Administrative directions

 Administrative Directions are instructions or regulations

issued by the higher authorities to the lower authorities in the
absence of a rule or enactment pertaining to a specific issue or
to compensate or fill the lacunas in the existing laws and
thereby constructing better standards or platforms to tackle
issues.
 Administrative directions is otherwise designated as

‘Administrative quasi-law’ or ‘ Administrative quasi-

legislations’.
 These directions can be specific, that is formulated and
applied to a particular purpose, or a particular case ; or it may
be general nature, laying down general principles, policies,
practices, or procedures to be followed in similar cases.
 These direction are issued in the form of letters, circulars,

orders, public notices, pamphlets, press notes, etc, it is even

published in Government Gazette.
 In modern times, the government enjoys indefinite
or boundless administrative powers, and therefore
the areas of issuing administrative directions is
quite ample.
 The concept of Administrative directions has its

roots in Article 73 and Article 162 of the

constitution, they serves as the bedrock. These
Articles deals with administrative powers of
Government and such directions are generally
issued under it.
 According to Article 73, the executive power of the

Union extends to the matters with respect to which

Parliament has power to make laws.
 According to Article 162, the executive power of

the State extends to the matters with respect to

which State Legislative has power to make laws.
 These provisions exclusively deals with the
executive power of government and do not
confer any kind of legislative power.
 Statutory powers are granted to issue directions.

A direction issued under statutory power

prevails over a direction issued under general
administrative power.
 In the case of Secretary to the Government of

Haryana v Vidya Sagar, where two circulars are

issued on the same subject and the former was
general and later was specific, it was held that
the latter one will prevail.
 A direction does not confer any enforceable rights on an
individual, or impose an obligation on the Administration or
individual. Even if a direction is misapplied or ignored by the
Administration, the affected individual can hardly claim a
remedy through a court of law.
 But, this doesn’t mean that, administrative authorities may

disregard them with impunity. The authorities are expected to

follow the directions and their breach by them may lead to
disciplinary or other appropriate actions against them.
 Need For Administrative Direction

 Administrative directions has become an integral part of

Indian Administrative system though not comprehensively.
These directions often serves as the best means to inform the
people regarding the dynamic policy decisions of government.
 Directions are issued in order to fill the lacunas in

administrative arena and to meet the exigencies. Supreme

Court in Union of India v Rakesh Sharma observed that, if the
rules are silent on any point the Government can fill up the
gaps and supplement the rules by issuing instructions not
inconsistent with the rules.
 It is often used to lay down procedure for various purposes to

be followed by the Administration or the public.

 Directions are a part of the internal administrative procedure
of government procedure of a Government department.
When a number of officials are engaged in executing in a
law and taking decisions there under, directions may serve
the purpose of providing some criteria which may be
followed by these officials in discharging their functions so
that there will be a uniformity of approach in disposing
similar cases.
 Here arises a question as to why Administrative Direction,
when there is are provisions to make rules or delegated
legislation which is more powerful?
 This trend of resorting to administrative directions can be

attributed to the flexibility or easiness in formulating and

implementing administrative directions.
 On the other hand, certain formalities or procedures such as

laying before parliament, consultation of affected interest,

republication, publication in gazette etc are to be met for
formulating or promulgating a rule, issuing a direction is
devoid of all kind burdening procedural catenae and therefore
administrative directions are preferred over rules.
 Further, Government may change a direction at any time

without much formality, a direction can be amended by

issuing another direction. While, amending a rule is not that
smooth and it involves a catenae of procedures.
 In V.T Khanzode v Reserve Bank of India, directions were
preferred over rules because of the flexibility in issuing
directions. According to section 58 of Reserve Bank of India
Act, 1934, RBI was entitled to issue regulations, however to
be made with the previous sanction of the Central
Government, and they are required to be laid before each
houses of Parliament. But, Bank opted to make direction in
accordance with section 7(2) of the Act.
 Government frequently resort to administrative direction in
formulating a general norm in administrative arena if it lacks
required legislative power to do so.
 There are several other situations where the Administration

may prefer directions rather than rules such as, when the
principle is not ripe for precise articulation, when the
department wishes to confer benefits on public without
making it a legal right, when the benefits to be conferred
exceeds the statutory provision, as any such rule which
confers excess benefits will be categorised as ultra vires.
 Besides, there are situation where Rules are treated as Directions.
When rules made under statutory power are not given effect due
to the lacuna in rule making process, the courts can treat them as
directions. Instances of such judicial approach are-

1. When the rule are made without adhering to the procedural

safeguards imposed under relevant statutory provisions, then it
can be treated as a direction. Thus, if the statute under which
rules are made contains a condition that the rules should be
subjected to previous publication and if the authority makes rules
without observing such a procedure, then the court can treat the
rules as directions.

2. Similarly, where the statutory provision has conferred power to

make rules ‘ to carry out the purpose of the Act’ and if the rules
so made are not related to the purpose of the Act, then such a rule
can be treated as direction.
Unenforceability of Administrative Directions


The principle of non-enforceability of administrative directions is

illustrated in the case of J R Raghupathy v State of Andhra Pradesh,
here the state government had the statutory power to decide locations of
mandal headquarters. Subsequently, the government asked the Collectors
to send proposals for this purpose for consideration of the Government.
The Government issued certain guidelines to the Collectors to keep in
view while making proposals. Subsequently, there arose a question as to
the nature and enforceability of the guidelines issued by Government.
Supreme Court held that, guidelines were not enforceable as these are
merely departmental instructions meant for the Collectors to regulate the
manner in which they should formulate their proposal and had no
statutory force.
 In the case of Prabhakar Reddy v State of Karnataka, it
was laid down that, a direction is unenforceable in the
Court against either a person or the Administration. A
direction neither confers any enforceable right on a person,
nor imposes an obligation or duty on the Administration.
Misconstruction or Misapplication of a direction by the
Administration does not amount to an error of law.
 In Suresh Chandra Singh v Fertilizers Corporation of India,
it was held that administrative instructions are only advisory
and no writ can be issued to enforce them. The principle was
upheld in the case of Abdulla Rowther v STA Tribunal, it was
held that the validity of an administrative action taken in
breach of an administrative direction is not challengeable and
the court will refuse to issue any writ even when there is a
patent breach of an administrative direction.
 The legal or enforceability status remains the same for a

direction issued under statutory provision also, it remains

unenforceable. The Supreme Court in the case of Raman and
Raman v State of Madras, held that the directions issued
under Section 43-A( authorises state government to issue
orders and directions) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 do not
have the status of rule or law and therefore are unenforceable
at the instance of affected party.
 An individual cannot thrust upon the administration to
enforce any direction, similarly, an individual can neither ask
the authorities to refrain from enforcing direction, this
principle was well settled in the case of State of Assam v Ajit
Kumar Sharma. In this case it was held that, a teacher cannot
ask the college to refrain from giving effect to the provisions
of the grant-in-aid Code which effects him prejudicially.
Exception to the rule of unenforceability

 The rule of non – enforceability of administrative directions is not

an absolute principle and have certain exception, but not have any
fixed standard or criteria as to what renders a direction binding or
enforceable.
 It is primarily based on facts and circumstances of a case. The
judicial approach on the question is pragmatic and ad hoc in
nature. A direction may be held liable on the Administration to the
extend it confers a benefit on individual.
 In the case of Khet Singh v Union of India, the Narcotic Control
Bureau issued certain instructions for carrying out search and
seizure under the Act, Supreme Court held those instruction to be
binding or enforceable.
 In B S Minhas v Indian Statistical Institute, the Supreme Court
held that instructions issued by the authority for procedural
fairness are binding even if they do not have statutory force.
 In state of Uttar Pradesh v Chandra Mohan, a rule in the All
India Services Rules, authorised the government to
compulsorily retire a members of the service in public interest
on reaching the age of 50. This rule contained no guidelines
as to premature retirement, and whereby government issued
certain directions for this purpose. Supreme Court ruled that
these directions are binding and retirement orders which are
not in congruity with the said directions were held void.
 In Baleshwar Dass v State of Uttar Pradesh, an office

memorandum was held binding as the Government had been

following the same for nearly two decades. In some
situations, a direction may be held binding on the
Administration on the principle of Promissory Estoppel.
Circumstances That Render Administrative Directions Invalid
 This so called privilege granted to administrative bodies to formulate
quintessential or circumstantially relevant notions or instructions is not
absolute.
 It is a well established privilege to be used in the right way at
circumstances for a right cause, should be compatible and in accord with
the said limitations.
 Let us now consider the situations under which a direction can be rendered
invalid or void. Like any other rule or law or principle, an administrative
direction will be held void if it is against this principle of Natural Justice,
the said principle being the heart and soul or bedrock of administrative law,
no direction can survive it tries override the principle of natural justice.
 That is a direction should be in accordance with accordance with the
established principles and laws, and should be reasonable and relevant, a
direction should not be the fruit of unreasonable, ulterior discretion of
concerned authorities, if so, such a direction will be held invalid.
 As discussed previously, a direction should not be
inconsistent with other existing rules or laws. In legal
hierarchy, directions occupy a place subordinate to other
statues, or rules, and it is settled in the case of State of Sikkim
v Dorjee Tshering Bhutia, that any order, instruction,
direction, or notification issued in exercise of the executive
power of the state which is contrary to any statutory
provisions, is without jurisdiction and is a nullity.
 A direction should not encroach into or adversely affect
individual rights. Any restriction prejudicial to individual
interest can be placed only by law, cannot be done through
administrative directions. In the case of District Collector,
Chittoor v Chittoor Groundnut Traders Association, the
State Government issued a circular to its officer not to permit
transport of groundnut seeds and oil outside the state by
millers and traders unless they agreed to supply certain
quantities of these products to the state at the price fixed by it.
The circular thus placed restrictions on the right of traders.
Supreme Court quashed the circular as illegal and void as the
state government had no power to impose such restriction.
 Similarly, a direction can stand only if it in congruence with
Article 14 of the constitution. Equality is one of the
imperative element of a democracy, any kind of divergence
from this principle will result in arbitrariness and definitely
steer down the essence of democracy. Therefore,
administrative directions will be held invalid if it violated
Article 14.
 In the case of S.L Sachdev v Union of India, an

administrative direction regarding the promotion of the upper

division clerks to higher grades was quashed as it was
unreasonable, arbitrary, illogical and violative of Article 14.
Difference between Delegated Legislation and Administrative Directions

Delegated Legislation Administrative Direction

1. Rule is a law, and has binding 1. Administrative direction is not
force. law. It has not binding force.

2. Rule has been recognized as law, 2. It has no such type of force.
as per Article 13 clause (3) sub-
clause (a) of Constitution.

3. Rules are the supplement to the 3. Administrative directions may

Acts. supplement the rule, but they
cannot supplant them.