Administrative Law: Nature, Scope and Importance, the Principles of Natural Justice, and the Grounds of Judicial Review of Administrative Action

Unit II ends with three items on administrative law: its nature, scope and importance; the principles of natural justice; and the grounds of judicial review of administrative action. Administrative law is the body of rules that controls the powers of the executive when it makes rules, decides disputes and takes action affecting individuals. The chapter follows how an examiner frames it: the classification of administrative functions and the control of delegated legislation, then the two rules of natural justice with their exceptions and leading cases, and finally the grounds of review from Wednesbury and GCHQ to proportionality and legitimate expectation.

1. Nature, scope and importance of administrative law

Wade defined administrative law as the law relating to the control of governmental power; Jennings as the law relating to the administration, determining the organisation, powers and duties of administrative authorities. Its growth follows the shift from the police State to the welfare State: once government regulates, licenses, taxes and distributes, it needs wide discretion, and law must keep that discretion within bounds. Dicey had denied that England had administrative law in the French sense (droit administratif, with separate administrative courts headed by the Conseil d'État), treating it as incompatible with the rule of law; the modern view is that administrative law is the rule of law applied to the administration.

The three administrative functions
FunctionNatureControl
Quasi-legislative (delegated legislation)Rules, regulations and bye-laws made under a parent ActJudicial: ultra vires the Act or the Constitution; parliamentary: laying procedures and the Committees on Subordinate Legislation
Quasi-judicialDeciding a lis between parties or affecting rights on objective facts, by tribunals and authoritiesNatural justice; writs of certiorari and prohibition; appeals under statute
Purely administrativePolicy and executive action, often discretionaryReview for abuse of discretion, fairness and, where civil consequences follow, natural justice

Delegation is unavoidable, but it has limits. In re Delhi Laws Act (1951) held that the legislature cannot abdicate its essential legislative function: it must lay down the policy and standards and may delegate the filling in of details. Excessive delegation, or a rule that goes beyond the Act or offends a fundamental right, is void. Sub-delegation is permitted only if the parent Act allows it (delegatus non potest delegare).

ℹ️ Tribunals and the High Courts
Articles 323A and 323B (added in 1976) authorise administrative and other tribunals. In L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997) a seven-judge bench held that the High Courts' power under Articles 226 and 227 and the Supreme Court's under Article 32 are part of the basic structure, so tribunal decisions remain subject to High Court review before any appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. The principles of natural justice

Natural justice has two classic rules: nemo judex in causa sua (no one shall be a judge in his own cause, the rule against bias) and audi alteram partem (hear the other side). A third, the duty to give reasons, is now treated as part of fairness: S.N. Mukherjee v Union of India (1990) held that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record reasons unless the requirement is expressly or impliedly excluded.

Leading cases on natural justice
CasePrinciple
A.K. Kraipak v Union of India (1969)A member of a selection board who was himself a candidate vitiated the selection by bias; the line between quasi-judicial and administrative functions is thin, and natural justice applies to administrative inquiries too
Ridge v Baldwin (1964, House of Lords)A chief constable dismissed without a hearing: the duty to act fairly does not depend on labelling a function judicial
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978)Impounding a passport without a hearing: audi alteram partem is part of Article 21's fair procedure; a post-decisional hearing may suffice where urgency demands
Ranjit Thakur v Union of India (1987)The test of bias is the reasonable apprehension of the party, not whether the judge was in fact biased
Union of India v Tulsiram Patel (1985)The second proviso to Article 311(2) lawfully excludes the inquiry in specified cases; natural justice can be excluded by the Constitution or by statute
  • Kinds of bias: pecuniary (any financial interest disqualifies), personal (relationship or hostility), subject-matter or official bias (prior involvement in the matter), and preconceived policy bias.
  • Components of a hearing: notice of the case to be met, disclosure of the material relied on, an opportunity to present one's case, and in suitable cases cross-examination and legal representation.
  • Exceptions: statutory exclusion, emergency and urgency, confidentiality and national security, legislative (as opposed to administrative) action, the "useless formality" argument, and necessity, where the only competent authority must decide even if an objection of bias exists.
⚠️ Necessity is an exception, not a licence
The doctrine of necessity lets a biased authority act only when no one else can; in Election Commission of India v Dr Subramaniam Swamy (1996) the Court applied it but required the Chief Election Commissioner to withdraw where the other Commissioners could decide, stepping in only if they differed. It does not cure bias when an alternative decision-maker exists.

3. Grounds of judicial review of administrative action

Judicial review examines the decision-making process, not the merits: the court asks whether the authority acted within its power, not whether it chose wisely. In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985), the GCHQ case, Lord Diplock grouped the grounds under three heads, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, and suggested that proportionality might be added in future. Indian courts adopted the classification in Tata Cellular v Union of India (1994), which also counselled restraint in reviewing government contracts.

The grounds of review
GroundWhat it coversIllustrative authority
IllegalityActing without jurisdiction, error of law, irrelevant considerations, improper purpose, fettering discretion by rigid policy, acting under dictation, unauthorised delegationPadfield v Minister of Agriculture (1968): discretion must promote the policy of the Act
IrrationalityA decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have come to itAssociated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
Procedural improprietyBreach of natural justice or of a procedure laid down by statuteRidge v Baldwin (1964); A.K. Kraipak (1969)
ProportionalityThe measure must pursue a legitimate aim, be suitable and necessary, and not impose a disproportionate burdenOm Kumar v Union of India (2001); Modern Dental College v State of Madhya Pradesh (2016); K.S. Puttaswamy (2017)
Legitimate expectationA person may expect a hearing or a benefit based on a promise or settled practice of the authority; it is part of non-arbitrariness under Article 14Food Corporation of India v Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993)
🎯 Why proportionality asks more than Wednesbury
Wednesbury lets a decision stand unless it is absurd. Proportionality asks the authority to justify the measure step by step: is the aim legitimate, does the measure serve it, was a less restrictive means available, and is the burden balanced against the gain? Om Kumar (2001) held that where fundamental freedoms are restricted, courts apply proportionality as primary reviewers, while ordinary administrative action continues to be tested on Wednesbury.

4. Remedies: the writs and the doctrines around them

The five writs
WritPurposeLies against
Habeas corpusProduce a detained person and justify the detentionThe State and, in illegal detention, private persons too
MandamusCommand the performance of a public dutyPublic authorities; not the President or Governors personally, nor private persons
ProhibitionStop an inferior tribunal from exceeding jurisdiction while proceedings are pendingJudicial and quasi-judicial bodies
CertiorariQuash a decision already made without or in excess of jurisdiction, in breach of natural justice, or with an error of law apparent on the recordJudicial, quasi-judicial and, now, administrative authorities
Quo warrantoAsk by what authority a person holds a substantive public officeHolders of public offices created by statute or the Constitution; any person may apply

Courts decline writ jurisdiction where an effective alternative remedy exists, but Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) held that the bar does not apply where a fundamental right is at stake, natural justice has been violated, or the order is wholly without jurisdiction. Promissory estoppel binds the government where a person has altered his position on its promise (Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1979), though not against a statute or overriding public interest.

🧠 Prohibition before, certiorari after
Both lie against bodies exceeding jurisdiction. Prohibition is preventive and issues while the proceeding is still pending; certiorari is corrective and quashes a decision already given. If the question says the order has been passed, the answer is certiorari.

Key takeaways

  • Administrative law controls the executive's quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial and administrative powers; In re Delhi Laws Act (1951) forbids abdication of essential legislative functions.
  • Natural justice: nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem, plus reasoned decisions (S.N. Mukherjee, 1990); A.K. Kraipak (1969) extended it to administrative inquiries.
  • The test of bias is reasonable apprehension (Ranjit Thakur, 1987); necessity permits a biased authority to act only when no alternative exists.
  • GCHQ (1985): illegality, irrationality (Wednesbury, 1948) and procedural impropriety; proportionality applies where fundamental rights are restricted (Om Kumar, 2001).
  • Five writs; prohibition is preventive and certiorari corrective; L. Chandra Kumar (1997) keeps tribunals under High Court review.

Practice questions (10)

Attempt each one before opening the answer. Every explanation names the tempting wrong option as well as the right one, because that is where marks are lost.

  1. The three grounds of judicial review — illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety — were classified by Lord Diplock in:

    1. Padfield v Minister of Agriculture (1968)
    2. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985)
    3. Ridge v Baldwin (1964)
    4. Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (1948)
    Show answer

    Answer: B — Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985)

    The GCHQ case (1985) gave the three-fold classification and mentioned proportionality as a possible fourth. Wednesbury (1948) supplies the irrationality standard, Ridge v Baldwin the duty to hear, and Padfield the rule that discretion must serve the Act's policy.

  2. In A.K. Kraipak v Union of India (1969), the selection was set aside because:

    1. The rules for selection were ultra vires the parent Act
    2. The board failed to give written reasons
    3. A member of the selection board was himself a candidate for selection
    4. The candidates were not given a personal hearing
    Show answer

    Answer: C — A member of the selection board was himself a candidate for selection

    The acting Chief Conservator of Forests sat on the board that considered his own claim, so the selection was vitiated by bias. The case is also cited for holding that the rules of natural justice apply to administrative inquiries.

  3. Assertion (A): In judicial review, the court does not ordinarily substitute its own view of the merits for that of the authority. Reason (R): Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process rather than the decision itself. Choose the correct option.

    1. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A
    2. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
    3. A is true, but R is false
    4. A is false, but R is true
    Show answer

    Answer: A — Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A

    Both are true and R explains A. Because review examines legality, rationality and procedure, the court does not act as an appellate authority on merits; proportionality intensifies scrutiny where rights are restricted but keeps the same basic premise.

  4. A writ issued to quash a decision already rendered by a tribunal acting in excess of jurisdiction is:

    1. Certiorari
    2. Quo warranto
    3. Mandamus
    4. Prohibition
    Show answer

    Answer: A — Certiorari

    Certiorari is corrective and quashes a completed decision. Prohibition would be the remedy while the proceeding is pending; mandamus compels a public duty, and quo warranto tests title to a public office.

  5. Which of the following are recognised exceptions to the rules of natural justice? Select all that apply.

    1. Urgency requiring immediate action
    2. Express statutory exclusion
    3. Administrative convenience alone
    4. Necessity, when no other competent authority exists
    Show answer

    Answer: A — Urgency requiring immediate action; B — Express statutory exclusion; D — Necessity, when no other competent authority exists

    Statute, necessity and genuine urgency can exclude or postpone a hearing, often with a post-decisional hearing in urgent cases. Mere administrative convenience is not an exception; it is precisely the pressure natural justice exists to resist.

  6. Which case held that the High Courts' power of judicial review over tribunals under Articles 226 and 227 is part of the basic structure?

    1. Om Kumar v Union of India (2001)
    2. S.P. Sampath Kumar v Union of India (1987)
    3. Tata Cellular v Union of India (1994)
    4. L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997)
    Show answer

    Answer: D — L. Chandra Kumar v Union of India (1997)

    L. Chandra Kumar, a seven-judge decision, overruled the view in Sampath Kumar that tribunals could wholly substitute for High Courts. Tata Cellular concerns review of government contracts and Om Kumar proportionality.

  7. Assertion (A): A legislature may delegate to the executive the power to fill in details of a law. Reason (R): A legislature may delegate its essential legislative function of laying down policy. Choose the correct option.

    1. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A
    2. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
    3. A is true, but R is false
    4. A is false, but R is true
    Show answer

    Answer: C — A is true, but R is false

    A is true. R is false: In re Delhi Laws Act (1951) held that the essential function of declaring policy and laying down standards cannot be delegated; only the filling in of details can.

  8. Which of the following fall under the head of "illegality" in the GCHQ classification? Select all that apply.

    1. Acting under the dictation of another authority
    2. Using a power for an improper purpose
    3. Failing to give a hearing before an adverse decision
    4. Taking irrelevant considerations into account
    Show answer

    Answer: A — Acting under the dictation of another authority; B — Using a power for an improper purpose; D — Taking irrelevant considerations into account

    Irrelevant considerations, improper purpose and acting under dictation are forms of illegality: the authority misunderstood or misused the power the law gave it. Failure to give a hearing is procedural impropriety.

  9. The duty of a quasi-judicial authority to record reasons for its decision was affirmed by a Constitution Bench in:

    1. Union of India v Tulsiram Patel (1985)
    2. Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trade Marks (1998)
    3. Ranjit Thakur v Union of India (1987)
    4. S.N. Mukherjee v Union of India (1990)
    Show answer

    Answer: D — S.N. Mukherjee v Union of India (1990)

    S.N. Mukherjee held that reasons must be recorded unless excluded, because reasons guard against arbitrariness and permit effective review. Tulsiram Patel is on exclusion under Article 311, Ranjit Thakur on the test of bias, and Whirlpool on alternative remedies.

  10. In which year was the GCHQ case (Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service) decided? Type the year.

    Numerical answer — type the value.

    Show answer

    Answer: 1985

    The House of Lords decided it in 1985. The case upheld the ban on trade unions at Government Communications Headquarters on national-security grounds while holding that prerogative powers are in principle reviewable.