ADOPTION OF CRICHEL DOWN PRINCIPLES IN INDIA

One of the issues that the Crichel down affair brought out was of maladministration of
institutions of the government as well as their ministerial responsibilities. While
maladministration cannot be properly defined it can be seen as basic falling within the scope of
bribery or corruption, or failing to comply with a duty imposed by law or exercising arbitrariness
in decisions or doing something against the procedure provided in the statues. There is still a
wide area of possible mal administrations but the citizens also expect some kind of fairness and
considerations from the government because when individuals in positions of authority know
that their actions can be scrutinized and challenged, they are less likely to engage in corruption,
authoritarianism, or other forms of abuse.

The ministers who are elected by the people in the parliament are responsible and accountable to
the people in redressing their grievances if the citizens are suffering due to any wrong done to
them it is a failure on the part of the head of the administration for not being able to deal with the
matter efficiently and expeditiously it was also one of the highlights from the report of a
committee set up after the Crichel Down affair.

The failure of administration can take place due to a lot of reasons our Indian legal system unlike
the French do not give power to the courts to review an official act on merits our courts can only
review the legality of such an act because the organs of the govt are divided such that each do
not interfere in the powers of others , the courts administer from outside they cannot act within
the administrative scope they can only correct the illegality of the administrative action from
outside which limits the manner in which an individual can seek redressal from the court.

That is Judicial review as a fundamental component of the system of checks and balances in
democratic country. It ensures that no single branch of government becomes too powerful or
oversteps its constitutional authority. By allowing the judiciary to review and potentially strike
down actions of the other branches, it helps maintain a balance of power.
Judicial review of such administrative actions vested upon the High court and Supreme court
under article 32 and 226 of the constitution respectively protecting the rights and interest of
citizens against arbitrary and unreasonable action of the officials. 1 Additionally, the supreme
county has the power to grant special leave from any judgment made or passed by any court.
Article 13 provides that “any law which contravenes any of the provisions of the part of
Fundamental Rights shall be void” also under article 137 the supreme court has the power to
review any judgment made by it. Court in “Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain” 2 held that judicial
review constitutes as the basic structure of the constitution.

For an impugned order to review in the courts the concept of “standing” and “justiciability” is
important the underlying principle is the “locus standi” of the petitioner that is whether the
petitioner is having any right to bring a case within his capacity ,whether or not the party is a
proper party to bring the case for which the petitioner must be an aggrieved party this is clear in
the cases of prohibition and certiorari but not in habeas corpus and quo warranto because here
the whole of public interest is in concern and court can initiate case without waiting for the
injured person to appear before the court.

The courts quash administrative actions on five grounds namely for excess of power, procedural
defects, error of law on the face of record, abuse of discretion or where there has been lack of
substantial evidence which the court presumes to be a case of exercise of powers in bad faith or
excess of jurisdiction. Injury to public interests, as distinguished from injury to private interest,
should primarily be the concern of the state, the government, the legislature, and the executive.

Courts ensure that administrative actions adhere to the principles of natural justice, which
include the right to a fair hearing, the right to be heard, and the right to a reasoned decision. If an
administrative action violates these principles, it can be challenged in court as in the case of
“Maneka Gandhi vs UOI”3 where the court held that the principles of natural justice are the core
guiding principles, also in “Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner” 4 the court

1
V. S. Deshpande, “Standing and Justiciability” (1971) 13(2) Journal of the Indian Law Institute.
2
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) SCR (3) 333.
3
Maneka Gandhi vs UOI (1978) 1 SCC 248
4
Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405.
held that fairness and transparency should be exercised in all administrative and judicial actions
no matter what

Executives have been vested with powers to function effectively however there is some sort of
control that needs to be exercised to make sure that they do not infringe upon the rights of other
organs of the govt and in that sense upon the individuals, the checks exercised by the officers of
the government is through parliamentary control of legislation whenever a bill is introduced it is
always scrutinized and examined to defer it from any illegality the process of passing of bills go
through various stages which provides ample opportunity to amend any particular clause which
needs detailed examination or which on the face of it seems arbitrary , by setting up committees
to investigate government actions, no confidence vote, budget approval parliament make sure
that the government agencies are accountable, transparent, and responsive to the will of the
people as expressed through their elected representatives in Parliament.

Parliament controls over the administrative action is a tedious job the utility of question motions
is to force the decision into the light of day, and in this way check the irregularities as was seen
in the Crichel down affair5.

Ministers have been provided Responsibility under sec 75 of the Constitution to be answerable to
the house of parliament this is the principle of collective responsibility ‘Ivor Jennings’ defines
collective responsibility as “an attack on a minister is an attack on the Government. The defeat of
a minister is the defeat of the Government. It also means that the members of the Cabinet express
a common opinion” In order to provide a check on the effective powers of executive two theories
in administration have developed one “Conseil ď Etat” and another is the institution of
ombudsman.

The institution of ombudsman took birth in Sweden where ministers are delegated with small
directions and general orders they do not function in an administrative manner; it is the civil
servants who run the administrative work the ministers are kept away from the reach of the
ombudsman. The role of an ombudsman in administrative law is to ensure transparency, fairness,

5
S. M. Huang, “Control of The Executive Officers of Government” 1963 5(2) Journal of Indian Law Institute 172.
and accountability in the functioning of government institutions; they are agencies responsible
for investigating complaints and grievances related to administrative actions and ensure
transparency and impartiality in their actions.

In india the “Administrative Reforms Commission Of India” took note of the idea of scrutinizing
ministerial decisions and to be included within the scope of investigation and thought about
establishing an institutions where the responsibility of the parliament to investigate into the
matters of the ministers would be strengthened in this context two anti-corruption ombudsman
were introduced with the “Lokpal and Lokayuktas ,Act 2013” the act was introduced with the
objective of providing the citizens with an independent oversight and a mechanism to report
corruption and maladministration actions ,the act created two institutions one at the central level
and other at the state level the Lokapal became the eyes and ears of Parliament 6 in the sense that
the appointment is to made by the President in consultation with the CJI, opposition leader and
removed by the president subject to article 311 of the constitution.

Another is Lokayuktas at the state level and their role is similar to that of the Lokpal but limited
to the state government and its officials, just like an ombudsman their powers are only
recommendatory in nature they can investigate, scrutinize and make report to the president about
all such matters based on that report further action can be taken they do not exercise adjudicatory
powers or give judgements or evolve law , it is vested with an advisory and supervisory role
which will keep the action of the government and ministerial responsibility in action , the inquiry
held by Lord Denning into the affair of Crichel down is classic example of how the Lokpal
would work in practice. To make matters more effective, more transparency and information
shall be provided to the citizens also, providing the statutory bodies with more autonomy would
strengthen their services and our system.

CONCLUSION
6
Balram K. Gupta, “Ministerial Responsibility and The Proposed Lokpal: Do They Go Hand in Hand?” (1974)
16(3) Journal of Indian Law Institute 388.
The Crichel Down Affair underscores the fundamental importance of due process and fairness in
administrative decision-making where the government failed to adhere to established norms
which led to compulsory acquisition of land by the government for agricultural purposes
highlighting breach of trust and maladministration. In this case, the courts intervened to rectify
the injustice, reinforcing the principle that no one, not even the government, is above the law,

Moreover, the Crichel Down Affair exemplifies the significance of learning from past mistakes.
In the aftermath of the scandal, the UK government initiated significant reforms in land
acquisition procedures and administrative processes. These reforms aimed to prevent a
recurrence of such an egregious violation of individual rights. It is a testament to the resilience of
democratic institutions that they can adapt and evolve in response to failures.

Administrative action no matter in whichever state shall not neglect due process, and disregard
for citizens' rights, a strong system is such that even the most powerful institutions are not
immune to scrutiny and that the collective efforts of a responsible citizen, a vigilant media, and
an independent judiciary act as an essential safeguard against administrative abuse. The Crichel
down affair left behind it a legacy as testament to the power of individuals and communities to
hold their government accountable and to ensure that administrative actions are conducted with
fairness, integrity, and respect for the rights of all citizens the lessons learnt are timeless and
universally applicable.

The affair brought out significant flaws and gaps in the administrative functioning and
highlighted the pivotal role that public scrutiny and accountability play in the functioning of
government, in a democratic society where citizens expect fairness and accountability
administrative decisions must be based on a sound legal foundation, and any deviations from
established legal norms should be met with judicial scrutiny.