is entitled to expect that the contracted
goods or services meet the agreed-upon quality, specifications, and standards. Non-
compliance may lead to liability for the contractor.
4. Delay and Default: If either party causes delays or defaults on their obligations, they may
be held liable for any resulting losses or damages.
5. Payment Obligations: The government is obligated to make timely payments as specified
in the contract. Failure to do so can result in liability for delayed payment.
6. Indemnification and Liability for Third Parties: Contracts may include clauses where
one party agrees to indemnify the other against liabilities arising from third-party claims.
Defenses Against Liability:
1. Force Majeure: Parties may be excused from liability due to unforeseen and uncontrollable
events beyond their control, such as natural disasters or political upheavals.
2. Governmental Immunity: Governments may have limited immunity from certain types of
liability, depending on jurisdiction and the nature of the contract.
Remedies for Breach and Liability:
1. Damages: The non-breaching party may seek monetary compensation to recover losses
caused by the breach.
2. Specific Performance: The court may order the breaching party to fulfill its contractual
obligations as originally agreed.
3. Termination: In cases of severe breach or non-performance, the non-breaching party may
terminate the contract.
4. Equitable Remedies: Courts may grant equitable remedies such as injunctions or
restitution in certain cases to prevent further harm or unjust enrichment.

Page 44 of 48
Dispute Resolution Mechanisms:
1. Mediation and Arbitration: Contracts often include clauses that require parties to attempt
mediation or arbitration before resorting to litigation.
2. Litigation: If disputes cannot be resolved through alternative methods, parties may pursue
litigation in court.
Contractual Provisions to Manage Liability:
1. Limitation of Liability: Contracts may include clauses that limit the liability of one or both
parties under specific circumstances.
2. Indemnification: Parties may agree to indemnify each other for certain liabilities arising
from the contract.
3. Insurance Requirements: Contracts may stipulate that parties maintain specific types of
insurance coverage to address potential liabilities.

Doctrine of Ultra Vires

Doctrine of Ultra Vires in Administrative Law: An In-Depth Exploration
The Doctrine of Ultra Vires is a fundamental principle in administrative law that pertains to the limits
of the legal authority and powers of administrative bodies or government agencies. The Latin term
"ultra vires" translates to "beyond the powers." This doctrine ensures that administrative bodies act
within the scope of their granted authority and do not exceed the limits set by the law. The doctrine
acts as a safeguard against arbitrary exercises of power and ensures that administrative actions
remain consistent with the rule of law. Let's delve into the key aspects of the Doctrine of Ultra Vires:
Key Elements of the Doctrine:
1. Legal Authority: Administrative bodies derive their powers and authority from statutes,
regulations, or constitutions. These legal instruments define the scope and limitations of
their actions.
2. Limited Jurisdiction: Administrative bodies have specific areas of jurisdiction and authority
in which they can make decisions or take actions. Anything done outside this scope is
considered ultra vires.
Aspects of Ultra Vires:
1. Intra Vires: Actions or decisions taken within the legal authority granted to the
administrative body are intra vires, meaning within the powers.
2. Ultra Vires: Actions or decisions taken beyond the legal authority granted to the
administrative body are ultra vires, meaning beyond the powers.
Consequences of Ultra Vires Actions:
1. Invalidity: Administrative actions that are ultra vires are considered invalid and legally void.
2. Unenforceability: Ultra vires actions cannot be enforced, and affected parties can challenge
them in court.
3. Judicial Review: Courts have the authority to review administrative actions and determine
whether they are within the scope of the granted authority.
Importance and Application:
1. Safeguarding Against Abuse: The Doctrine of Ultra Vires prevents administrative bodies
from overstepping their authority and engaging in arbitrary or unauthorized actions.
2. Preserving Rule of Law: The doctrine ensures that administrative actions are consistent
with the principles of legality, fairness, and due process.
3. Limiting Administrative Discretion: The doctrine prevents administrative bodies from
expanding their powers beyond what the law allows.
Example: Consider a scenario where a government agency responsible for environmental regulation
attempts to impose fines on individuals for noise pollution, even though noise pollution is not within
its statutory mandate. In this case, the agency's actions would be ultra vires, as they go beyond its
authorized powers. The affected parties could challenge these actions in court and seek their
invalidation.
Judicial Review and Ultra Vires: Judicial review plays a significant role in determining whether
administrative actions are ultra vires. Courts assess whether the administrative body has acted
within the scope of its statutory authority. If the court finds that the actions are beyond the powers
granted by law, they may declare the actions ultra vires and consequently invalid.

Reserve Bank of India

Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in the Context of Administrative Law: A Comprehensive
Analysis

Page 45 of 48
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is the central banking institution of India, responsible for formulating
and implementing monetary and financial policies to ensure stability, growth, and regulation of the
country's financial system. As a significant government authority, the RBI operates within the
framework of administrative law, which governs its actions, decisions, and accountability. Let's delve
into how the Reserve Bank of India operates within the context of administrative law:
Administrative Functions of RBI:
1. Monetary Policy: The RBI formulates and implements monetary policies, including setting
interest rates, to control inflation, promote economic growth, and maintain price stability.
2. Banking Regulation: The RBI regulates and supervises banks, financial institutions, and
payment systems to ensure their soundness, efficiency, and compliance with laws and
regulations.
3. Currency Issuance: The RBI is the sole authority responsible for issuing currency notes
and coins in India, ensuring their availability and security.
4. Foreign Exchange Management: The RBI manages foreign exchange reserves,
formulates exchange rate policies, and regulates cross-border financial transactions.
5. Financial Stability: The RBI monitors and assesses the overall stability of the financial
system to prevent systemic risks and crises.
Application of Administrative Law Principles:
1. Due Process: The RBI's actions and decisions must adhere to principles of due process,
ensuring fairness, transparency, and procedural regularity.
2. Procedural Fairness: When issuing regulations, guidelines, or directives, the RBI must
follow proper procedures, allowing stakeholders to provide input and feedback.
3. Reasoned Decision-Making: The RBI's decisions and actions must be based on sound
reasoning, evidence, and relevant legal provisions.
4. Accountability: The RBI is accountable for its actions to the government, the public, and
the judiciary. It is subject to oversight and review.
5. Judicial Review: Courts can review RBI actions to determine if they are consistent with the
law, within the RBI's powers, and in compliance with administrative law principles.
Public Accountability and Transparency:
1. Reports and Publications: The RBI regularly publishes reports, policy statements, and
data to keep the public informed about its activities and decisions.
2. Governance Structure: The RBI's governance structure includes the Central Board of
Directors and various committees, which contribute to transparency and diverse
perspectives.
3. Interaction with Stakeholders: The RBI engages with stakeholders, including banks,
financial institutions, and the public, to gather inputs and ensure that its policies and
decisions are well-informed.
Challenges and Balancing Act:
1. Policy Trade-Offs: The RBI often faces the challenge of balancing multiple policy
objectives, such as controlling inflation while promoting economic growth.
2. Autonomy and Government Coordination: Striking a balance between RBI's operational
autonomy and coordination with the government's broader economic goals can be complex.

Dr. Bonham's Case

Dr. Bonham's Case: A Landmark Legal Precedent
Dr. Bonham's Case, also known as "Bonne's Case," is a landmark legal case from English common
law that played a pivotal role in establishing the principle of judicial review. The case is notable for
its impact on the relationship between the common law and parliamentary legislation, as well as its
contribution to the development of administrative law. Let's delve into the details of this historic
case:
Background: The case of Dr. Bonham's Case took place in 1610. Dr. John Bonham was a physician
who had been fined by the Royal College of Physicians for practicing medicine in London without a
license from the College. Bonham argued that the College's actions were in violation of common law
principles and that the College should not be the sole authority to determine the validity of its own
regulations.
Legal Issue: The central legal issue in Dr. Bonham's Case was whether the Royal College of
Physicians had the authority to impose fines on individuals practicing medicine without their license
and whether the Court could review the College's decisions.

Page 46 of 48
Judgment and Impact: In a landmark decision, Chief Justice Edward Coke ruled in favour of Dr.
Bonham, stating that no person or entity can be a judge in their own cause. Coke emphasized that
the common law courts had the authority to review and declare void any actions of entities that were
in violation of common law principles, even if those actions were authorized by parliamentary
legislation. This marked the early recognition of the principle of judicial review in England.
Significance and Legacy:
1. Principle of Judicial Review: Dr. Bonham's Case is often cited as a foundational case that
laid the groundwork for the principle of judicial review. This principle empowers courts to
review the actions and decisions of administrative bodies, ensuring that they are consistent
with the rule of law.
2. Limitation on Parliamentary Supremacy: The case established the concept that even
parliamentary legislation could be subject to review by the courts if it violated common law
principles or natural justice.
3. Checks and Balances: The case highlighted the importance of maintaining a system of
checks and balances within the legal framework to prevent abuse of power by administrative
bodies.
4. Influence on Administrative Law: Dr. Bonham's Case has had a lasting impact on the
development of administrative law, emphasizing the importance of fairness, legality, and
accountability in the actions of administrative bodies.
Modern Relevance: The principles established in Dr. Bonham's Case continue to influence the legal
systems of many common law jurisdictions around the world. The concept of judicial review, the
separation of powers, and the idea that administrative bodies must act within the bounds of legality
and natural justice remain fundamental to the rule of law.

Doctrine of Public Accountability

Doctrine of Public Accountability: Exploring Transparency and Oversight
The Doctrine of Public Accountability is a fundamental principle in administrative law that emphasizes
the obligation of public authorities and government bodies to act transparently, responsibly, and in
the best interests of the public they serve. It embodies the idea that those in power should be
answerable for their actions, decisions, and use of resources. This doctrine ensures that public
officials and administrative bodies are held accountable to the public and the law. Let's delve into
the key aspects of the Doctrine of Public Accountability:
Key Principles of Public Accountability:
1. Transparency: Public authorities are expected to conduct their operations in a transparent
manner, allowing citizens to access information about their actions, decisions, and policies.
2. Answerability: Public officials and administrative bodies are required to answer for their
actions and decisions. They must be able to justify their choices and provide explanations to
relevant stakeholders.
3. Responsibility: Public authorities are entrusted with the responsible management of public
resources and the implementation of policies that align with the public interest.
4. Oversight: Public accountability often involves mechanisms for oversight, such as audits,
reviews, and parliamentary inquiries, to ensure that actions are consistent with legal and
ethical standards.
5. Legal Framework: The doctrine operates within the framework of statutory provisions,
constitutional principles, and administrative law norms that define the scope and limits of
public authority.
Mechanisms for Ensuring Public Accountability:
1. Transparency and Openness: Providing access to information through mechanisms like
the Right to Information Act enables citizens to scrutinize government actions.
2. Checks and Balances: Independent oversight bodies, ombudsmen, and judicial review
ensure that the actions of public officials are subject to scrutiny and review.
3. Parliamentary Oversight: Elected representatives in the legislature hold the executive
branch accountable through questioning, debates, and inquiries.
4. Media and Civil Society: Media reporting and civil society engagement play a crucial role
in holding public authorities accountable by highlighting issues of public concern.
Significance and Benefits:
1. Preventing Abuse of Power: Public accountability acts as a check against the abuse of
power by ensuring that officials act within their prescribed powers and responsibilities.

Page 47 of 48
 2. Trust and Legitimacy: Transparent and accountable governance enhances public trust in
government institutions and enhances the legitimacy of their actions.
3. Effective Resource Allocation: Public accountability ensures that public resources are
used efficiently, effectively, and for the intended purposes.
4. Improvement and Learning: Accountability mechanisms help identify areas for
improvement, learning from mistakes, and enhancing governance practices.
Challenges and Concerns:
1. Complexity: Balancing accountability with administrative efficiency can be challenging,
especially in complex decision-making processes.
2. Political Interference: Political factors can sometimes influence accountability
mechanisms, undermining their effectiveness.
3. Resource Constraints: Establishing effective accountability mechanisms requires
resources, infrastructure, and capacity-building.
Global Relevance: The Doctrine of Public Accountability is not limited to any specific jurisdiction;
it is a universal principle that underpins democratic governance worldwide.

Disclaimer
The information contained in this document is provided for informational purposes only and should
not be relied upon as legal, business, or any other advice. The author makes no representations or
warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability
or availability with respect to the document or the information, acts, statutes, case laws or related
information outcome contained in the document for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such
information is therefore strictly at your own risk. In no event will the author be liable for any loss or
damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage
whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this
document.

The author (Hemant Patil, GLC Mumbai Batch of 2025, hbpatil@gmail.com) reserves the right to
modify, add, or delete any information in this document at any time without prior notice. For
obtaining a recent & updated copy of this document, you can send the request with your clear &
accurate identification (Full Name, Contact, Institution etc).

Page 48 of 48