Contents

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND RIGHT TO INFORMATION...........................................................2

Nature, Scope and functions of Administrative Law...........................................................2
Definition of Administrative Law......................................................................................2
Nature of Administrative Law-..........................................................................................2
Scope of Administrative Law............................................................................................ 2
Functions of Administrative Law...................................................................................... 3
DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWER...............................................................................4
Three Branches of Government:...................................................................................... 4
Key Features:.................................................................................................................... 4
Importance:...................................................................................................................... 4
Important case laws related to the doctrine of separation of powers in India:................5
Meaning of Rule of Law.......................................................................................................6
Key Features of the Rule of Law:......................................................................................6

1
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND RIGHT TO
INFORMATION

Nature, Scope and functions of Administrative Law

Definition of Administrative Law- it is the law that govern administrative actions.

According to Ivor Jenning, administrative law is law related to administration. It determine
the organisation, powers and duties of administrative authority.

Nature of Administrative Law- some key aspects of the nature of administrative law:
 Regulation of Public Authorities- Administrative law regulates the exercise of power
by government agencies and officials.
 Control of Discretion- it sets boundaries on the discretionary powers of administrative
bodies to prevent abuse and arbitrariness.
 Implementation of Public Policy- Administrative agencies often implement public
policy and administer programs through rule-making, adjudication, and enforcement.
 Principles of Natural Justice- it incorporates principles such as the right to a fair
hearing (audi alteram partem) and impartiality (nemo judex in causa sua) to protect
individuals against unjust decisions.
 Judicial Review- Courts review the legality of administrative actions to ensure
compliance with constitutional provisions, statutes, and principles of fairness.
 Delegated Legislation- It governs the creation and oversight of rules, regulations, and
orders issued by administrative agencies under the authority delegated by legislatures.

Administrative law serves as a tool to promote accountability, transparency, and efficiency in

public administration while protecting the rights of citizens.

Scope of Administrative Law- the scope of administrative law consist of the rules,
principles, and procedures that govern the functioning of administrative authorities. It deals
with the structure, powers, and duties of these authorities and the remedies available to
individuals affected by their actions. The scope of administrative law is vast and dynamic,
evolving with societal needs and advancements in governance. It ensures a balance between
efficient administration and protection of individual rights. Some of the key aspects of its
scope are
 Rule-making Power of Administrative Authorities- Administrative law covers the
rules, regulations, and orders made by administrative bodies under the authority
delegated by the legislature.
 Administrative Adjudication- Administrative law governs the quasi-judicial functions
of administrative agencies that resolve disputes and enforce regulations.
 Administrative Discretion- Examines the discretionary powers granted to
administrative authorities and ensures they are exercised reasonably and not
arbitrarily.
 Control Mechanisms- Judicial Control: Courts oversee administrative actions to
ensure legality, fairness, and compliance with procedural requirements, Legislative
Control: Parliament and legislature supervise administrative bodies through debates,
committees, and audits, Executive Control: Supervisory roles played by higher
administrative authorities.

2
  Principles of Natural Justice- Right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), Rule
against bias (nemo judex in causa sua), Guarantees procedural fairness in
administrative decision-making.?
 Public Accountability and Transparency- Promotes mechanisms like the Right to
Information (RTI) Act and other tools to make administrative functioning open and
accountable.
 Liability of the State and Administrative Bodies- Administrative law examines the
liability of the government and its officials for wrongful acts or negligence.
 Administrative Tribunals and Specialized Bodies- Establishment and functioning of
tribunals, commissions, and regulatory bodies like SEBI, CCI, or human rights
commissions.
 Relationship Between Citizens and Administration- Focuses on protecting citizens’
rights and ensuring fairness in dealings with administrative bodies.

Functions of Administrative Law- The functions of administrative law are aimed at

regulating and controlling the exercise of power by administrative authorities while
protecting the rights of individuals. Below are the primary functions of administrative law:
 Regulation of Administrative Powers- Defines the powers and responsibilities of
administrative authorities to ensure they act within their legal limits.
 Protection of Individual Rights- Safeguards the rights of individuals against arbitrary
or unlawful actions by administrative authorities.
 Ensuring Rule of Law- Guarantees that administrative actions are governed by law
and not by arbitrary decisions.
 Control of Delegated Legislation- Regulates the rule-making powers of administrative
authorities to ensure that delegated legislation does not exceed the powers granted by
the parent statute.
 Adjudication of Disputes- Facilitates resolution of disputes between individuals and
administrative authorities through tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies.
 Promotion of Accountability and Transparency- Holds administrative authorities
accountable for their actions through mechanisms like judicial review, ombudsmen,
and the Right to Information (RTI).
 Judicial Review of Administrative Actions- Allows courts to examine the legality of
administrative actions to ensure they are not ultra vires (beyond legal authority),
unreasonable, or procedurally unfair.
 Balancing Individual and Public Interests- Strikes a balance between individual rights
and the broader public interest to promote effective governance while upholding
justice.
 Guidance on Administrative Procedures- Provides guidelines and rules for the proper
functioning of administrative authorities, including rule-making, decision-making,
and enforcement.
 Grievance Redressal- Establishes mechanisms like administrative tribunals,
ombudsmen, and public commissions to address grievances and disputes involving
administrative actions.
 Facilitating Public Policy Implementation- Supports the implementation of public
policies by granting necessary powers to administrative bodies while ensuring these
powers are exercised lawfully.

3
 DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWER
The doctrine of separation of powers is a fundamental principle of governance that divides
the powers and functions of government into three distinct branches: legislative, executive,
and judiciary. The objective of this doctrine is to prevent the concentration of power in one
body and to ensure a system of checks and balances.
Origin: The concept was first articulated by Aristotle in ancient Greece, but it was developed
into a formal doctrine by Montesquieu, a French philosopher, in his seminal work, “The
Spirit of the Laws” (1748).
Montesquieu argued that liberty could only be safeguarded if the three powers of government
were separate and acted independently.

Three Branches of Government:

1. Legislature: Function: To make laws.
2. Executive: Function: To enforce and administer laws. Example: President, Prime
Minister, and government departments.
3. Judiciary: Function: To interpret laws and adjudicate disputes. Example: Courts and
tribunals.

Key Features:
1. Mutual Exclusivity: Each branch should function independently without interfering in
the domains of the others.
2. Checks and Balances: Each branch exercises some control over the others to prevent
abuse of power.
3. Rule of Law: The doctrine upholds the principle that no branch or individual is above
the law.
4. Accountability: The separation ensures that power is not concentrated in one branch,
making governance more transparent and accountable.
5. Application in Different Systems:
o United States: The U.S. Constitution explicitly enshrines the separation of
powers.
o United Kingdom: The U.K. follows a parliamentary system where the
separation of powers is not rigid.
o India: The Indian Constitution incorporates a functional separation of powers
rather than a strict division.
6. Criticism: Rigid Separation: Critics argue that strict separation can lead to
inefficiency and lack of coordination.
7. Overlap in Practice: In modern democracies, there is often some overlap between
branches (e.g., executive being part of the legislature in parliamentary systems).
8. Judicial Overreach: Excessive judicial intervention in legislative or executive matters
can blur the boundaries of separation.

Importance:
1. Prevents Tyranny: By dividing power, the doctrine ensures that no branch or
individual becomes autocratic.
2. Protects Liberty: Guarantees individual freedoms by preventing arbitrary actions by
any branch.
3. Promotes Efficiency: Enables specialization by assigning distinct responsibilities to
each branch.

4
 4. Ensures Accountability: Checks and balances create a system of mutual oversight,
reducing the likelihood of abuse of power.

In summary, the doctrine of separation of powers is vital for maintaining democracy, the rule
of law, and good governance. While its rigid application may not always be practical, its
essence lies in ensuring that power is exercised responsibly and equitably among the
branches of government.

Important case laws related to the doctrine of separation of powers in

India:
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)-: The doctrine of separation of powers was
held to be part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. The judiciary cannot encroach upon
the powers of the legislature and executive, and vice versa.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)- The doctrine of separation of powers was
reinforced, as the judiciary invalidated the 39th Constitutional Amendment, which sought to
place certain laws beyond judicial review. Significance: Ensured that the legislature does not
interfere with judicial powers.
Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955)- Principle Established: The Supreme Court
observed that the Indian Constitution does not follow a strict separation of powers but rather
provides a functional separation between the organs of government. Significance: Each organ
performs its respective role while maintaining checks and balances.
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)- Principle Established: The judiciary reaffirmed its
power to review and struck down laws that violate fundamental rights, establishing the role of
checks and balances. Significance: Strengthened judicial independence.
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)- Principle Established: The judiciary clarified that
courts cannot interfere in matters purely within the domain of the executive or legislature
unless constitutional provisions are violated. Significance: Reinforced the boundaries
between the three organs of government.
P. Kannadasan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996)- Principle Established: Courts reiterated that the
legislature, executive, and judiciary must function within their constitutional limits.
Significance: Ensured adherence to the principle of separation of powers.
Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991)- Principle Established: The
judiciary emphasized its role as the guardian of fundamental rights and the rule of law,
maintaining a balance between the three organs. Significance: Highlighted judicial
accountability and independence.
These cases demonstrate how Indian courts have interpreted and applied the principle of
separation of powers within the framework of the Constitution while maintaining the
necessary balance between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

5
Meaning of Rule of Law
The rule of law is a foundational principle of governance that emphasizes the supremacy of
law over any individual or institution. It ensures that everyone, regardless of their rank or
position, is subject to the law and that laws are applied equally, fairly, and consistently.

Key Features of the Rule of Law:

1. Supremacy of Law: The law is the supreme authority, and no individual, including
government officials, is above the law.
Equality Before the Law: Every person is subject to the same laws and is treated equally in
the eyes of the law.
Fairness and Justice: The laws must be clear, public, and fair, protecting the rights of
individuals and ensuring justice.
Accountability: Public officials and institutions must act within the boundaries of the law and
are accountable for their actions.
Protection of Rights: The rule of law guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms and
provides mechanisms for their enforcement.
Independent Judiciary: Courts must be impartial and free from external influences to ensure
the fair application of the law.
Origin and Development: The concept of the rule of law has roots in ancient political thought,
including the works of Aristotle, who argued that “the law should govern.” Modern
articulation was provided by A.V. Dicey, a British jurist, in his book “Introduction to the
Study of the Law of the Constitution” (1885). He outlined three key principles of the rule of
law:
• Supremacy of law over arbitrary power.
• Equality before the law.
• Predominance of legal spirit, meaning law must be enforced through
established legal principles.
In cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court recognized
the rule of law as a basic feature of the Constitution.
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court emphasized fairness and non-
arbitrariness as central to the rule of law.
Scope of the Rule of Law refers to the principles, practices, and areas it encompasses in
ensuring justice, equality, and governance. Broadly, it includes the following dimensions:
Foundational Principles:
Supremacy of the Law: No one is above the law, including government officials and public
authorities.
Equality Before the Law: All individuals, regardless of status or position, are subject to the
same legal standards.
Fairness and Justice: Laws must be applied fairly, with opportunities for individuals to seek
redress.
2. Institutional Framework
 Independent Judiciary: Courts must operate free of interference to ensure impartiality.
 Legislative Process: Laws should be made transparently and reflect the will of the
people.
 Accountability Mechanisms: Institutions must be held accountable for their actions
under the law.
3. Protection of Rights

6
Human Rights: Safeguarding fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and
equality.
Access to Justice: Ensuring that legal remedies are available, affordable, and timely for all.
Rule Against Arbitrary Power: Preventing the misuse of authority and ensuring decisions are
based on clear legal principles.
4. Governance and Administration
Democratic Values: Upholding the rule of law in the administration of governance to
maintain checks and balances.
Transparency: Public access to information about government processes and laws.
Good Faith and Integrity: Laws should not be misused for personal or political gain.
5. Global and Domestic Application
Domestic Law: Ensures legal order within a nation-state, including criminal, civil, and
administrative law.
International Law: Promotes global standards, such as through treaties, conventions, and
organizations like the United Nations.
6. Limitations and Challenges
Laws must not only exist but also be just, promoting equity rather than oppression.
Social, economic, and cultural contexts can affect the consistent application of the rule of law.

Rule of Law Under Indian Constitution- the Rule of Law is a cornerstone of the Indian
Constitution, ensuring justice, equality, and accountability in governance. Its importance
under the Indian Constitution can be summarized as follows:
1. Foundation of Democracy
The Rule of Law establishes the supremacy of the Constitution, ensuring that all individuals
and institutions, including the government, function within the framework of the law.
It ensures democratic governance by binding all branches of government—executive,
legislature, and judiciary—to constitutional limits.
2. Equality Before the Law
Enshrined in Article 14, the principle of “equality before the law” guarantees that no
individual or group is above the law.
It prohibits discrimination and promotes equal protection of laws for all citizens.
3. Protection of Fundamental Rights
The Rule of Law is central to safeguarding fundamental rights under Part III of the
Constitution (Articles 12–35).
Rights such as freedom of speech (Article 19), protection of life and liberty (Article 21), and
protection against arbitrary detention (Article 22) uphold the principles of justice and
fairness.
4. Judicial Independence
The Rule of Law ensures an independent judiciary, which acts as the guardian of the
Constitution.
Courts, especially the Supreme Court and High Courts, have the power to review legislation
and executive actions to ensure they align with constitutional principles (Judicial Review
under Articles 32 and 226).
5. Accountability and Governance
The Rule of Law promotes accountability by requiring government officials and authorities to
act according to the Constitution and laws.
It prevents arbitrary use of power and fosters transparency in decision-making.
6. Check on Arbitrary Power
It prevents the abuse of authority by ensuring that laws are applied consistently and not
subject to personal or political whims.

7
The principles of natural justice, embedded in the Constitution, ensure fair and impartial
proceedings.
7. Guidance in Legislative and Executive Actions
The Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) provide guidelines for governance,
ensuring that laws and policies align with justice, equality, and welfare.

8
 Delegated legislation

It refers to laws or regulations made by a person or body under authority given to them by an
enabling or parent Act. It allows the legislature to delegate its law-making powers to other
entities, such as ministers, government departments, or local authorities, for practical or
technical reasons.
Types of Delegated Legislation:
1. Statutory Instruments – Often used by executives to create regulations under
the framework of an Act of Parliament.
2. By-laws – Rules made by local authorities or certain public bodies for specific
local areas or functions.
3. Orders in Council – Made by the government, often in emergencies or when
quick action is required, and approved by the Privy Council or Parliament
Advantages:
• Saves legislative time.
• Allows for technical expertise in drafting rules.
• Provides flexibility to address specific or changing circumstances.
Disadvantages:
• Reduces parliamentary oversight.
• Risk of misuse of delegated powers.
• May lead to complexity or confusion if overused.

Delegated legislation is subject to controls such as judicial review and parliamentary scrutiny
to ensure it complies with the enabling Act and is not used arbitrarily.
Delegated legislation is necessary for several practical and functional reasons, particularly in
modern governance, where laws must adapt to complex and rapidly changing societal needs.
Below are the key reasons for its necessity:
1. Saves Parliamentary Time- Legislatures cannot devote complete time to drafting detailed
rules and regulations for every law. Delegating such responsibilities allows Parliament to
focus on major policy issues.
2. Technical Expertise- Many areas, such as health, finance, and environmental regulations,
require technical or specialized knowledge. Delegated legislation allows experts in these
fields to create detailed and effective regulations.
3. Flexibility and Adaptability- Delegated legislation can be updated or amended more
quickly than primary legislation to respond to urgent or unforeseen circumstances (e.g.,
public health emergencies).
4. Local Application- Certain issues are best addressed at a local level. Delegated legislation
enables local authorities or bodies to create by-laws that cater to the specific needs of their
communities.
5. Detail and Practicality- Acts of Parliament often establish broad principles, while delegated
legislation provides the specific details and practical measures needed to implement those
principles.
6. Quick Response- Delegated legislation allows governments to act promptly in
emergencies, such as through Orders in Council, which can bypass the lengthy legislative
process.
7. Consistency with Change- Social, economic, and technological changes often require
frequent updates to laws. Delegated legislation ensures laws remain relevant without the need
for new Acts of Parliament.
Safeguards:

9
While delegated legislation is essential, it must be controlled through mechanisms such as:
• Parliamentary scrutiny (affirmative or negative resolution procedures).
• Judicial review to ensure legality and fairness.
• Consultation processes with relevant stakeholders.

By balancing efficiency with accountability, delegated legislation enhances the functioning of

modern legal systems.
The scope of delegated legislation refers to the extent and areas in which law-making powers
are delegated to subordinate authorities. Its scope is vast, covering various sectors and
enabling the practical implementation of primary legislation. Below are key aspects of its
scope:
1. Administrative and Technical Details- Delegated legislation deals with technical and
administrative matters that require specialized knowledge, such as: Health and safety
regulations, Financial guidelines, Environmental standards.
2. Implementation of Primary Legislation- It provides the necessary details for applying the
broader principles and objectives of Acts of Parliament. Examples include: Setting fees and
penalties, Defining procedures for enforcement. Specifying timelines for compliance.
3. Emergency Situations- Allows quick and effective action during crises through
mechanisms like Orders in Council or emergency regulations. For example: Managing public
health emergencies (e.g., COVID-19 regulations). Responding to national security threats.
4. Local and Regional Needs- Enables local authorities to create by-laws tailored to their
specific areas. Examples include: Parking regulations, Zoning laws,Waste management rules.
5. Adjusting to Changing Circumstances- Delegated legislation allows governments to update
laws to reflect changing social, economic, or technological conditions without passing new
Acts. For example: Modifying taxation rules, Amending trade and commerce regulations.
6. International Obligations- Used to implement international treaties, agreements, or
obligations efficiently, such as: Trade regulations aligned with global standards,
Environmental commitments under international protocols.
7. Sector-Specific Governance- Delegated legislation applies to specific sectors where
detailed rules are necessary. For instance: Aviation and transportation regulations. Education
policies, including examination frameworks.
Limitations on Scope:
While broad, the scope of delegated legislation is limited by:
The enabling Act, which defines the boundaries of delegated powers.
Parliamentary oversight and controls (e.g., affirmative or negative resolution procedures).
Judicial review to prevent abuse or overreach.

By addressing detailed, localized, or urgent issues, delegated legislation ensures laws are
practical, adaptable, and effective in diverse contexts.
Forms of Delegated Legislation refer to the various ways in which law-making powers are
delegated to subordinate authorities. The primary forms include the following:
1. Statutory Instruments- These are the most common form of delegated legislation in many
jurisdictions. Typically created by government ministers under powers granted by an enabling
Act. Used to implement, update, or provide details for primary legislation. Examples:
Regulations, rules, and orders. Example in practice: Updating road traffic rules or tax rates.
2. By-laws- Made by local authorities, municipalities, or public corporations under specific
powers given by enabling Acts. Applied to local areas or specific services. Must be approved
by the relevant government authority or minister before enforcement.Example in practice:
By-laws regulating parking, waste disposal, or public parks.

10
3. Orders in Council- Created by the Queen (or head of state) and the Privy Council, often on
the advice of ministers. Used in situations requiring urgent or emergency action. Can bypass
the usual parliamentary procedure.Example in practice: Emergency regulations during a
national crisis or public health emergency.
4. Rules- Often made by judges or courts under statutory authority. Govern procedures in
specific areas, such as court processes or administrative tribunals. Example in practice: Civil
Procedure Rules or rules for evidence handling.
5. Regulations- Detailed instructions issued by a government department or agency to
implement provisions of an Act. Often used to manage technical or complex matters.
Example in practice: Environmental protection regulations or workplace safety standards.
6. Codes of Practice- Guidelines or standards issued under statutory authority to regulate
behaviour in specific sectors. Not always legally binding but can be enforceable if referenced
in legislation. Example in practice: Data protection codes or health and safety codes.
7. Schemes- Detailed frameworks created under delegated powers to regulate specific
activities or services. Example in practice: Compensation schemes for victims of crime.
8. Circulars and Directions- Instructions issued by government departments to local
authorities or public bodies. Not legally binding but carry significant authority as they explain
how delegated powers should be exercised. Example in practice: Circulars guiding local
councils on housing allocation policies.
Key Characteristics: Parliamentary Oversight: Most forms of delegated legislation are subject
to scrutiny, such as affirmative or negative resolution procedures. Judicial Review: Courts
can review and invalidate delegated legislation if it exceeds the authority granted by the
enabling Act.

By using these forms, delegated legislation ensures that laws are implemented effectively,
flexibly, and in a manner that accommodates local and technical needs.
he constitutionality of delegated legislation refers to its compliance with constitutional
principles, ensuring that it does not infringe upon the separation of powers or exceed the
authority granted by the legislature. While delegated legislation is widely accepted in modern
governance, its constitutionality depends on the following key factors:

1. Authority from the Enabling Act- Delegated legislation derives its validity from the
enabling Act (or parent statute), which specifies the scope and limits of the delegated powers.
It must strictly adhere to the provisions and purpose of the enabling Act to remain
constitutional.

2. Separation of Powers- Delegated legislation must respect the doctrine of separation of

powers, ensuring that:
 The legislature retains primary law-making authority.
 The executive exercises delegated powers without overstepping into legislative or
judicial functions.
 Excessive delegation that transfers core legislative functions to the executive can be
deemed unconstitutional.
3. Non-Delegable Powers- Some constitutional principles, such as the power to amend or
repeal the constitution, cannot be delegated.The legislature cannot abdicate its essential law-
making functions or delegate powers that would compromise the democratic process.
4. Judicial Review- Courts play a crucial role in ensuring the constitutionality of delegated
legislation through judicial review.
Delegated legislation may be declared unconstitutional if:
 It exceeds the authority granted by the enabling Act (ultra vires).

11
  It violates fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution.
 It is arbitrary, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the parent statute
5. Fundamental Rights- Delegated legislation must align with the constitutional framework,
including the protection of fundamental rights. Further if it infringes upon rights such as
equality, freedom of speech, or privacy, it may be struck down by the judiciary.
6. Parliamentary Control
Delegated legislation is often subject to parliamentary scrutiny, such as:
Affirmative or negative resolution procedures.
Laying the rules before Parliament for approval or annulment.
This ensures democratic accountability and compliance with constitutional principles.
7. Constitutional Safeguards- In some countries, constitutions explicitly provide limits or
guidelines for delegated legislation. For example: In India, delegated legislation must not
violate the provisions of the Indian Constitution. In the UK, the courts assess it under the
principles of common law and parliamentary sovereignty.
Therefore, the constitutionality of delegated legislation is upheld as long as:
It operates within the limits of the enabling Act.
It respects fundamental constitutional principles, such as separation of powers and protection
of rights.
It remains subject to judicial and parliamentary oversight.
If these conditions are violated, delegated legislation can be struck down as unconstitutional.
Sub-delegation refers to the process by which an authority, empowered to make delegated
legislation by an enabling Act, further delegates its law-making powers to another body or
individual. Essentially, it involves the transfer of delegated powers to a subordinate authority.

Principle of Sub-Delegation
The general rule in law is that “delegatus non potest delegare” (a delegate cannot further
delegate). This means that a body or individual entrusted with delegated powers cannot
ordinarily sub-delegate those powers unless explicitly authorized by the enabling Act.

Conditions for Sub-Delegation

Sub-delegation is permissible only if:
The Enabling Act Allows It: The enabling or parent statute must explicitly or implicitly
permit sub-delegation.
Purpose and Scope Are Defined: Sub-delegation must align with the purpose and limits set
out in the enabling Act.
Control Mechanisms Are Maintained: There must be oversight by the original delegating
authority or legislative body.

Reasons for Sub-Delegation

Complexity of Administration: Sub-delegation allows specialized bodies or officials to handle
specific technical or localized aspects of legislation.
Efficiency: It helps in faster decision-making and implementation by delegating tasks to those
closer to the issue.
Flexibility: Sub-delegation allows authorities to adapt laws to local or specific needs.

Examples of Sub-Delegation
Government Departments to Agencies: A minister, empowered to make rules, may sub-
delegate certain functions to a government agency or statutory authority. For Example: A
health minister sub-delegates regulatory power to a national health agency for setting medical
guidelines.

12
Local Authorities to Officers: Local governments may sub-delegate their by-law enforcement
powers to municipal officers. For Example: A city council sub-delegates the issuance of
licenses to an administrative officer.

Concerns and Challenges

Loss of Accountability: Sub-delegation may dilute responsibility and oversight.
Risk of Arbitrary Decisions: Excessive or unchecked sub-delegation can lead to misuse of
power.
Legal Uncertainty: If sub-delegation is not clearly authorized, it can be challenged as
unlawful.
Judicial Scrutiny of Sub-Delegation

Courts assess the legality of sub-delegation based on:

Enabling Act: Whether sub-delegation is expressly or implicitly permitted.
Ultra Vires Doctrine: If sub-delegation exceeds the powers granted by the enabling Act, it is
considered ultra vires (beyond authority) and invalid.
Reasonableness and Fairness: Sub-delegation must not lead to arbitrary or unreasonable
outcomes.

Conclusion
Sub-delegation is a practical tool for modern governance, but it must be exercised within the
limits set by the enabling Act and subject to adequate oversight to ensure accountability and
legality. If misused, sub-delegation can be challenged through judicial review.

Conditional legislation refers to laws enacted by a legislature that come into effect or are
enforced only upon the occurrence of a specified condition, event, or contingency. In this
type of legislation, the legislature defines the framework, principles, and objectives of the law
but leaves the application or enforcement dependent on the fulfillment of certain conditions.

Characteristics of Conditional Legislation

 Legislative Authority Retained: The legislature enacts the law but leaves its activation
or enforcement to a condition or external event.
 Contingency-Based: The operation of the law depends on a specific event, fact, or
situation that may arise in the future.
 Delegation of Execution: Often involves delegating the power to determine when or
how the condition is met to an administrative authority or the executive.

Examples of Conditional Legislation
Economic Thresholds: A law imposing tariffs or taxes might only take effect if the price of a
commodity exceeds a certain level.
Emergency Provisions: Laws granting special powers to the executive may come into force
only during a declared emergency.
Local Applicability: A statute enabling local authorities to implement regulations, such as
zoning laws, if a specific need arises.

Difference Between Conditional and Delegated Legislation

Conditional Legislation is the Law that takes effect upon fulfillment of a condition or event
whereas Delegated Legislation means Legislature itself delegates law-making power to
another body.

13
Judicial Recognition of Conditional Legislation

Courts generally uphold conditional legislation as valid because:

 The legislature retains the primary law-making power.
 Determining the fulfillment of a condition is considered an administrative act, not a
delegation of legislative power.
 The conditions or events are typically objective and ascertainable.
However, courts may intervene if:
The condition is vague or arbitrary.
The activation of the law violates constitutional principles.

Advantages of Conditional Legislation

Flexibility: Allows laws to adapt to specific circumstances or changing conditions.
Efficiency: Reduces legislative workload by pre-defining conditions under which laws
become operative.
Localized Application: Ensures laws are applied only where or when necessary.

Limitations of Conditional Legislation

Potential for Abuse: If conditions are broad or discretionary, it could lead to misuse by
administrative authorities.
Judicial Challenges: Ambiguity in the conditions or contingencies may lead to disputes and
judicial scrutiny.
Uncertainty: Delayed application of laws might create confusion among stakeholders.

Conclusion

Conditional legislation strikes a balance between legislative authority and administrative

flexibility. It allows the law to respond to specific needs or circumstances while maintaining
the legislature’s control over the legal framework. Its validity depends on clear conditions,
adherence to constitutional principles, and proper implementation.

The supervision of delegated legislation refers to mechanisms in place to ensure that the
powers delegated to subordinate authorities are exercised appropriately, lawfully, and within
the limits set by the enabling Act. Supervision is crucial to maintaining accountability,
preventing misuse of power, and ensuring adherence to constitutional principles.
The supervision of delegated legislation refers to mechanisms in place to ensure that the
powers delegated to subordinate authorities are exercised appropriately, lawfully, and within
the limits set by the enabling Act. Supervision is crucial to maintaining accountability,
preventing misuse of power, and ensuring adherence to constitutional principles.

Types of Supervision
Supervision of delegated legislation is broadly categorized into parliamentary, judicial, and
procedural/administrative controls.
Parliamentary Supervision
Parliamentary oversight ensures that the legislature retains control over the delegation of its
powers. Key methods include:
Laying Procedures:
Negative Resolution Procedure: The delegated legislation automatically becomes law unless
Parliament objects within a specified period (e.g., 40 days). (not in India)

14
Affirmative Resolution Procedure: The delegated legislation requires explicit approval from
Parliament before it can take effect.
Super-Affirmative Procedure: Used for particularly sensitive or significant delegated
legislation, requiring more rigorous parliamentary scrutiny.
Committees: Specialized committees review delegated legislation for compliance and
appropriateness, such as:
• Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (UK).
• Subordinate Legislation Committee (India).
• They examine issues like:
• Compliance with the enabling Act.
• Avoidance of retrospective effect unless explicitly authorized.

Questions and Debates: Parliamentarians can raise questions, initiate debates, or call
ministers to explain or justify specific pieces of delegated legislation.
2. Judicial Supervision

Courts play a critical role in ensuring that delegated legislation complies with the law through
judicial review.

Grounds for Judicial Review:

1. Ultra Vires: If the delegated legislation exceeds the powers granted by the enabling
Act.
Substantive Ultra Vires: If the content of the legislation contradicts the enabling Act or
fundamental constitutional principles.
Procedural Ultra Vires: If the required procedure for making the legislation (as outlined in the
enabling Act) is not followed.
2. Unreasonableness: If the delegated legislation is arbitrary or lacks justification.
Examples of Judicial Supervision: Courts may strike down a rule or regulation if it infringes
on fundamental rights or is inconsistent with higher laws.
3. Procedural/Administrative Supervision- Administrative mechanisms ensure
transparency and accountability in the process of creating delegated legislation.

a) Consultation: Authorities creating delegated legislation often consult relevant stakeholders

or expert bodies to ensure that the rules are practical and fair.

b) Publication: Delegated legislation must typically be published in official gazettes or

government websites to ensure public awareness.

c) Explanatory Notes: Explanatory documents or statements of intent may be provided to

clarify the purpose and scope of the delegated legislation.

Importance of Supervision
1. Prevents Abuse of Power: Ensures delegated legislation remains within the limits of the
enabling Act.
2. Maintains Democratic Accountability: Provides checks and balances to prevent arbitrary
rule-making.
3. Protects Fundamental Rights: Prevents delegated legislation from violating constitutional
principles or individual rights.
4. Promotes Transparency: Ensures the public and stakeholders are aware of and can
challenge improper regulations.

15
Challenges in Supervision
 Volume of Delegated Legislation: The sheer number of regulations can overwhelm
parliamentary or judicial scrutiny.
 Technical Complexity: Legislators and courts may lack the expertise to evaluate
highly technical regulations.
 Time Constraints: Limited time for scrutiny may result in inadequate oversight.

Conclusion
Supervision of delegated legislation is essential to ensure it remains lawful, reasonable, and
consistent with legislative intent. A combination of parliamentary, judicial, and administrative
controls provides a robust framework for accountability, though continuous refinement of
these mechanisms is necessary to address modern challenges.

DROIT ADMINISTRATIF

Droit Administratif is a French term that translates to Administrative Law in English. It refers
to the body of law governing the organization, powers, and functions of public administrative
authorities, as well as their relationships with private individuals and institutions. The concept
originated in France and is a key feature of the Napoleonic legal system.
Features of Droit Administratif
1.Separate Administrative Courts:
• In France, administrative disputes are handled by specialized courts, distinct
from ordinary judicial courts.
• The highest administrative court in France is the Conseil d’État (Council of
State).
2. Principle of Public Interest:
• Droit Administratif emphasizes the public interest and ensures that
administrative authorities act in the best interest of society.
3. Dual Legal System:
• There is a duality of jurisdictions in the French legal system:
• Administrative Courts for private law matters.
• Judicial Courts for public law matters.
4. Special Legal Rules:
• Administrative law operates under a set of principles and rules distinct from
private law, ensuring that public authorities have the necessary powers to perform their
duties.
Key Principles of Droit Administratif
1. Acte Administratif (Administrative Act):
• Actions and decisions made by public authorities to regulate administrative
matters.
2. Responsibility of the State:
• Public authorities can be held liable for damages caused by their actions or
decisions, a principle established in the landmark Blanco Case (1873).
3. Autonomy of Administrative Law:
• Administrative law operates independently of civil or criminal law,
recognizing the unique nature of public administration.
Significance of Droit Administratif
• It establishes a balance between the powers of the government and the rights
of individuals.

16
 • It ensures accountability and transparency in public administration.
• It protects citizens from arbitrary or unlawful actions by administrative
authorities.
Comparison with Common Law Systems
• In common law countries like the United States or the United Kingdom,
administrative law is part of the general judicial system, whereas in France, it is handled by a
specialized administrative judiciary.
• Droit Administratif reflects the civil law tradition, with codified rules and
principles, as opposed to the case-law-based approach in common law systems.

Droit Administratif remains an influential legal doctrine, serving as a model for

administrative law systems in many countries influenced by the French legal tradition.

Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd AIR 1987 SC 1802.

Background
The case dealt with the issue of price fixation by the government for drugs under the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Cynamide India Ltd., a pharmaceutical company,
challenged the government’s price control orders, arguing that they were arbitrary and
violated their fundamental rights.
Key Facts
1. Cynamide India Ltd. was engaged in manufacturing and selling drugs.
2. The Drug Price Control Order, 1970, issued under the Essential Commodities
Act, allowed the government to fix the maximum price of certain drugs.
3. The Union of India fixed the price of some drugs manufactured by Cynamide
India Ltd.
4. Cynamide India Ltd. contended that the price fixation was arbitrary, unfair,
and violative of Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice
any profession or carry on any trade, business, or occupation) of the Constitution of India.
5. The company argued that they were not given an opportunity to be heard
before the price was fixed.
Issues
1. Is the price fixation under the Essential Commodities Act subject to principles
of natural justice?
2. Does the process of price fixation constitute a quasi-judicial function or an
administrative action?
3. Was the price fixation arbitrary and violative of the company’s fundamental
rights?

Judgment- the Supreme Court of India delivered the following key rulings:
1. Price Fixation is an Administrative Function:
• The Court held that price fixation is not a quasi-judicial function but an
administrative function.
• The process involves policy considerations, economic factors, and public
interest, which do not require compliance with principles of natural justice (e.g., prior
hearing).
2. No Violation of Natural Justice:
• The Court clarified that price fixation does not involve disputes between two
parties. Instead, it is an administrative decision made in the public interest. Hence, natural
justice principles, like personal hearings, are not applicable.
3. Judicial Review is Limited:

17
 • The Court acknowledged that while price fixation cannot be arbitrary, courts
have a limited scope to review such administrative decisions.
• Judicial intervention is possible only if the decision is manifestly arbitrary,
discriminatory, or mala fide.
4. Balancing Public and Private Interests:
• The Court emphasized that the government has the authority to regulate drug
prices to ensure affordability and public welfare.
• The pharmaceutical industry’s profit motives must be balanced against the
public’s right to access essential medicines at reasonable prices.

Key Observations
1. No Right to Profit Maximization:
• The Court rejected the argument that businesses have an absolute right to
maximize profits, especially in industries like pharmaceuticals, where public interest is
paramount.
2. Transparency in Price Fixation:
• Although the government is not bound to give a hearing, the Court stressed the
importance of transparency and fairness in the price fixation process.
3. Public Interest Supersedes Corporate Interests:
• Ensuring access to affordable medicines for the public takes precedence over
the commercial interests of pharmaceutical companies.
Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the price fixation orders of the government, ruling that:
• Price fixation is a policy decision involving economic considerations and
public welfare.
• It is an administrative function, not subject to strict adherence to principles of
natural justice.
• Judicial review is limited to checking arbitrariness or mala fides.
Significance- This case established the principle that price regulation in the public interest is
a legitimate exercise of government power and highlighted the limits of judicial review in
administrative matters. It remains a landmark decision in administrative law and public
welfare jurisprudence.

CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR HEARING

The concept of natural justice and fair hearing is a fundamental principle in administrative
law and jurisprudence. It ensures that decisions made by authorities are just, fair, and free
from bias, protecting individuals’ rights while maintaining public trust in decision-making
processes.
Meaning of Natural Justice- Natural justice refers to the basic principles of fairness,
reasonableness, and equality that must be observed in decision-making, particularly in
administrative and judicial proceedings. It is rooted in the maxim “nemo judex in causa sua”
(no one should be a judge in their own cause) and “audi alteram partem” (hear the other side).
Key Principles of Natural Justice-
1. Nemo Judex in Causa Sua (Rule Against Bias): This principle ensures that decision-
makers are impartial and free from bias.
Types of bias include:
Personal bias: Arising from relationships, enmity, or any other kind of interests.
Pecuniary bias: Financial interests of the decision-maker in the outcome.
Subject matter bias: Prejudgment of the issue before hearing both sides.

18
 2. Audi Alteram Partem (Right to a Fair Hearing):
• This principle ensures that all parties involved in a dispute have the right to
present their case and respond to evidence or arguments against them.
• Key elements of a fair hearing:
• Notice: Adequate and timely information about the proceedings, enabling the
party to prepare.
• Opportunity to Present Case: The affected party must be given a chance to
present evidence, arguments, and rebuttals.
• Right to Legal Representation: In some cases, parties may have the right to be
represented by an advocate.
• Disclosure of Evidence: Authorities must disclose all material evidence used
in making a decision.
• Reasoned Decision: Decisions must include reasons, demonstrating that the
authority considered all relevant aspects.
3. Reasoned Decisions (Speaking Orders):
• Authorities are required to provide reasons for their decisions, ensuring
transparency and accountability.
• A reasoned decision allows parties to understand the basis of the decision and
facilitates judicial review.

Reasoned decisions refers to requirement that decisions made by an authoritry or adjudicator

should be supported by clear and logical explanations. These decisions must show the
reasoning behind the conclusion reached and the evidence or considerations that led to that
conclusion. A reasoned decision enhance the legitimacy of decision-making process. It
provides an opportunity for the parties involved to understand the rationale behind the
conclusion, thereby promoting trust in the fairness of the process.
Importance of Natural Justice-
1. Fairness and Equality:
• Natural justice ensures fairness in decision-making, treating all parties with
equality and respect.
2. Protection of Rights:
• It safeguards individuals from arbitrary actions by authorities or tribunals.
3. Prevention of Abuse of Power:
• It curbs misuse of authority by requiring decisions to be impartial and
justifiable.
4. Trust in the System:
• Observing natural justice enhances public confidence in administrative and
judicial processes.
Exceptions to Natural Justice
Certain situations allow for deviation from natural justice principles:
1. Emergency Situations: Urgent actions, such as suspension or dismissal, may
not permit prior hearing.
2. Legislative Decisions: When the authority acts in a legislative capacity, natural
justice may not apply.
3. Confidential Matters: Where disclosure of information may compromise
confidentiality or public interest.
4. Impracticality: In situations where compliance with natural justice is
impractical or unnecessary.
Judicial Recognition
Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) (UK):

19
 • Established that a right to a fair hearing applies even in administrative
decisions affecting individuals’ rights.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) (India):
• Expanded the scope of natural justice, holding that the right to a fair hearing is
implicit in Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution.
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970):
• Distinguished between administrative and quasi-judicial functions,
emphasizing the need for fairness in administrative decisions.
Conclusion

Natural justice and fair hearing are vital for ensuring fairness, transparency, and
accountability in decision-making. They act as a safeguard against arbitrary or biased actions
and uphold the rule of law by ensuring decisions are reasoned, just, and equitable.

PREVENTION OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION

Abuse of discretion occurs when a decision-making authority (e.g., a judge, an administrative
body, or a government official) acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without proper consideration
of the facts and laws applicable to a case. Preventing abuse of discretion involves
implementing measures that ensure fairness, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law.
Below are some key ways to prevent abuse of discretion:
1. Clear and Transparent Guidelines
• Decision-making authorities should follow well-defined laws, rules, and
procedures.
• Establish clear criteria and standards for making decisions to minimize
arbitrary judgments.

2. Accountability Mechanisms
• Appeals and Reviews: Allow for appeals to higher authorities or courts to
ensure decisions are reviewed for fairness and legality.
• Oversight Bodies: Independent oversight bodies or ombudsmen can monitor
decisions for compliance with the law and fairness.

3. Training and Education

• Train decision-makers on the proper application of laws, ethical standards, and
the principles of justice.
• Provide ongoing education to prevent biases or errors in judgment.

4. Documentation and Record-Keeping

• Require thorough documentation of decisions, including the reasoning and
evidence relied upon.
• Transparent records enable audits and reviews.
5. Judicial Independence
• Maintain independence from political, personal, or financial influences to
ensure impartial decision-making.
• Protect decision-makers from undue pressure or external interference.

6. Public Participation and Transparency

• Encourage stakeholder input in decision-making processes, where appropriate.
• Ensure decisions are made publicly available, with explanations provided for
significant rulings.

20
7. Checks and Balances
• Implement systems of checks and balances where multiple entities have
authority over key decisions.
• For instance, requiring approvals from multiple levels of authority can prevent
unilateral abuse.
8. Ethics and Integrity Standards
• Enforce strict ethical codes of conduct for decision-makers.
• Investigate and discipline any misconduct promptly and impartially.
9. Judicial Precedents
• Encourage adherence to established legal precedents to ensure consistency and
reduce arbitrariness.

10. Public Oversight and Civil Society

• Empower civil society organizations, media, and citizens to hold authorities
accountable.
• Promote awareness of legal rights to empower individuals to challenge unfair
decisions.

By applying these measures, institutions and systems can better guard against abuse of
discretion and ensure fair, lawful, and impartial decision-making.

PRINCIPLE OF REASONABLENESS-
The principle of reasonableness is a key component in the legal framework addressing the
prevention of abuse of discretion by public authorities or decision-makers. It ensures that the
exercise of discretionary power remains lawful, fair, and consistent with principles of justice
and equality.
What is Reasonableness? The principle of reasonableness requires that decisions made by
public authorities must:
• Be rational and based on relevant considerations.
• Avoid arbitrariness, capriciousness, or bias.
• Fall within the range of acceptable and defensible decisions in the eyes of a
reasonable person or body.
This principle prevents decision-makers from acting unreasonably or exceeding the scope of
their discretionary powers.
Abuse of Discretion
Abuse of discretion occurs when a public authority:
• Acts outside the scope of its lawful powers (ultra vires).
• Considers irrelevant factors or ignores relevant ones.
• Makes a decision that is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would
have made it.
Reasonableness in Judicial Review
Courts apply the principle of reasonableness when reviewing administrative decisions to
ensure they comply with the law. Two important standards often applied are:
• Wednesbury Unreasonableness (UK Law): Derived from the case Associated
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948), this test states that a
decision is unreasonable if it is so irrational that no reasonable person could have made it.
• Proportionality Test: Often applied in contexts involving human rights, it
examines whether the decision strikes a fair balance between the rights of individuals and the
interests of the public.
Prevention of Abuse of Discretion

21
To prevent abuse of discretion, decision-makers must:
• Follow statutory guidelines and legal standards.
• Provide proper reasoning for their decisions.
• Avoid acting with bias, malice, or improper purpose.
• Ensure transparency and fairness in the decision-making process.
If a decision violates the principle of reasonableness, it may be challenged through judicial
review or other legal mechanisms, leading to its reversal or modification.

DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY- The doctrine of proportionality is a fundamental

principle in administrative and constitutional law used to assess whether the actions of public
authorities are justified and balanced in relation to their purpose. It is particularly important
in preventing the abuse of discretion, ensuring that decisions do not impose excessive or
unjustified burdens on individuals while pursuing legitimate objectives.
Key Elements of the Doctrine of Proportionality
The doctrine of proportionality evaluates the following aspects of a public authority’s
decision-making process:
1. Legitimate Aim
• The decision must pursue a legitimate purpose or objective that is in line with
the law.
2. Suitability (Rational Connection Test)
• The measure adopted must be suitable to achieve the intended aim. There
should be a rational connection between the action and the objective.
3. Necessity
• The decision must be necessary, meaning that no less restrictive or less
intrusive alternative could achieve the same objective.
4. Proportionality in the Narrow Sense (Balancing Test)
• The benefits of the measure must outweigh the harm caused to individual
rights. A balance must be struck between the rights infringed and the public interest being
pursued.
Role in Preventing Abuse of Discretion
The doctrine of proportionality acts as a safeguard against abuse of discretion by requiring
decision-makers to act within reasonable limits. It ensures that:
1. Decisions are not arbitrary or excessive: Public authorities cannot impose
burdens that are disproportionate to the benefits they seek to achieve.
2. Individual rights are protected: The doctrine protects fundamental rights from
being unnecessarily or unjustifiably restricted by state actions.
3. Rational and fair decision-making: It promotes a structured approach to
decision-making, requiring authorities to justify their actions with logical reasoning.
Application in Judicial Review
In cases of judicial review, courts apply the doctrine of proportionality to assess whether
discretionary powers have been exercised lawfully and reasonably. The analysis involves:
• Scrutinizing whether relevant factors were considered and irrelevant ones
were ignored.
• Assessing whether the decision is excessively harsh or disproportionate in its
impact.
• Balancing individual rights against the broader public interest.
Examples of Proportionality in Action
1. Human Rights Cases: Ensuring that restrictions on fundamental rights (e.g.,
freedom of speech or assembly) are necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim of
protecting public order or national security.

22
 2. Administrative Actions: Reviewing disciplinary measures, licensing decisions,
or regulatory actions to ensure penalties or restrictions are not excessive compared to the
alleged misconduct or harm.
Comparison with Wednesbury Unreasonableness
• Wednesbury Unreasonableness: Focuses on whether a decision is so irrational
that no reasonable authority could have made it. It applies a high threshold for intervention
and emphasizes judicial restraint.
• Proportionality: Involves a more structured and detailed analysis of the
decision’s impact, balancing competing interests. It allows courts greater scope to evaluate
the fairness of a decision.
Relevance and Importance
The doctrine of proportionality is increasingly favored over Wednesbury unreasonableness,
particularly in jurisdictions influenced by human rights law, such as under the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It provides a more nuanced framework for ensuring
that discretionary powers are exercised fairly, rationally, and within legal bounds, preventing
their misuse or abuse.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)- The case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that
significantly expanded the interpretation of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.
This case is celebrated for establishing the principle that fundamental rights must be read
together and emphasizing the protection of individual liberty and procedural fairness.
Facts of the Case
1. Background: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was issued under the Passport Act,
1967. Subsequently, the Government of India impounded her passport under Section 10(3)(c)
of the Act in the interest of the “general public.”
2. Challenge: Maneka Gandhi was not provided a reason for the impounding of
her passport, nor was she given an opportunity to be heard. She filed a writ petition
challenging the order as arbitrary and violative of her fundamental rights.
Issues Raised
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
• Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): Was the impounding of the
passport without providing reasons a violation of the right to life and liberty?
• Article 14 (Right to Equality): Was the action arbitrary and discriminatory?
• Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) (Freedom of Speech and Profession): Did the
restriction on her passport violate her freedoms of expression and movement?
Scope of Procedure Established by Law:
• Could “procedure established by law” under Article 21 be arbitrary, or did it
require adherence to principles of natural justice?

Judgment
The Supreme Court delivered a historic and progressive ruling, expanding the interpretation
of fundamental rights under the Constitution.
1. Article 21: Expanded Interpretation: The Court held that the term “procedure
established by law” in Article 21 does not mean any procedure arbitrarily prescribed by law.
• The procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable and must comply with the
principles of natural justice. Arbitrary actions, even if sanctioned by law, violate Article 21.
Interrelationship Between Fundamental Rights:
• Fundamental rights are not isolated. They are interconnected and mutually
reinforcing.

23
 • Any law or action that violates one fundamental right may impact others and
must be tested for compliance with Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Article 14: Prohibition of Arbitrariness:
• The Court emphasized that Article 14 forbids arbitrary state action.
• Any administrative or legislative action must satisfy the test of reasonableness
and fairness.
Principles of Natural Justice:
• The Court ruled that natural justice requires that the person affected by a
decision be given a chance to be heard, ensuring transparency and fairness.
• Denying Maneka Gandhi a chance to explain her case violated the principles
of natural justice.
Key Principles Established
1. Right to Personal Liberty:
• The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is not confined to mere
animal existence but includes all aspects that make life meaningful, such as the right to travel
abroad.
2. Fair, Just, and Reasonable Law:
• Any law or procedure affecting personal liberty must be fair, just, and
reasonable, not arbitrary or oppressive.
3. Golden Triangle of Articles 14, 19, and 21:
• Fundamental rights must be read harmoniously, with the golden triangle of
Articles 14, 19, and 21 providing a robust framework for protecting individual rights.
Impact and Significance
1. Judicial Activism:
• The judgment marked a shift from a narrow textual interpretation of
fundamental rights to a rights-oriented and activist approach.
2. Procedural Safeguards:
• It introduced procedural fairness and natural justice as inherent components of
Article 21.
Foundation for Expanding Rights:
• The decision laid the foundation for recognizing a broader range of rights
under Article 21, such as the right to privacy, dignity, and legal aid.
Conclusion
The judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India remains a cornerstone of Indian
constitutional law. It expanded the scope of fundamental rights, ensuring that the State cannot
interfere with personal liberty without adhering to fairness, justice, and reasonableness. It has
continued to influence subsequent rulings, making it a pivotal case in the protection of
individual freedoms.

24