Administrative Law

Topic 1 – Nature and Scope of Administrative Law

1.1 Definition and Scope of Administrative Law

1.2 Rule of Law – Dicey’s Rule of Law

1.3 Theory of Separation of Powers

H.M. Seervai “The Supreme Court of India and the Shadow of Dicey The Position of the Judiciary under the Constitutional of India, 83-96 (1970)

1. Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549

   
   

The key issue in "Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. vs. The State of Punjab" was whether the Punjab Government's policy of nationalizing the publication of school textbooks, thereby excluding private publishers, violated the petitioners' rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The parties involved were Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others, who were private textbook publishers, and the State of Punjab. The Supreme Court reasoned that the executive power of the state includes the authority to engage in trade or business activities without specific legislative sanction, provided it does not contravene any existing law. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the government's actions did not require prior legislative approval and did not infringe upon the petitioners' constitutional rights. The judgment referenced the distribution of executive powers under Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution and aligned with the principles of parliamentary governance.

2. Asif Hameed v. State of J. & K., AIR 1989 SC 1899

   
   

The key issue in the case of Asif Hameed and Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. was whether the High Court had the authority to direct the State Government to establish a statutory independent body for medical college admissions, and if selections made by another authority were invalid. The Supreme Court of India, involving appellants Asif Hameed and others and the respondent State of Jammu and Kashmir, held that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing such directions, as legislative decisions are within the purview of the executive and legislature, not the judiciary. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, upheld the selection process conducted by the State, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates, citing compliance with procedural guidelines and lack of demonstrated prejudice.

3. State of M.P. v Bharat Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1170

   
   

The key issue in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vs. Thakur Bharat Singh was whether certain provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959, specifically Section 3(1)(b), were unconstitutional for infringing on the fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The parties involved were the State of Madhya Pradesh and Thakur Bharat Singh. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that Section 3(1)(b) imposed unreasonable restrictions on movement and was therefore void, as it violated Article 19(1)(d). The Court also clarified that Article 358, which suspends Article 19 during an emergency, does not validate laws that were void before the emergency. The appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh was dismissed, affirming the invalidity of the impugned provisions.

4. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207

   
   

The key issue in "Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla" was whether, during a state of emergency, individuals could file writ petitions for habeas corpus under Article 226 to challenge detentions under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, despite a Presidential Order suspending the enforcement of certain fundamental rights. The State of India was the appellant, and Shivakant Shukla was the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the Presidential Order under Article 359 barred the enforcement of fundamental rights, including the right to personal liberty, during the emergency, thus precluding the High Courts from entertaining habeas corpus petitions. The appeal was allowed, and the court emphasized the supremacy of the Presidential Order during emergencies, referencing precedents like Liversidge v. Anderson.

5. Indira Gandhi (smt.) v. Raj Narian AIR 1975 SC 2299

   
   

The Supreme Court addressed the validity of Indira Nehru Gandhi's election, challenged on grounds of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and examined the constitutional validity of Clause (4) of Article 329-A, introduced by the 39th Constitutional Amendment, which sought to override judicial review. The court held that Clause (4) violated the basic structure doctrine by undermining judicial review, the rule of law, and equality, while the validation of Gandhi’s election lacked adherence to legal norms and the principles of free and fair elections. Consequently, Clause (4) was invalidated, and the election dispute was directed to be resolved under existing laws, with reliance on the Kesavananda Bharati case to reaffirm judicial review as a cornerstone of the Constitution.

Topic 2 – Delegated Legislation

2.1. Meaning

2.2. Reasons for growth

2.3. Conditional Legislation

2.4. Permissible limits of delegation of legislative power

2.5. Judicial control

2.6. Legislative control – laying requirement

2.7. Procedural Control - Pre-and post-publication, consultation of affected interests; The General Clauses Act, 1897, sections 20-24

6. In re Delhi Laws Act, AIR 1951 SC 332

   
   

The Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether certain legislative provisions allowing the executive to extend laws with modifications were ultra vires, or beyond the powers of the legislature. The parties involved were the Indian government and various state governments. The Court examined the legislative powers under the Indian Constitution and previous legal precedents, including British and American cases. The Court concluded that while conditional legislation is permissible, the delegation of legislative power to modify laws is not. The final disposition was that the provisions allowing such delegation were ultra vires, meaning they exceeded the legislative authority.

7. Lachmi Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 714

   
   

The key issue in the case of Lachmi Narain and Ors. vs. Union of India was whether the Central Government's Notification No. SRO-3908 dated December 7, 1957, which amended the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as applicable to Delhi, was ultra vires. The appellants, including dealers in various goods, challenged the withdrawal of tax exemptions without the statutory three months' notice. The Supreme Court held that the notification was beyond the Central Government's power under Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, as it was issued long after the original extension and altered essential legislative features. The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision, and emphasized that the power to modify laws must be exercised contemporaneously with their extension and cannot change fundamental legislative policies.

8. Darshan Lal Mehra v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1848

   
   

The key issue in the case of Darshan Lal Mehra and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. was the constitutionality of the "theatre tax" imposed by the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, challenged by cinema owners under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The appellants argued that Section 172(2) of the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, which allowed the tax, was unconstitutional due to excessive delegation of legislative power and arbitrary classification based on annual rental value. The Supreme Court, referencing precedents like Gopal Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and The Western India Theatres Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Poona, upheld the tax, finding the delegation appropriate and the classification reasonable. The writ petitions were dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000 to be paid by each petitioner.

9. Govind Lal v. A.P.M. Committee, AIR 1976 SC 263

   
   

The key issue in Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel vs. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Godhra and Ors. was whether the notification under Section 6(5) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964, which included ginger as a regulated produce, required publication in a Gujarati newspaper. The Supreme Court held that such publication was mandatory, as the Act's language and legislative history indicated a clear intent for dual publication to ensure adequate public notice. The Court found that the notification was not published in a newspaper, rendering it invalid, and thus no prosecution could be based on its breach. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court's conviction of Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel and restored the acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate, ordering a refund of the fine paid.

10. Sonik Industries, Rajkot v. Municipal Corpn. of the City of Rajkot (1986) 2 SCC 608

    
    

The key issue in the case of Sonik Industries, Rajkot vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Rajkot was whether the publication of rules for levying a tax on buildings and lands, as required by Section 77 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, was valid when the notice in a newspaper stated that the rules could be inspected and purchased at the Municipal office. The court held that the publication requirement was satisfied as the notice provided sufficient information for affected persons to access the rules. The appeal by Sonik Industries was dismissed, affirming the validity of the tax rules. The court emphasized that while publishing the rules in the newspaper would have been preferable, the method used constituted substantial compliance with the law.

11. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1979 SC 1149

    
    

The key issue in the case of Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. and Ors. vs. The State of Haryana was whether a notification fixing the maximum selling price of iron and steel was void due to not being laid before both Houses of Parliament as required by Section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The appellants, Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. and others, contended that this omission invalidated the notification, while the respondent, the State of Haryana, argued that the requirement was directory, not mandatory. The Supreme Court, referencing various precedents, concluded that the laying requirement was indeed directory and not mandatory, thus the notification was valid despite not being laid before Parliament. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

12. Rajnarain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, AIR 1954 SC 569.

    
    

The key issue in the case of Rajnarain Singh vs. The Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, Patna and others was whether the notifications issued under sections 3(1)(f) and 5 of the Patna Administration Act, 1915, which subjected the Patna Village area to municipal taxation, were ultra vires. The appellant, Rajnarain Singh, represented residents of Patna Village, challenging the imposition of taxes without following statutory procedures. The Supreme Court held that while section 3(1)(f) was intra vires, the notification of 23rd April 1951 was ultra vires as it altered the essential policy of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, by bypassing mandatory procedures for imposing taxes. The appeal was allowed, and the respondents were ordered to pay costs.

Topic 3 – Administrative Discretion

3.1 Meaning of discretion; Judicial Review of conferment and exercise of

discretionary power, abuse of discretionary power;

3.2 Nature and Scope of Judicial Review

3.3 Grounds of Judicial Review:

3.3.1 Abuse / Misuse of discretion - mala fides/ ill-will, motive,

Unreasonableness / Arbitrariness, Improper Purpose,

Ignoring relevant considerations, Relying on irrelevant

considerations;

3.3.2 Non application of mind – acting mechanically, acting under

dictation, imposing fetters by self-imposed rules or policy

decisions;

3.3.3 Violation of the Principles of Natural Justice

13. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 224

    
    

The key issue in Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. was the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Coal Control Order, 1953, which allegedly infringed the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The parties involved were Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain, a firm of coal traders, and the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court found that clause 4(3) of the Control Order, which granted arbitrary power to the licensing authority, was unconstitutional as it imposed unreasonable restrictions on trade. Consequently, the court invalidated the cancellation of the petitioners' license but upheld the rest of the Control Order, dismissing other prayers. The court referenced the need for reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) and cited Chintamon v. The State of Madhya Pradesh as a precedent.

14. A.N. Parasuraman v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1990 SC 40

    
    

The key issue in the case of A.N. Parasuraman and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu was the constitutionality of the Tamil Nadu Private Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, 1966, specifically whether it provided adequate guidelines for the exercise of power by the delegated authority. The appellants, A.N. Parasuraman and others, challenged several sections of the Act, arguing they allowed for arbitrary and discriminatory decisions. The Supreme Court found that the Act failed to provide sufficient guidelines, rendering the provisions unfair and discriminatory, and thus declared the entire Act ultra vires. The appeal was allowed without costs, and the Act was struck down in its entirety.

15. J. R. Raghupathy v. State of A. P., AIR 1988 SC 1681

    
    

The key issue in J.R. Raghupathy and Ors. vs. State of A.P. and Ors. was whether the location of Mandal Headquarters in Andhra Pradesh was a purely governmental function and thus not subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants were J.R. Raghupathy and others, while the respondents were the State of Andhra Pradesh and others. The Supreme Court held that the guidelines for locating Mandal Headquarters were merely executive instructions without statutory force, and thus not enforceable through writs. The Court found that the High Court had overstepped by interfering with the government's discretion in these matters. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgments interfering with the location of Mandal Headquarters were set aside.

16. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Co-op. Bank Employees Assn., (2007) 4 SCC 669

    
    

The key issue in this case was whether the punishment imposed by the Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank on 53 employees for participating in an illegal strike was proportionate. The parties involved were the Management of Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank and the Secretary of the Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Employees Association. The Supreme Court of India held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Labour Court's decision, which was in accordance with the law. However, considering the long passage of time and the current industrial peace, the Court, exercising its power under Article 142, decided not to disturb the limited relief granted by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal was disposed of without costs.

17. Om Kumar & Others v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689

    
    

The key issue in Om Kumar and Ors. vs. Union of India was whether the punishments imposed on certain Delhi Development Authority officers for their roles in the Skipper Construction Co. land allotment scandal were proportionate to their misconduct. The parties involved were Om Kumar, Virendra Nath, K.S. Baidwan, R.S. Sethi, and the Union of India. The Supreme Court applied the Wednesbury principles to assess the reasonableness of the punishments, concluding that the penalties were not shockingly disproportionate. The Court decided not to refer the matter for further review by the Vigilance Commissioner, thus dropping further proceedings.

18. R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Daly, (2001) UKHL 26

19. G. Sadananadan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1925

    
    

The key issue in the case of G. Sadanandan vs. State of Kerala and Ors. was the legality of Sadanandan's detention under Rule 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, which he challenged as mala fide. The parties involved were G. Sadanandan, a businessman, and the State of Kerala, with N. Paramasivan Nair, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, also implicated. The Supreme Court found the detention order to be mala fide, primarily due to the lack of a counter-affidavit from Nair denying specific allegations and the inadequacy of the Home Secretary's affidavit. The Court allowed the petition, declaring the detention invalid and unjustified, and ordered the State of Kerala to pay costs of Rs. 500 to Sadanandan.

20. Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872.

    
    

The Supreme Court of India addressed the key issue of whether the notices issued by the Union of India and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for re-entry and demolition of the Express Buildings were valid. The parties involved were Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and others against the Union of India and others. The court found that the notices were arbitrary, mala fide, and politically motivated, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court quashed the notices, ruling that the construction was with the lessor's permission and did not breach the lease terms. The court directed the Union of India to pursue any claims for conversion charges through a duly constituted suit or legislation.

21. State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan, (1961) 1 SCR 227

    
    

The key issue in the case of State of Bombay vs. K.P. Krishnan and Ors. was whether the Government's refusal to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, based on the workmen's go-slow tactics, was justified. The parties involved were the State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) and the workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Ltd. The Supreme Court held that the Government's decision was punitive and based on extraneous considerations, as the misconduct cited was not relevant to the dispute's merits. The Court affirmed the High Court's issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the Government to reconsider the reference, and dismissed the appeals.

22. Ranjit Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 461

    
    

The key issue in the case of Ranjit Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India was whether the reduction in the manufacturing quota of firearms for the petitioners was arbitrary and unjustified. The parties involved were Ranjit Singh, Bachan Singh, and Uttam Singh as petitioners, and the Union of India as the respondent. The Supreme Court reasoned that the government must consider relevant factors such as production capacity, quality, and economic viability when determining quotas, and found that the government had not adequately considered these elements. The court allowed the writ petitions, directing the Union of India to reconsider the manufacturing quotas after allowing the petitioners to present their cases with supporting material.

23. Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat and others AIR 1981 SC 477

    
    

The key issue in the case of Nandlal Khodidas Barot vs. Bar Council of Gujarat and Ors. was whether the Bar Council of Gujarat properly applied its mind to determine a prima facie case of professional misconduct before referring the complaint against Nandlal Khodidas Barot to its Disciplinary Committee. The Supreme Court found that the Bar Council of Gujarat did not demonstrate that it had reason to believe there was a prima facie case, rendering the referral and subsequent proceedings void. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order suspending Barot from practice for one year was set aside, with no order as to costs.

24. Shri Rama Sugar Industries Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1974) 1 SCC 534

    
    

The key issue in the case of Shri Rama Sugar Industries Ltd. and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. was whether the Andhra Pradesh government's policy to grant tax exemptions only to cooperative sugar factories under Section 21(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961, was justified. The appellants, sugar factories in Andhra Pradesh, argued that this policy was discriminatory and lacked a nexus to the Act's objective. The Supreme Court, referencing its earlier decision in Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. A.P. State, upheld the government's discretion to adopt such a policy, finding it consistent with legislative intent and not arbitrary. The appeal and writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the government's policy as a valid exercise of discretion.

25. Associated Provincial Picture Hose Ltd. V Wednesbury Corporation(1947)

26. DM Aravali Golf Club v Chander Hass, 2007 (14) SCALE 1

    
    

The key issue in the case of Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Ors. vs. Chander Hass and Ors. was whether the courts could direct the creation of posts for tractor drivers and regularize the respondents in those posts, despite no sanctioned posts existing. The appellants, Aravali Golf Club, contested the High Court and First Appellate Court's orders to create such posts. The Supreme Court, emphasizing the separation of powers, held that the judiciary cannot direct the creation of posts, a function reserved for the executive or legislative branches. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the High Court and First Appellate Court were set aside, upholding the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the suit.

27. Internet & Mobile Assn. of India v. RBI, (2020) 10 SCC 274

    
    

The Supreme Court of India addressed the legality of a Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular prohibiting banks from providing services to entities dealing in virtual currencies (VCs). The Internet and Mobile Association of India and others challenged this circular, arguing it was disproportionate and violated their right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court found that while RBI has the power to regulate VCs, the circular was disproportionate as it effectively shut down VC exchanges without evidence of harm to regulated entities. Consequently, the Court set aside the circular, allowing the writ petitions.

Topic 4 – Principles of Natural Justice

4.1 Administrative and quasi-judicial functions

4.2 Meaning and need for Administrative Adjudication, lis inter partes,

concept of fairness

4.3 Nemo judex in causa sua (rule against bias)

4.4 Audi alteram partem (rule of fair hearing)

4.4.1 Notice

4.4.2 Right to cross-examination

4.4.3 Right to legal representation

4.5 Reasoned Decision (Speaking Order)

4.6 Effect of non-observation of the Principles of Natural Justice

4.7 Requirement of supplying Enquiry Report – Effect of non-supply of

such Report.

28. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150.

    
    

In the case of A.K. Kraipak and others versus the Union of India and others, the Supreme Court addressed whether the selection process for the Indian Forest Service in Jammu and Kashmir violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice due to bias in the selection board. The court found that the inclusion of Naqishbund, a candidate for selection, in the selection board constituted a conflict of interest, as it contravened the principle that no person should be a judge in their own cause. This violation of natural justice led the court to strike down the impugned selections. The judgment highlighted the evolving nature of quasi-judicial powers and underscored the necessity for fairness in administrative decisions.

29. Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 454

    
    

The Supreme Court of India addressed the legality of selections made by the Haryana Public Service Commission for the Haryana Civil Service and allied services. The appellants, Ashok Kumar Yadav and others, challenged the High Court's decision to quash these selections, alleging bias and lack of integrity among commission members. The Supreme Court found the High Court's conclusions speculative and unsupported by evidence, emphasizing that the appointments of commission members were constitutionally valid. The Court dismissed the High Court's findings of nepotism and bias, reinstating the selections made by the commission. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

30. G.N. Nayak v. Goa University, AIR 2002 SC 790

    
    

The key issue in the case of G.N. Nayak vs. Goa University and Ors. was the legality of the appellant's selection as Professor of Marine Science, challenged by respondent No. 5 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court addressed whether the selection process was biased, if the eligibility criteria were improperly amended, and if the appellant met the qualifications. The Court found that the appellant's pre-doctoral research could be counted towards the required experience, aligning with precedent in Kumar Bar Das v. Utkal University. The Court dismissed the High Court's findings of bias and procedural irregularities, ultimately setting aside the High Court's decision and upholding the appellant's selection.

31. Amar Nath Chowdhuary v. Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 290

    
    

The key issue in the case of Amar Nath Chowdhury vs. Braithwaite and Company Ltd. and Ors. was whether the participation of the Disciplinary Authority, Shri S. Krishnaswami, in the appellate proceedings against his own decision violated the rule against bias. The Supreme Court found that Krishnaswami's dual role as both the Disciplinary Authority and a member of the Appellate Board contravened the principles of natural justice, specifically the rule that no person should judge their own cause. The Court rejected the respondent's reliance on the "Doctrine of Necessity" and held that the Board could have delegated appellate powers to a committee excluding Krishnaswami. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the Appellate Authority's order, remanding the case for a fresh decision by the Appellate Authority without bias. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

32. State of W.B. v. Shivananda Pathak (1998) 5 SCC 513

    
    

The key issue in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Shivananda Pathak and Ors. was whether "judicial obstinacy" could be considered a form of bias, particularly when a judge reiterates a previously overruled decision. The parties involved were the State of West Bengal and others as appellants, and Shivananda Pathak and others as respondents. The Supreme Court found that Justice Ajit Kumar Sengupta, who had previously ruled in favor of the respondents in an earlier writ petition, should not have presided over the appeal in a subsequent related matter, as it demonstrated bias through judicial obstinacy. The final disposition was that the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Calcutta High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petition without costs. The court emphasized the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, referencing the maxim "Nemo Debet Esse Judex In Propria Sua Causa.”

33. Hira Nath Mishra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, (1973) 1 SCC 805

    
    

The key issue in the case of Hira Nath Mishra and Ors. vs. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Ors. was whether the expulsion of three students for misconduct, without a formal hearing, violated principles of natural justice. The appellants, Hira Nath Mishra and others, challenged their expulsion for allegedly trespassing into the girls' hostel and misbehaving, arguing that they were denied a fair hearing. The Supreme Court upheld the expulsion, reasoning that the principles of natural justice are flexible and context-dependent, and in this case, the college's procedure was justified to protect the girl students from potential harassment. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court affirming that the college acted appropriately given the circumstances.

34. J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. , (1991) 2 SCC 283

    
    

The key issue in the case of J.K. Aggarwal vs. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. was whether the appellant, J.K. Aggarwal, was entitled to legal representation during a disciplinary inquiry that could lead to his dismissal. The Supreme Court of India found that the refusal to allow Aggarwal legal representation constituted a denial of natural justice, especially since the presenting officer had legal expertise. The court ordered that the inquiry be resumed, allowing Aggarwal's lawyer to cross-examine witnesses and present arguments, with the proceedings to be completed within a month. The appeal was disposed of with no costs.

35. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, (1999) 1 SCC 626

    
    

The key issue in this case was whether an employee of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) could be represented in disciplinary proceedings by a trade union member who is not an employee of BPCL. The parties involved were Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union. The Supreme Court reasoned that the right to representation in disciplinary proceedings is not absolute and can be restricted by certified standing orders, which in this case limited representation to fellow employees of BPCL. The Court found that the certified standing orders were reasonable and fair, aligning with the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The final disposition was that the appeals were allowed, the Bombay High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Appellate Authority's certification of the Draft Standing Orders was upheld.

36. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

    
    

The key issue in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India was whether the impounding of Maneka Gandhi's passport by the government violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The parties involved were Maneka Gandhi and the Union of India. The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is part of the "personal liberty" under Article 21 and cannot be deprived except according to a procedure established by law, which must be fair, just, and reasonable. The Court found that the procedure followed in impounding the passport did not meet these standards, as it lacked a fair hearing. The Court quashed the impounding order and directed the government to provide an opportunity for Maneka Gandhi to be heard. The judgment emphasized the interrelationship between Articles 14, 19, and 21, and the need for laws affecting personal liberty to be reasonable and non-arbitrary.

37. H.L. Trehan v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 568

    
    

The key issue in the case of H.L. Trehan and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. was whether the circular issued by Caltex Oil Refinery (India) Ltd. (CORIL) altering employee service conditions without a prior hearing violated principles of natural justice. The parties involved were H.L. Trehan and other employees of CORIL, and the Union of India. The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's decision, emphasizing that altering service conditions without a pre-decisional hearing contravenes natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution. The final disposition was the dismissal of all three appeals, affirming the quashing of the circular. The court referenced the precedent set in K.I. Shephard and Ors. v. Union of India regarding post-decisional hearings.

38. K I Shepherd v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 686.

    
    

The key issue in "K.I. Shephard and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors." was whether the exclusion of certain employees from employment following the amalgamation of three private banks with larger banks, without a hearing, violated principles of natural justice. The parties involved were K.I. Shephard and other excluded employees against the Union of India, Reserve Bank of India, and the transferee banks. The Supreme Court held that the scheme-making process under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act was not legislative and thus required adherence to natural justice principles, including a fair hearing for the excluded employees. The Court found the exclusion process unfair and unsupported, emphasizing that even administrative actions must comply with natural justice. The final disposition was that the exclusion of employees without a hearing was invalid, and the Court mandated a fair process.

39. S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984

    
    

The key issue in the case of S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India was whether the confirming authority and the Central Government were required to record reasons for confirming the findings and sentence of a General Court Martial. The appellant, S.N. Mukherjee, challenged the validity of the court-martial's findings and sentence, which were confirmed by the Chief of Army Staff and upheld by the Central Government. The Supreme Court, referencing the precedent set in Som Datt Datta v. Union of India, held that there was no requirement for the confirming authority or the Central Government to record reasons for their decisions. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities, and concluded that the absence of recorded reasons did not invalidate the confirmation of the court-martial's findings and sentence.

40. Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727

    
    

The key issue in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. vs. Karunakar and Ors. was whether a delinquent employee must be provided with the Inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority makes a decision on the employee's guilt and punishment. The parties involved were the Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, and others, and the respondent, Karunakar and others. The Supreme Court of India held that the report must be furnished to the employee as part of the reasonable opportunity to defend against charges, as it is a principle of natural justice. The court ruled that non-furnishing of the report constitutes a denial of natural justice, and the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case applies to all establishments. The final disposition was that the employee must receive the report regardless of whether they request it, and the effect of non-furnishing on the punishment must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Topic 5 – Judicial Review

5.1 Review and Appeal

5.2 Power of Judicial Review of the Supreme Court and the High Courts – Articles 32, 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

5.3 Writs – Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition, Habeas Corpus, Quo Warranto

5.3.1 Certiorari – (to decide the legality of an order/decision already passed/given) and for that purpose to produce all records of the case before the writ court - Grounds on which issued

5.3.2 Jurisdictional Errors – Excess of jurisdiction, Exercising jurisdiction not vested; Non-exercise of jurisdiction. The court exercising power does not act as an appellate court and therefore neither the merits of the case nor re-appraisal of evidence is allowed; Errors of law alone can be subject of judicial review but not the errors of fact howsoever grave they may be; Review possible if a decision/order was based on ‘no evidence’ or on irrelevant considerations;

5.3.3 Non-compliance with the prescribed procedure or the rules of

natural justice;

5.3.4 Errors of law apparent on the face of record can be corrected – that may occur when the conclusion of law recorded by the lower court/tribunal is based on an obvious mis-interpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it or even in disregard of it or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law.

5.4 Mandamus – To command the performance of a statutory or public duty; not issued for exercise of discretionary power or against the legislature/legislators; can be issued both against the executive authorities as well as private individuals/persons.

5.5 Prohibition – To decide the legality of pending proceedings

5.6 Habeas Corpus – To decide the legality of an arrest/detention. It is necessary to produce the arrested/detained person in the court and if dead, the dead body must be produced in the court.

5.7 Quo warranto – To decide the legal authority of a person to hold a public office.

5.8 Ouster clauses (constitutional and statutory exclusion)

5.9 Curative Petition

Grounds for issue of Writ of Certiorari

41. Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radha Krishanan AIR 1964 SC 477

    
    

The key issue in the case of Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors. was whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the State Transport Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding the grant of a stage carriage permit. The Supreme Court, with Justices P.B. Gajendragadkar and K. Subba Rao delivering separate opinions, ultimately held that the High Court had indeed overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering with the Tribunal's factual findings, which were supported by evidence. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ petition filed by K.S. Radhakrishnan was dismissed, with costs awarded to Syed Yakoob. The judgment referenced precedents such as Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque and emphasized the supervisory nature of certiorari jurisdiction, which does not permit re-evaluation of factual findings.

42. Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, AIR 2003 SC 3044

    
    

The key issue in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. was whether the amendment to Section 115 of the CPC affected the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The parties involved were Surya Dev Rai (appellant) and Ram Chander Rai and others (respondents). The Supreme Court reasoned that the amendment did not curtail the High Court's constitutional powers to issue writs of certiorari or exercise supervisory jurisdiction. The final disposition was that the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order dismissing the petition as not maintainable was set aside, with instructions to restore the petition for further proceedings.

The limit of the jurisdiction of the High Court in issuing writs of certiorari was considered by this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque and the following four propositions were laid down -

(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction;

(2) Certiorari will also be issued when the court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice;

(3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous;

(4) An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari if it is a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g., when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision.

43. Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607

    
    

The key issue in the case of Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. vs. V.R. Rudani and Ors. was whether a writ of mandamus could be issued against a private trust managing an affiliated college to compel payment of terminal benefits and arrears to retrenched teachers. The Supreme Court of India held that the trust, despite being a private body, performed public duties by managing an educational institution receiving government aid, thus making it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court dismissed the appeals, directing the trust to pay the amounts due to the respondents with 12% interest and costs of Rs. 20,000, affirming the High Court's judgment.

44. Common Cause v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 4493

    
    

The key issue in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India was whether the Supreme Court could issue a mandamus directing the Central Government to notify the Delhi Rent Act, 1995, which had not been brought into force. The parties involved were Common Cause (appellant) and the Union of India (respondent). The court reasoned that, based on precedents like A.K. Roy v. Union of India, the power to bring an Act into force can be delegated to the executive, and no mandamus can compel the government to act unless objective standards are set. The final disposition was that the court could not issue a mandamus to enforce the Act, and the appeal was dismissed. The court referenced important precedents, including A.K. Roy and Aeltmesh Rein, affirming the executive's discretion in such matters.

45. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, AIR 2002 SC 1771

    
    

The key issue in "Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and Ors." was whether an aggrieved person can seek relief against a final judgment of the Supreme Court after a review petition is dismissed, either under Article 32 of the Constitution or otherwise. The Supreme Court, involving parties Rupa Ashok Hurra and Ashok Hurra, concluded that a writ of certiorari cannot be issued to co-ordinate or superior courts, including the Supreme Court itself, as it is not subordinate to any other court. The court reaffirmed that judicial orders do not violate fundamental rights and are not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 32. The final disposition was that the writ petitions were not maintainable, and the court emphasized that its judgments cannot be challenged under Articles 14 or 21, referencing precedents like Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and A.R. Antulay.

Topic 6 – Right to Information

6.1.Transparency and accountability of the administration; Right to

Information under the Constitution of India;

6.2.The Right to Information Act, 2005 - Object of the legislation –

effective and responsive Government/public authorities; Scope of the

right to information – Obligation of public authorities to supply

information; Grounds of refusal to disclose information

46. Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, 166 (2010) DLT 305 (FB).

    
    

The High Court of Delhi addressed whether the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is required to disclose information about asset declarations made by Supreme Court judges under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The case involved the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India, and Subhash Chandra Agarwal. The court held that such declarations are "information" under the Act and are not held by the CJI in a fiduciary capacity, thus not exempt from disclosure. The court emphasized judicial accountability and transparency, dismissing the appeal and affirming the single judge's order for disclosure.

47. Disclosure of Accounts and Funding of Political Parties, CIC Order Dated 3rd June 2013. 287

Topic 7 – Tribunals

7.1. Concept; Justice by Tribunals – Advantages: Openness, Fairness,

Impartiality, Absence of Technicalities of Evidence and

Procedure, Cheapness;

7.2. Constitution of India, Articles 323A and 323B;

7.3. Overview of Tribunals in India with particular reference to

Administrative Tribunals established under the Administrative

Tribunals Act, 1985;

48. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1125

    
    

The Supreme Court of India in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India addressed whether Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution, which allow for the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in favor of Tribunals, violate the basic structure doctrine by undermining judicial review. The parties involved were L. Chandra Kumar and the Union of India. The Court held that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, and while Tribunals can supplement the High Courts, they cannot replace them entirely. The Court concluded that the power of judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court cannot be ousted, and thus, the provisions were unconstitutional to the extent they excluded such jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, and the decision in S.P. Sampath Kumar was overruled to the extent it conflicted with this judgment.

49. Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association 2010 (5) SCALE 514

    
    

The key issue in the case of Union of India vs. R. Gandhi and Ors. was the constitutional validity of Chapters 1B and 1C of the Companies Act, 1956, which established the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The Madras Bar Association challenged these provisions, arguing they violated the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. The Supreme Court upheld the legislative competence to establish NCLT and NCLAT but emphasized the need for judicial independence in their functioning. The appeal was partly allowed, with directions to ensure the tribunals' composition and functioning align with constitutional principles.

50. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 1

    
    

The Supreme Court of India in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. addressed the constitutionality of Part XIV of the Finance Act, 2017, which altered the conditions of service for members of various tribunals. The key issue was whether the Act could be classified as a 'money bill' under Article 110 of the Constitution, thus bypassing the Rajya Sabha. The Court found that the Act's provisions did not meet the criteria for a money bill, as they were not incidental to the matters specified in Article 110. The Court also held that the Rules framed under Section 184 of the Act were unconstitutional for violating judicial independence. The matter was referred to a larger bench for further consideration, and the Court directed the government to reformulate the Rules and consider establishing a National Tribunals Commission.

Recommended Reading

272 Law Commission of India Report on Assessment of Statutory Framework of Tribunals in India (October, 2017)

Topic 8 – Commissions of Inquiry & Central Vigilance Commission

8.1. The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Object and Scope of the legislation – ‘to

inquire into any definite matter of public importance’;

8.2. Power of Central/State Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry –

discretionary and mandatory nature of power;

8.3. Powers and Procedure of the Commission of Inquiry; Compliance with the

principles of natural justice;

8.4. Submission of report and follow up action – effectiveness.

8.5. The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Constitution, Powers and

Functions.

Topic 9 – Regulatory Agencies

Need of Regulatory Bodies; Composition, powers, functions and procedure; of the Regulatory Bodies including the securities and exchange board of India; The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997; The Insurance Regulatory

and Development Authority Act, 1999; Electricity Commission); Competition commission of India under the Competition Act, 2002

Topic 10- Redressal of Complaints against the administration: The Institution of Ombudsman