INDEX

INDEX.............................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1

THE OBJECTIVE...........................................................................................................................1

AKBAR ADMINISTRATION........................................................................................................2

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT:.....................................................................................................2

MILITARY ADMINISTRATION:.............................................................................................3

AKBAR / ELIZABETH I COMPARISON.................................................................................4

THE CASE'S ANALYSIS INFORMATION OF OM KUMAR AND ORS VS UNION OF

INDIA..............................................................................................................................................6

ISSUES RAISED.........................................................................................................................7

ANALYZING THE SITUATION...............................................................................................7

BIBILIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................10

INTRODUCTION

Akbar, a powerful general with a powerful personality, eventually extended the Mughal Empire
to encompass most of the Indian subcontinent. Due to various Mughal army, diplomatic, culture,
and financial domination, his strength and wealth spread throughout the entire subcontinent. To
unite the expansive Mughal kingdom, Akbar instituted an unified administrative structure across
his kingdom and pursued a strategy of conciliation with defeated rulers by marriage and
diplomatic. He introduced measures that gained the approval of his non-Muslim subjects in order
to maintain stability and order in a religiously and culturally complex empire. Rather than tribal
links or Islamic state identity, Akbar attempted to consolidate his realm's far-flung lands by Indo-
Persian culture-based allegiance to himself in the emperor.1

THE OBJECTIVE

To Study the Importance Of Ethics In Legal Profession.

RESEARCH FOCUS

Comparative studies between akbar and queen Elizabeth I.

HYPOTHESIS

(1) Administration of Akbar and Elizabeth are comparable.

(2) Present situation is based upon the administration of Akbar and Elizabeth.

AKBAR ADMINISTRATION

The Mughuls' administrative apparatus, which operated under the Mughul system, was instituted
by Akbar, and this is why we refer to Akbar's administration as "Mughul Regime." Akbar was a
brilliant organizer as well as a courageous soldier, a good king, and a great moral reformer. He
implemented changes in all levels of government, including the federal, regional, tax, military,
and judicial branches.2

Central Government:

Akbar was in control of the central government as a whole. He exercised all of the state's
executive, judiciary, and legislative powers. His despotic rule was unrestricted, and his term was
law. But Akbar was a gentle despot who was often concerned for the interests of his subjects. He
managed many facets of his presidency and worked diligently to satisfy his various obligations.
He will have an open court, respond to his subjects' grievances, and attempt to appease them.

Nevertheless, a variety of ministries in the government helped Akbar. The most powerful
ministries were the Vakil, who had been in possession of all central departments and served as
the King's chief advisor; Diwan, who was in terms of financing and income; Mir Bakshi, who
1
Ahmad, Qeyamuddin. “Classic Study of Mughal Administration.” Social Scientist, vol. 25, no. 1/2, 1997, pp. 94–
98. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3517761. Accessed 7 Apr. 2021.
2
Nadri, G. (2000). MUGHAL ADMINISTRATION AND THE "ZAMINDARS" OF GUJARAT DURING LATE 16TH
AND 17TH CENTURIES. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 61, 320-329. Retrieved April 7, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44148108.
kept track of all the Mansabdars and allocated pay amongst these high officials; and Sadar-i-
Sadur, who served as the Emperor's religious consultant and distributed roi. Other reduced
ministers included Khan-i-Saman, who was in control of the royal family; Muhtasib, who
ensured that the citizens (Muslims) lived a good existence in accordance with Muslim law; and
Daroga-i-Dak Chowki, an officer in charge of the postal and intelligence departments.3

The administration of Akbar's expansive empire was separated into fifteen (15) Subas or
provinces. There was a Subedar, a Diwan, a Bakshi, a Sadar, a Qazi, a Kotwal, a Mir Bahr, and a
Waqa-i-Nawis in each suba or province.

The Chancellor, or Subedar, was in charge of the provincial government. He was in command of
the regional army, police, courts, and executive, and he had immense control. The regional
financing was overseen by the (regional) Diwan, who approved all bills of exchange. The Bakshi
was in charge of the provincial army's administration. The judiciary welfare division was in
charge of the Sadar. The Qazi was in control of his province's judiciary branch. He was in charge
of the Qazis' job in the regions and cities. The Kotwal was the province's chief administrator and
was in charge of maintaining law and order in all of the province's towns. The customs and taxes
department was under the command of Mir Bahr. The Waqa-i-Nawis was in control of the
province's secret service.

The regions have been further subdivided into Sarkars, and the Sarkars have been further
subdivided into Parganas. Faujdar, the Sarkar's chief, enforced law and order in his district with
his own limited army. A variety of other officials aided him in raising taxes, managing records,
and depositing funds into the state treasury. Shikdar was the Parganas' leader, and his
responsibilities were close to that of the Faujdar in a Sarkar. Each Pargana had a number of
villages. Per village was governed by a Muqaddam, a Patwari, and a Chowkidar, who were
supported in their administrative duties by the village panchayat.

Military Administration:

Akbar was very serious regarding the army's organisation, weapons, and discipline. He devised a
revolutionary method known as the Mansabdari System to ensure effective military

3
Rezavi, S. (1998). THE EMPIRE AND BUREAUCRACY: The Case Of Mughal Empire. Proceedings of the Indian
History Congress, 59, 360-382. Retrieved April 7, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44147005
administration. Soldiers had to be maintained as per their grade or position by the Mansabdars.
4
These Mansabdars were classified into thirty-three classes, with soldiers varying in amount from
ten to ten thousand. They were granted cash wages and the tradition of granting lands was
discouraged. They were strictly under the emperor's orders and were elevated, demoted, or
removed at his discretion. He also reinstated the tradition of taking soldiers' descriptive rolls and
marking their horses.

These Mansabdars undoubtedly supplied a substantial number of soldiers, but Akbar had a
standing military of his own. Troops, cavalry, cannons, elephants, and the naval made up the
Mughul force. The cavalry was the army's most powerful wing, and it was given particular
consideration in terms of organisation and facilities.5

The military organisation of Akbar had flaws (e.g., the Mansabdars defrauded the government,
the troops were much more obedient to the leaders than to the king, the practise of compensation
by the Mansabdars was fragile and frequently lead to violations, performance of one unit to unit,
etc. but it operated even under Akbar due to various his exceptional leadership and
administrative abilities.6

Akbar / Elizabeth I Comparison

AKBAR ELIZABETH I

Date of Birth: October 15th 1542 Date of Birth: 7th September 1533
Religion: Muslim Religion: Protestant Christian
Dynasty: The Mughals Dynasty: The Tudors
Childhood: Childhood:

4
Pawar, K. (1988). Central Asiatic Background of Some Aspects of Political Institutions and Administration of
Akbar. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 49, 185-192. Retrieved April 7, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44148375
5
MOOSVI, S. (1996). FORMATION OF PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE UNDER
AKBAR. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, 57, 323-329. Retrieved April 7, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44133324
6
Sangar, S. (1964). ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN MUGHAL INDIA. Proceedings of the Indian History
Congress, 26, 41-48. Retrieved April 7, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44140316
At the age of 13, he became emperor (he At the age of 25, he rose to the throne.
had a protector, Bairam Khan). Father is dissatisfied with having a
Uncles became contenders for his throne. daughter.
Interests and Education: Interests and Education:
Games were favoured over scholarly Educated in the typical manner for a lady,
topics. like embroidery and other crafts. Princess
Was uneducated, but adored reading and rank, on the other hand, allowed her to
had a sizable collection. study a variety of languages, including
Hunted and rode horses and camels, and Greek, French, Latin, and Italian. Music,
polo was one of his favourite pastimes. literature, and history were all studied.
Motivated the arts by commissioning a Many types of expression, such as theatre,
number of new drawings and manuscripts. dance, writing, and music, appealed to him.
Hunting and horseback riding were both
favourites.
Problems faced: Problems faced:
 A large Kingdom of different faiths; • a  acquired a kingdom that had (and
modern Kingdom in most need of proceeded to have) a bunch of religious
coordination and discipline, especially strife and oppression;
militarily and economically. A  Endured many insurgencies and throne
‘Mughal' persona was required. threats.
 An Empire that needed protection and  Experienced international challenges as
expanded. a female in a "man's world" – she never
 he was in search of an heir dated and had no children.
 Was illiterate

How Akbar tackled those problems: How Elizabeth I tackled those

problems:
• Besides being a Muslim, Akbar was
respectful of all faiths. He permitted his  Elizabeth I addressed England's
subjects to openly follow their numerous tumultuous religious condition by
religions, and battled Hindus and others at asserting a "Middle Way."
his court.  • As her throne was openly
• Behind his general tolerance, Akbar was threatened, Elizabeth was
ruthless when it came to uprisings. compelled to take more dramatic
• In the Mughal Empire, two main policies steps. She reluctantly submitted to
contribute to stability and prosperity: Akbar's the murder of Mary Queen of
invasion and restoration policies (see Scots.
(From the book by Akbar).  • Elizabeth's rule's character was
• By paying his court as well as other dependent on her appearance.
workers equally and prohibiting them from  • She successfully defended the
gaining too much influence, land, or money, domain from foreign aggressors,
Akbar held them loyal. and she kept the court in constant
contact with her by frequent trips
• Topics gained from a more equal tax around the globe.
structure and stronger religious liberties,  • Elizabeth I opposed marriage
which tended to preserve harmony and because she believed it would
obedience. jeopardise England's
independence; instead, she
• The adoption of the mansabdari scheme promoted commerce and was
resulted in a well-organized army (see Akbar eager to sell to other nations. She
book on site). was also a fan of adventurers.

• Akbar didn't let his lack of literacy push

him down. He enjoyed being read to and had
amassed a sizable library. Abul al-Fazl, the
court chronicler, wrote his memoirs as well.

• To demonstrate his wealth, Akbar

constructed a number of palaces and forts.

• Akbar was a promoter of globalisation and

willing to sell to other nations. He was also a
 passionate supporter of the arts.

THE CASE'S ANALYSIS INFORMATION OF OM KUMAR AND ORS VS UNION OF INDIA

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had given Skipper Construction ownership of
apartments, but only half of the consideration had been charged. It had amassed substantial
amounts of money from potential flat purchasers. This was questioned.

Five agents have been subjected to disciplinary action. Since there was a divergence in opinion
between the responsible authority and the recommendation of the U.P.S.C., the case of Sri Om
Kumar and Sri Virendra Nath was referred to the Department of Personnel. Similarly, the United
Provinces Supreme Court was directed to rethink its opinion in the cases of Sri K.S. Baidwan
and Sri R.S. Sethi.

The fines in the final order were different. The attorneys for Shri Om Kumar and Shri Virendra
Nath challenged the various sentence sums levied.

Issues Raised

The problem of the principle of proportionality's suitability was addressed, especially in relation
to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Often, the main and secondary analysis of the court's
reviewing jurisdiction.

When it comes to governing the exercising of constitutional rights, it was agreed that the
president could employ the least stringent steps necessary. The Supreme Court was left to
determine if these protections had been infringed upon overly.

Analyzing the Situation

The court declined to participate in the term. It was repeated that judicial review of an
administrative decision is restricted, and that the criteria of review must be the same as those
defined in the Wednesbury case, thus the name Wednesbury theory. The Proportionality
Doctrine was specifically agreed here.
The Court discovered that the principle of proportionality has been used in India since 1950 to
verify the constitutionality of legislative enactments, especially under Article 19 of the
Constitution.

The Court also continued to assess Article 14 proportionality. The Court argued that Article 14
has two aspects in this situation. Whether an executive decision is criticised as unconstitutional,
even whether it is discretionary, there are two scenarios.

When an action is criticized as unfair, the Court states that equals are handled unequally and
unequal are treated fairly. In this situation, the courts perform their primary duty by examining
the extent of prejudice and determining if it is related to the goal pursued. The courts implement
what is regarded as "strict scrutiny."

The courts, on the other hand, play a secondary part where an event is contested as
unconstitutional. As a result, when scrutinising and analysing the disciplinary procedure, the
Wednesbury rules would apply. The concern is whether the decision taken by the administration
is fair or appropriate. The Courts will therefore be restricted to a secondary role, deciding if the
supervisor behaved adequately in his primary job, whether he acted illegally, if he excluded
relevant variables from consideration or deemed irrelevant factors, and if his opinion is one that
no reasonable individual may have reached.

As a result, the Court determined that petitioners had lifted the ground of unreasonableness, and
that the sentences levied were not arbitrary under the rules of Wednesbury.

After the decision, India's rule on the theory of proportionality has stayed unchanged. Except for
the fact that it is increasingly embracing the doctrine of unreasonableness, there is little
movement in its implementation.

The Court also determined that proportionality would occur only where a statute is contested as
unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution. For arbitrary nature and irrationality, the
Wednesbury theory has been maintained. Any of the issues in the current situation are listed
below.

To begin with, the usage of two separate yardsticks for evaluating disciplinary activity under
same Article is challenging to comprehend. The court points out that since service issues are
often arbitrarily decided, the narrow solution for Wednesbury would be appropriate for scrutiny.
The court's method to treating the doctrine in a "disproportionate" way is inexplicable. The
following concerns remain unresolved: May it be assumed with certainty that all subjective
decisions are never discriminatory? Can the petitioners still put up old examples of unfair
representation in attempt to get around the restricted Wednesbury principle?

In the case of Ranjit Thakur vs Union of India7, Soli Sorabjee argues that the case “sows the
roots of the proportionality concept in Indian constitutional law despite reference to any
democratic principle”8. However, the courts seem to be quite inequitable in their division of
Article 14 for the reasons of proportionality. The two facets of Article 14, unequal State
behaviour and arbitrary State action, were devised by judicial ingenuity only to spread a large net
for the purposes of Article 14. Previously, courts enforced the concept of fair grouping. As a
result, such situations like unreasonable exclusion and capricious suspension, among others,
persisted beyond the scope of Article 14 due to intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the
purpose sought to be achieved. In E.P. Royappa vs State of Tamil Nadu & Anr 9, Justice
Bhagwati developed the principle of arbitrariness to shield certain acts from the rigours of
Article 14. Thus, the two colours of Article 14 are intended to broaden the scope of the Article,
although the underlying problem stays the same, namely, injustice. When they come from the
same Post, the court may not have used separate criteria for assessing and evaluating.

When the utility of the Wednesbury concept is challenged, the court could have affirmed a
principle that would have allowed judges greater discretion to examine administrative conduct,
especially in service matters.

Fourth, the Supreme Court has not discussed the question of following standards from any other
standard, whether British or European. The numerous Supreme Court decisions show that it has
never had the chance to put any disciplinary procedure through its paces within the terms of the
Doctrine of Proportionality as it stands today in the international spotlight. The doctrine would
not be served by simply coining it and specifying its legal status in the Indian paradigm. It is
essential to put the doctrine into practise in a way that is consistent with the international sense.

7
(1987) 4 SCC 611.
8
2004 8 SCC (J) 33.
9
1974 AIR 555
Taking lessons from other countries will be an important solution. The selection of the
international model to be used in the case of India will be strictly educational. According to
Julian Rivers, the European model uses a four-prong measure focused on validity, suitability,
need, and equal balance or proportionality10. Although the judiciary has offered this test some
support in the case of Om Kumar, it has ruled that the regulatory authority would be given a
range of choices to choose from, but the court will maintain the discretion to determine whether
or not this choice infringes unnecessarily on the rights of the people 11. This experiment
demonstrates that the Courts decided to borrow the just balancing stage from the European
model, thus validating it. In light of the above, the European style seems to be the most
appropriate to follow.

CONCLUSION

Akbar the Powerful was a great ruler of the Mughal Empire, he did justice to his subjects (by
humiliating citizens that did any bad and ignoring their position), he commanded the Mughal
army, but by doing so, he captured Afghanistan, Kashmir, and much of modern-day India and
Pakistan.

His reputation demonstrated that he was tolerant of all races. Akbar discovered that in order to
establish a powerful kingdom, he required the cooperation of his subjects. As a result, he agreed
to take action in the subject's favour: anti-discrimination legislation. Despite the fact that he was
a Muslim, he maintained that all faiths were not discriminated against. Apart from religious
freedom, Akbar even abolished other rules that he thought were unjust.

Through putting people from various faiths and kingdoms together, Akbar contributed to the
unification of India. The Mughal kingdom was limited and intolerant to religion. Akbar enlarged
the empire and founded only rules as emperor. Slavery and discriminatory rules will also exist in
India without him.

Despite the fact that Elizabeth is now known as one of our greatest monarchs, she should never
have been permitted to rise to the throne. Not just to was she a child at a period when the rules of
inheritance benefited people, but she also had an older sibling, Mary. When her parents' union
was found void prior to Anne Boleyn's execution, Elizabeth was excluded from the line of
10
Ajoy P.B, Administrative Action and the Doctrine of Proportionality in India, Vol I, Issue 6 (2012), pg-19, para-5.
11
(2001) 2 SCC 386
succession entirely, and was only restored due to the kindness of her last stepmother, Katherine
Parr.

BIBILIOGRAPHY

 Abu-I-Fazal: Ain-i-Akbari, V.4 (Trans by Blockman&Garret).p.274.

I.H. Qureshi: The Administration of the Mughal Empire.248-49.
 S.A.Q.Husaini :Administration under the Mughals.p.211
 Abdul aziz :The Mansabdari System and the mughal army.p.117
 .H. Qureshi :The Administration of the Mughal Empire.p.167
 S.C. Ray Choudhary :History of Medieval India.p.105
 V.D.Mahajan :Mughal Rule in India.p.275
 E.B. Havell : Indian Sculture and painting.p.133
 S.S. Roy Choudhary : History of Medieval India.p.105
 Ain-i-Akhbari-II(Trans)p.421 13.Abu-I-Fazal :Akbarnama –III,(Trans by
Beveridge).p.659

ARTICLES

Elphinstone, Mountstuart. “History Of The Bahmani Kingdom Of The Deckan And Its
Subsequent Divisions.” The History of India, pp. 176–198., doi:10.1017/cbo9781139507639.008.

Lehmann, Fritz, and Noman Ahmad Siddiqi. “Land Revenue Administration Under the Mughals
(1700-1750).” Pacific Affairs, vol. 44, no. 1, 1971, p. 126., doi:10.2307/2755850.

Ahmad, Qeyamuddin. “Classic Study of Mughal Administration.” Social Scientist, vol. 25, no. 1/2,
1997, pp. 94–98. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3517761. Accessed 7 Apr. 2021.