ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE LAW

1. **Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab**:

- The Punjab Government issued an executive order acquiring the copyright of certain
textbooks from authors to nationalize textbooks used in schools.
- The order was challenged on the grounds that the executive lacked the power to
undertake trading activities without legislative sanction.
- The Supreme Court observed that executive power comprises residual governmental
functions after legislative and judicial functions are delineated.
- While the Indian Constitution doesn't provide an exhaustive definition of executive
functions, it extends to matters within Parliament's legislative power (Article 73) and State
Legislature's power (Article 162).
- The Court emphasized the need for each organ of government to function within its
defined sphere without encroaching on others' domains.

2. **Asif Hameed v. State of J&K**:

- The case involved the selection process for admission to medical colleges in Jammu and
Kashmir.
- The High Court set aside the selection process for not adhering to its earlier direction to
entrust the selection process to a statutory independent body free from executive influence.
- The Supreme Court emphasized that while India's Constitution doesn't strictly adhere to
the doctrine of separation of powers, it clearly defines the functions of different state
organs.
- Each organ—legislature, executive, judiciary—must operate within its defined sphere
without encroaching on others' domains.
- While the judiciary can review administrative decisions for reasonableness, it cannot
direct or advise the executive on policy matters or specific executive actions unless
unconstitutional.
- The interpretation of the doctrine of separation of powers evolves with contemporary
governance needs, emphasizing cooperation among state organs for the collective good.

These cases illustrate the Indian judiciary's approach to the separation of powers doctrine
and its application within the Indian constitutional framework.

3. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, the Court was of the view that in order to determine
whether the action of the administrative authority is quasi-judicial or administrative, one
has to se the nature of power conferred, to whom power is given, the framework within
which power is conferred and the consequences.

4. In the case of Ram Jawaiya Kapur v State of Punjab

the issue revolved around the Punjab government's involvement in the textbook business.
Over time, the government took control of preparing, printing, publishing, and selling
textbooks for schools in Punjab. This change happened through a series of notifications,
with the government ousting publishers and dealing directly with authors while claiming
copyright.
Two key questions arose in administrative law:
1. Can the executive branch engage in business without legislative approval?
2. Even if a monopoly is created, can it be done through executive action alone?

To address the first question, Article 73 of the Constitution was considered. This article
states that the executive power extends to matters Parliament can legislate on, whether or
not legislation already exists. This suggests that the executive has a broad scope of authority
beyond existing laws. Paragraph 12 of the judgment highlighted that ordinary executive
power exists once legislative and judicial functions are accounted for. While the Constitution
doesn't allow one branch to assume powers of another, some overlap is recognized. The
executive can perform departmental or subordinate legislative functions and even some
judicial functions. Paragraphs 14, 15, and 16 explained that India operates under a
Parliamentary Executive system, where ministers play a significant role in formulating policy.
Although starting a trade or business might need legislative approval for funding, legislation
isn't always required. Policy decisions are typically made with the implicit backing of the
parliamentary majority.

5. In UoI v Cynamide India Ltd. (1987) the Court considered the question of price fixing of
drugs and said that it was a legislative act and unless consultation is provided for in the
parent statute, it could not be demanded by manufacturers as of right.

6. ADM Jabalpur, the court examined several important legal issues: (DO FROM MP SING)

 Interpretation of Presidential Order: The court looked at the Presidential Order of June
27, 1975, and amendments to the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA),
considering how they align with principles of the rule of law articulated by legal scholars
like Raz and Duguit.
 Role of Article 21: Different judges had varied views on Article 21, which protects life and
personal liberty, particularly during emergencies. Chief Justice Ray and Justice Beg
discussed how pre-existing rights were incorporated into Article 21, while Justice
Chandrachud focused on the suspension of habeas corpus during crises.
 Understanding the Rule of Law: Judges discussed the concept of the rule of law as
enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Chief Justice Ray emphasized the constitutional
framework, while Justice Beg emphasized the need for a dynamic constitution that
actively protects individual liberties.
 Challenges with Habeas Corpus: The court examined challenges related to habeas
corpus during emergencies, considering the limitations imposed by the Presidential
Order and the suspension of legal remedies. They discussed the rationale behind
suspending habeas corpus during crises and the difficulties in enforcing individual rights.
 Assessing Mala Fide Intent: Judges debated the role of mala fide intent in executive
actions and the judiciary's authority to investigate such claims. They discussed the
practical challenges in challenging executive decisions based on allegations of mala fides
due to legal constraints.
 Validity of Section 16-A(9): The court assessed the validity and implications of Section
16-A(9) of MISA, particularly regarding its impact on judicial review and the authority of
high courts.
 Justice Khanna's Dissent: Justice Khanna's dissent highlighted the importance of
upholding individual liberties during emergencies and questioned the legality of certain
provisions under the Presidential Order and MISA amendments.

Overall, ADM Jabalpur raised critical legal questions about balancing executive power with
individual rights, especially in times of national emergency, and highlighted the complexities
of interpreting constitutional provisions under such circumstances.

7. In the case of In re Delhi Laws Act, the Supreme Court of India discussed the concept of
delegated legislation, which refers to Parliament giving some of its law-making powers to
other bodies (need to give due to quality and quantity of act). Seven judges heard the case
and provided separate judgments.

The arguments revolved around whether Parliament's power to make laws includes the
authority to delegate these powers, or if there are inherent limitations on such delegation.
One perspective argued that as long as Parliament hasn't completely given up its
responsibilities, it can delegate its legislative powers freely. On the other hand, it was
contended that there's an implied restriction against delegation, based on the separation of
powers doctrine.

The Supreme Court adopted a middle ground, ruling that:

1. The Indian Constitution doesn't explicitly include the doctrine of separation of powers.
2. The Parliament isn't considered an agent of any particular entity, so the principle of
delegates non potest delegare doesn't apply.
3. Parliament cannot avoid its responsibilities by creating parallel legislative bodies.
4. Delegating legislative powers is secondary to the main power of legislation.
5. While Parliament can delegate some powers, it cannot relinquish its essential legislative
functions, like establishing the policy of laws and making them binding.

Although each judge provided a separate judgment, there was agreement on three key
points:
(i) Delegation is necessary because Parliament cannot address all the complexities of
modern laws alone.
(ii) Delegation cannot be unlimited, especially considering the presence of a written
Constitution.
(iii) Certain essential legislative functions, like repealing or modifying laws, cannot be
delegated.

The Supreme Court clarified that delegation is indeed a part of legislative power under the
Constitution but excessive delegation is unconstitutional. Parliament must first fulfill its core
legislative functions and then delegate ancillary tasks related to implementing laws.

8. In the case of Rajnarain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, the Supreme
Court analyzed the extent of permissible delegation of legislative power. The impugned Act
empowered the Patna local administration to select any provision of the Bengal Municipality
Act and apply it to Patna area with modifications as deemed fit by the government. The
government chose Section 104 and applied it to Patna after modifications. However, the
Supreme Court declared this delegation ultra vires because allowing the selection of a
section for application to another area amounted to delegating the power to change the
policy of the Act, which is an essential legislative power and cannot be delegated.

9. In Lachmi Narain v. Union of India, the Supreme Court itself emphasized that there is no
substantial difference between "conditional" legislation and delegated legislation in
principle. Both forms entail a degree of law-making power, albeit limited, and both impose
boundaries on the exercise of that power. Whether termed conditional or delegated
legislation, the entity entrusted with the power cannot exceed the prescribed limits.

10. Justice Krishnalyer rightly pointed out in the Arvinder Singh v. State of Punjab
case that modern administration is incredibly complex, filled with details, urgencies,
and difficulties. It's so overwhelming that our large legislature might struggle to
handle all legislative matters directly. Delegating some legislative power becomes
necessary for efficiency.