Introduction:
The Indian Constitution is the supreme law of the land, governing all other laws and statutes. Administrative law is primarily concerned with the distribution of power and its limitations. We’ll look at the provisions of the constitution that operate as sources of limitations on the state’s power because both of these characteristics are governed by it. The Constitution comprises not only the fundamental principles of administration, but also numerous administrative provisions, such as citizenship, official languages, government services, election mechanism, and so on. The framers of the Indian Constitution, on the other hand, believed that unless these provisions were included in the Constitution, an immature democracy would have challenges, putting the Constitution’s smooth and efficient operation, as well as the country’s democratic process, in jeopardy.
Administrative law in India is mostly based on the Indian Constitution. According to Article 73[1] of the Constitution, the Union’s executive power extends to matters over which the Parliament has legislative authority. States are given similar rights under Article 62[2]. In its total rigidity, the Indian Constitution has not accepted the notion of separation of powers. Tribunals, the public sector, and government liability are all mentioned in the Constitution as significant parts of administrative law.
Inter Relationship between The Administrative and Constitutional Law
In India, constitutional law is the primary source of administrative law. It is regarded as the heart of Administrative Law. Administrative law has been evolving for a long time. Its origins can be traced back to antiquity. This can be traced back to the Maurya and Gupta dynasties, both of whom had well-structured administrative laws. The concept of Dharma was at its pinnacle, and natural justice, fairness, and other principles were valued highly. And it was thought to have a broader scope than the rule of law or due process of law. Without claiming immunity, every king or monarch followed this.
The Constitution of India is a supreme law of the land that governs the other statues, acts, etc. It lays down the structure of the organs of the government while the administrative law monitors their functions and also imposes limitations on it. Both the laws are interrelated to each other as they are complementary and supplementary to each other. Article 32,136, 267,227, and 311[3] talk about the control mechanism of the administrative authorities which is a part of the administrative law also. Administrative law focuses on the organizations, powers, functions, and duties of administrative authorities.
Although constitutional and administrative law is distinct from one another, they are both interdependent. However, we can see that they still overlap at times and that they cannot be completely separated from each other because Administrative law is thought to have originated from Constitutional law. However, this law is needed as a separate legal discipline to control arbitrary administrative action and to protect the rights of both individuals and the general public. Its essence can be found in every branch of law, so we can’t ignore it.
Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh[4]
In this case, it was determined that there is a rational nexus between Constitutional Law and Administrative Law because Administrative Law serves to preserve the sanctity of the principles, duties, rights, and obligations established by Constitutional Law. However, there is a pressing need to distinguish between the two laws in order to facilitate the concept of jurisdiction.
Doctrine of Watershed
This watershed doctrine is critical because it provides a foundation for establishing a proper demonstration of the specific boundaries required for the proper operation of both laws. It establishes the relationship between the two types of law, as defined by authors such as Locke, Holland, and others. These authors’ definitions clearly show that these laws are interconnected.
The watershed serves as a link between the two legal systems. It is impossible to work alone from both of them. It is not incorrect to say that constitutional law is the mother of administrative law, as it provides a framework for administrative law to operate in accordance with rules and regulations established for the benefit of the people and the state. Various sources of law show that constitutional law is the most important, whereas administrative law is meaningless without the constitution because its origins are deeply rooted in the womb of constitutional law.
Judicial Review
In some ways, Judicial Review is the ultra vires theory in constitutional law. The power of judicial review is the most powerful check on administrative action. Judicial review is the power of courts to declare legislative and executive acts void if they are proven to violate the Constitution. Judicial Review is the power of a jurisdiction’s highest court to declare acts of other government agencies within that jurisdiction unconstitutional on constitutional grounds. A judicial review is not an appeal from a ruling, but rather a review of how that decision was reached.
Our constitutional system is built on the principles of limited government and judicial review. It consists of three primary components: i) a written Constitution that establishes and limits the government’s organs, and ii)The Constitution serving as a superior law or standard against which all organs’ actions are to be judged iii)a sanction that can be used to prohibit or restrain any violation of the superior law, as well as cancel it if necessary. In modern Constitutional law, that sanction is judicial review.
For a judicial review of administrative actions, there are five writs available. Article 32 and Article 226 apply to these writs. These writs were taken from Britain. Many changes were made as a result of these writs’ implementations. These writs protect fundamental rights while also preventing arbitrariness from threatening the Indian Constitution’s core foundation.
The Constitutional Bench concluded 7-6 that Parliament should not be allowed to change the Constitution’s “fundamental framework.” The Supreme Court of India then promulgated the doctrine of fundamental structure in the landmark case of Keshavanda Bharati v. State of Kerela[5], which said that the legislature has the power to alter the Constitution, but such amendments must not change the Constitution’s basic structure.
Principle of Natural Justice
Administrative action in India can also be challenged on other grounds, including unreasonableness and, increasingly, proportionality, arbitrariness, and procedural impropriety, or violations of natural justice principles.
Justice must not only be done but also perceived to be done, according to one of the most essential principles in the administration of justice. This is required in order to instill trust in the legal system among the public. Natural justice is a Common Law notion that represents judicially determined procedural rules.
Natural justice principles are not specific regulations with constant content; their scope fluctuates depending on the situation. Nonetheless, it serves as the foundation for the entire system of judicial oversight of administrative conduct.
Natural justice concepts are derived in India from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The courts have traditionally urged that administrative agencies maintain a minimal standard of fairness, i.e. natural justice principles. Natural justice contains two key concepts, according to the Supreme Court, which is the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and the rule against bias (nemo iudex in sua causa).[6]
The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in the matter of A. K. Kraipak v. UOI is regarded as a classic on the subject of personal prejudice. On this occasion, the acting Chief Conservator of Forests, together with UPSC members, served on the selection committee for the position of Chief Conservator.
He was also a candidate for the position of Chief Conservator at the same time. Although he did not participate in the processes during which his name was considered during selection, the Court decided that the fact that he was a member of the Selection Board must have had its impact on the Selection Board’s decision.
He also took part in the Selection Board’s discussions when his opponents’ claims were taken into account. The Court determined that there was a clear contradiction between his interests and the obligation imposed on him, which could preclude him from being impartial. The Court stated that there was a fair probability of bias, which operates in a subtle manner. The decision reached in this manner is contrary to the principle of natural justice.
Rule of Law
In administrative law, the term “rule of law” is extremely essential. It protects people from the arbitrary actions of administrative authorities. It refers to the supremacy or domination of the law, and it is essentially made up of principles.
The Constitution of India is supreme. The notion of rule of law is clearly stated in the preamble of our Constitution. Planning and welfare schemes are sometimes seen as fundamentally attacking the rule of law since they undermine individual freedoms and liberty in a variety of ways. The rule of law, on the other hand, plays an important role by emphasizing fairness and more administration accountability. In order to remove administrative arbitrariness, it places a greater focus on the principles of natural justice and the rule of speaking order in the administrative process.
Case Laws
The Supreme Court, in S.G. Jaisinghani V. Union of India and others[7], outlined the fundamentals of the rule of law in a very clear manner. “The lack of arbitrary power is the primary necessity of the rule of law, upon which our entire constitutional system is founded,” it stated. When discretion is conferred on executive authorities in a system governed by the rule of law, it must be maintained with clearly defined limits.
From this perspective, the rule of law means that judgments should be made based on well-established principles and regulations and that such decisions should be predictable, allowing citizens to know where they stand. A choice made without regard for any principle or norm is unpredictable, and it is the polar opposite of a decision made in line with the rule of law.”
The Supreme Court, in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association V. Union of India,[8] reaffirmed that one of the essentials of the rule of law is the absence of arbitrariness. Observed the Court. “For the rule of law to be realistic, the discretionary authority must exist within the operation of the rule of law, even if it must be limited to the bare minimum required for proper governance, and within the area of discretionary authority, the existence of proper guidelines or norms of general application precludes any arbitrary exercise of discretionary authority.”
In such a circumstance, exercising discretionary authority in its application to individuals, according to suitable principles and norms, restricts the discretionary area even further, but discretionary authority must be given to the extent necessary to make the system workable.
Separation of Powers
Even though our constitution appears to be built on the notion of separation of powers. The judiciary is autonomous in its sector, and neither the government nor the legislature can interfere with its judicial powers. The Constitution prohibits any debate of a judge’s conduct in the House of Commons. The authority of judicial review has been assigned to the High Courts and the Supreme Court, which can declare any law approved by parliament illegal.
The President, in agreement with the CJI and the justices of S.C., appoints the judges of S.C. S.C. has the authority to establish rules for the efficient conduct of business.
“Article 73. The extent of the Union’s executive power. – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Union’s executive power must extend – (a) to the matters over which Parliament has legislative authority…”
“Article 162. The extent of State Executive Power. – Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a State’s executive power shall extend to matters over which the legislature of the State has legislative authority….”
Conclusion
The Indian Constitution has a substantial impact on Indian legislation, particularly administrative law. All governmental authority, as well as the validity of their operations, are made and executed within this system. No legislature or governmental agency can make a law or act that violates the constitution. No administrative agency’s conduct, whether executive, legislative, judicial, or quasi-judicial, can stand if it violates the constitution. As a result, the constitution governs the entire governance process in the country. The judiciary has a responsibility to ensure that no government body violates the constitution’s provisions. The judiciary is referred to be the “guardian of the constitution” because of its role.
In India, the administrative process has advanced to the point where we are no longer ruled but rather administered. It should be noted that constitutional law deals with fundamentals, whereas administrative law deals with specifics. Whatever the reasons and counter-arguments, the fact is that administrative law is acknowledged as a separate, autonomous branch of legal study, as the learned author, Sh. I.P. Messey[9] has rightly pointed out. Though there are moments when the fields of constitutional law and administrative law collide.
References:
[1] The Indian Constitution, 1950
[2] The Indian Constitution, 1950
[3] The Indian Constitution, 1950
[4] Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, 1986, 2 SCC 401.
[5] Writ Petition (civil) 135 of 1970
[6] Muskaan Vijay, Critical Analysis of Indian Administrative Law Formation (Aug. 19 2021, 4:45PM) https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5566-critical-analysis-of-indian-administrative-law-formation.html
[7] (AIR 1967 SC 1427)
[8] (AIR 1994 SC 268 at p.298)
[9] http://law.uok.edu.in/Files/5ce6c765-c013-446c-b6ac-b9de496f8751/Custom/A1.pdf
0 Comments