ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

UNIT-4

CONNOTATION OF "ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION"

The connotation of "administrative discretion" often involves several nuanced interpretations

depending on the context in which it is used. Here are some common connotations:

1. Authority and Flexibility: It suggests that administrative agencies or officials have

the authority and flexibility to make decisions within the framework of laws and
regulations. This can be seen as positive, implying that administrators can adapt
decisions to specific circumstances and make practical, context-sensitive judgments.
2. Professional Judgment: It implies a reliance on the professional judgment and
expertise of administrators. This connotation emphasizes trust in the specialized
knowledge and experience of those making decisions.
3. Potential for Abuse: On the negative side, administrative discretion can carry the
connotation of potential for abuse of power or arbitrary decision-making. Critics may
worry that too much discretion can lead to inconsistent, biased, or unjust decisions.
4. Accountability and Oversight Concerns: It can also bring up concerns about the
need for checks and balances. There may be worries about the adequacy of oversight
mechanisms to ensure that discretion is exercised properly and fairly.
5. Efficiency in Governance: In a more neutral or positive light, administrative
discretion can be associated with efficiency and effectiveness in governance, allowing
for more rapid and adaptable responses to issues than would be possible through rigid
adherence to rules.

Overall, the connotation of administrative discretion is context-dependent, balancing the need

for flexible, expert decision-making with the necessity of safeguards against misuse of power.

ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION AND RULE OF LAW

The relationship between administrative discretion and the rule of law is complex and
multifaceted, involving a delicate balance between allowing flexibility in administration and
ensuring adherence to legal principles. Here’s an exploration of this relationship:

MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

Administrative Discretion

Administrative discretion refers to the power given to administrative agencies and officials to
make decisions within the bounds of their authority. This discretion is necessary for several
reasons:

1. Adaptability: It allows administrators to respond to unique situations and specific

cases that rigid rules cannot anticipate.
 2. Expertise Utilization: It leverages the specialized knowledge and experience of
administrative professionals to make informed decisions.
3. Efficiency: It enables quicker decision-making processes without the need for
constant legislative intervention.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is a foundational principle that mandates that everyone, including government
officials, is subject to the law. Key components include:

1. Legality: Decisions and actions must be based on and conform to existing laws.
2. Accountability: Officials must be held accountable for their actions, ensuring they do
not exceed their lawful authority.
3. Transparency: Decision-making processes should be open and clear to maintain
public trust.
4. Consistency: Laws should be applied consistently to avoid arbitrary governance.

Balancing Administrative Discretion and Rule of Law

The interplay between administrative discretion and the rule of law involves ensuring that
discretion does not undermine the principles of legality, accountability, transparency, and
consistency. Here are key aspects of this balance:

1. Legal Boundaries: Discretion must operate within the limits set by law. Agencies are
granted discretion by statutes, which define the scope and boundaries of their
authority.
2. Judicial Review: Courts play a crucial role in reviewing administrative decisions to
ensure they comply with legal standards. Judicial oversight prevents the abuse of
discretion and maintains the rule of law.
3. Procedural Fairness: Administrative procedures should be fair and transparent,
providing opportunities for affected parties to be heard and to challenge decisions.
This includes clear criteria for decision-making and reasons for decisions.
4. Guidelines and Policies: Agencies often develop internal guidelines and policies to
standardize the exercise of discretion. These help ensure decisions are consistent and
based on sound principles.
5. Accountability Mechanisms: Mechanisms such as audits, ombudsman reviews, and
legislative oversight help hold administrators accountable. Regular reporting and
scrutiny by independent bodies can mitigate risks of arbitrary decisions.
6. Public Participation: Involving stakeholders and the public in the decision-making
process can enhance transparency and legitimacy. Public input can also help
administrators understand the broader impacts of their decisions.

Conclusion

The relationship between administrative discretion and the rule of law requires a careful
balance. While discretion is necessary for efficient and effective governance, it must be
exercised within a framework that respects legal principles. This ensures that administrative
actions are not only efficient and context-sensitive but also lawful, fair, and just, thereby
upholding the rule of law.
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION AND
JUDICIAL REVIEW

The relationship between administrative discretion and judicial review is a crucial aspect of
administrative law. Judicial review serves as a mechanism to ensure that administrative
agencies exercise their discretion within the bounds of the law and do not abuse their
authority. Here’s an exploration of how these concepts interact:

Administrative Discretion

Administrative discretion allows agencies and officials to make decisions within the scope of
their authority. This discretion is necessary for effective governance, enabling:

1. Flexibility: Administrators can respond to specific circumstances and unique cases.

2. Expertise: Decisions can leverage specialized knowledge and experience.
3. Efficiency: Administrative processes can be more streamlined and adaptive compared
to legislative procedures.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is the process by which courts examine the actions and decisions of
administrative agencies to ensure they comply with legal standards. The key purposes of
judicial review include:

1. Legality: Ensuring that administrative actions are within the legal bounds set by
statutes and regulations.
2. Reasonableness: Assessing whether decisions are reasonable and based on evidence.
3. Fairness: Checking that procedures followed by agencies are fair and transparent.
4. Protection of Rights: Safeguarding individual rights against arbitrary or unlawful
administrative actions.

Standards of Judicial Review

Courts apply different standards when reviewing administrative discretion, depending on the
nature of the decision and the statutory framework:

1. Deference: Courts often give deference to administrative expertise, especially in

technical or specialized areas. This is known as the "Chevron deference" in U.S.
administrative law, where courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes
they administer, provided the interpretation is reasonable.
2. Arbitrariness and Capriciousness: Courts assess whether an administrative action is
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the
law. This standard, found in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in the U.S.,
ensures decisions have a rational basis and are supported by evidence.
3. Proportionality: Particularly in jurisdictions following European administrative law
principles, courts may examine whether administrative actions are proportionate,
meaning that they are appropriate and necessary to achieve legitimate objectives
without excessive infringement on rights.
 4. Procedural Fairness: Courts ensure that agencies follow fair procedures, including
giving affected parties a chance to be heard and providing reasons for decisions.

Balancing Discretion and Oversight

The interplay between administrative discretion and judicial review involves balancing
agency autonomy with accountability. Key aspects include:

1. Scope of Discretion: Statutes define the scope and limits of administrative discretion.
Agencies must operate within these legal boundaries.
2. Judicial Intervention: While courts respect administrative expertise, they intervene
when agencies overstep their authority, act unreasonably, or fail to follow fair
procedures.
3. Reasoned Decisions: Agencies must provide clear and reasoned explanations for their
decisions, which helps courts assess the validity of administrative actions.
4. Consistency and Precedent: Judicial review promotes consistency in administrative
decision-making by ensuring that similar cases are treated alike and that legal
standards are upheld
5. Rights Protection: Judicial review acts as a safeguard for protecting individual rights
and preventing the abuse of administrative power.

Conclusion

The relationship between administrative discretion and judicial review is foundational to

administrative law. Judicial review ensures that administrative discretion is exercised within
legal limits and that decisions are reasonable, fair, and transparent. This balance promotes
efficient and effective governance while safeguarding against arbitrary and unlawful
administrative actions.

JUDICIAL REVIEW: MARBURY V. MADISON AND ADM JABALPUR V.

SHRIKANT SHUKLA

Marbury v. Madison (1803) and ADM Jabalpur v. Shrikant Shukla (1976) are landmark
cases in the judicial history of the United States and India, respectively, that revolve around
the concept of judicial review. Both cases highlight the judiciary's role in interpreting the
constitution and ensuring that actions by other branches of government adhere to
constitutional limits. Here’s an exploration of these cases, focusing on Chief Justice John
Marshall's standpoint in Marbury and their similarities and differences.

Marbury v. Madison

Background:

 President John Adams appointed William Marbury as a justice of the peace, but his
commission was not delivered before Thomas Jefferson took office.
 Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission.
 Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel Madison to
deliver the commission.
Establishing Judicial Review

Marbury v. Madison established judicial review, meaning that:

1. Courts Have Authority: The judiciary has the authority to review acts of Congress
and the Executive Branch and to invalidate those acts if they conflict with the
Constitution.
2. Constitutional Supremacy: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any
law that conflicts with it is void.
3. Judicial Duty: It is the duty of the judiciary to interpret and uphold the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Marshall’s Opinion:

 Marshall asserted the judiciary's authority to review and nullify actions of the
legislative and executive branches that violate the Constitution.
 He held that Marbury had a right to his commission but that the Supreme Court did
not have the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in this case because the section
of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that granted the Court this power was unconstitutional.
 Marshall established the principle that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the
judicial department to say what the law is."

ADM Jabalpur v. Shrikant Shukla

Background:

 During the Emergency in India (1975-1977), fundamental rights were suspended, and
many political opponents were detained without trial.
 The question arose whether detainees had any locus standi to approach the courts for
enforcement of the right to personal liberty during the emergency.

Supreme Court of India’s Decision:

 In a controversial decision, the majority held that during an Emergency, when Article
21 (right to life and personal liberty) is suspended, no person could move any court
for the enforcement of the right to personal liberty.
 The court effectively held that fundamental rights could be suspended and that the
judiciary had no power to review such actions during an Emergency.

Striking Similarities and Differences

Similarities:

1. Constitutional Interpretation: Both cases involve the judiciary’s interpretation of

the constitution to define the limits of executive and legislative power.
2. Judicial Review: Marbury v. Madison established judicial review in the U.S., while
ADM Jabalpur tested the extent of judicial review in India under extraordinary
circumstances.
3. Rights and Liberties: Both cases fundamentally concern the protection of individual
rights against governmental overreach.
Differences:

1. Outcome:
o In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States asserted its
power of judicial review, reinforcing the judiciary's role as a check on
executive and legislative actions.
o In ADM Jabalpur, the Supreme Court of India effectively abdicated its power
of judicial review during the Emergency, siding with the executive branch’s
authority to suspend fundamental rights.
2. Impact on Judicial Authority:
o Marbury v. Madison strengthened the judiciary's role and established the
precedent for judicial review, a cornerstone of the American legal system.
o ADM Jabalpur was widely criticized and seen as a dark moment for judicial
independence in India. The decision was later implicitly overruled by the 44th
Amendment to the Constitution of India, which ensured that certain rights
could not be suspended even during an Emergency.
3. Judicial Philosophy:
o Chief Justice Marshall emphasized the necessity of judicial oversight to
maintain constitutional supremacy and protect individual rights.
o The majority opinion in ADM Jabalpur reflected a deference to executive
power during a national crisis, prioritizing state authority over individual
rights.

Conclusion

The principles established in Marbury v. Madison by Chief Justice Marshall underscored the
judiciary's role in maintaining the rule of law and protecting constitutional governance. In
contrast, ADM Jabalpur v. Shrikant Shukla demonstrated the potential pitfalls when the
judiciary fails to uphold its role as a guardian of fundamental rights. The cases highlight the
critical importance of judicial review in preserving democratic principles and protecting
individual liberties against arbitrary government action.

CONSTITUTIONAL IMPERATIVES CONCERNING JUDICIAL

REVIEW

Constitutional imperatives concerning judicial review refer to the fundamental principles and
necessities embedded within a constitution that mandate and guide the judiciary’s authority to
review and possibly invalidate legislative and executive actions. These imperatives ensure
that the judiciary acts as a guardian of the constitution, maintaining the rule of law and
protecting individual rights. Here’s an exploration of these imperatives:

1. Supremacy of the Constitution

Principle: The constitution is the supreme law of the land. All laws, policies, and actions of
government officials must conform to it.

Imperative: Judicial review is essential to uphold the supremacy of the constitution by

ensuring that no act of the legislature or the executive contravenes constitutional provisions.
2. Separation of Powers

Principle: The doctrine of separation of powers divides government authority among the
legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent concentration of power and ensure
checks and balances.

Imperative: Judicial review functions as a critical check on the legislative and executive
branches, ensuring that they do not exceed their constitutional authority or violate
constitutional principles.

3. Protection of Fundamental Rights

Principle: Constitutions often enshrine fundamental rights and freedoms that must be
protected from infringement by the state.

Imperative: Judicial review is crucial to safeguard these rights. Courts must have the
authority to review and strike down any government action that violates fundamental rights.

4. Rule of Law

Principle: The rule of law ensures that all actions are governed by law, not by arbitrary
decisions of individuals or authorities.

Imperative: Judicial review enforces the rule of law by ensuring that government actions are
lawful, reasonable, and just. It prevents arbitrary and capricious use of power.

5. Democratic Governance

Principle: A constitutional democracy requires that governmental powers are exercised in

accordance with democratic principles and accountability.

Imperative: Judicial review supports democratic governance by ensuring that elected

representatives and officials act within the limits set by the constitution and respect
democratic processes.

6. Judicial Independence

Principle: An independent judiciary is fundamental to impartial and effective judicial review.

Judges must be free from political pressures and influences.

Imperative: Judicial review must be exercised by an independent judiciary to ensure

unbiased and fair adjudication of constitutional issues.

7. Consistency and Stability

Principle: Legal consistency and stability are necessary for a predictable and orderly society.

Imperative: Judicial review contributes to legal consistency by interpreting and applying

constitutional principles uniformly, ensuring stable governance and the protection of rights.
8. Interpretative Authority

Principle: The judiciary has the ultimate authority to interpret the constitution.

Imperative: Judicial review allows courts to clarify and expound constitutional provisions,
ensuring that laws and policies are understood and applied correctly.

Examples in Practice

Marbury v. Madison (1803):

 Established the principle of judicial review in the United States.

 Affirmed that it is the judiciary's duty to interpret the constitution and nullify any laws
that conflict with it.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):

 The Supreme Court of India held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the
constitution, it cannot alter the basic structure or essential features of the constitution.
 Reinforced judicial review as a means to protect the fundamental structure of the
constitution.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954):

 The U.S. Supreme Court used judicial review to strike down state laws establishing
racial segregation in public schools, emphasizing the role of judicial review in
protecting individual rights against discriminatory laws.

European Union:

 The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) exercises judicial review to
ensure that EU institutions do not exceed their authority and that member states
comply with EU treaties and laws.

Conclusion

Constitutional imperatives concerning judicial review are essential to maintaining the

integrity and supremacy of the constitution, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights,
and upholding the principles of democracy, rule of law, and separation of powers. Judicial
review is a cornerstone of constitutional governance, providing a vital check on the other
branches of government and safeguarding individual liberties against potential abuses of
power.

WRIT JURISDICTION

Writ jurisdiction refers to the authority of courts to issue writs, which are formal written
orders, to enforce the rights of individuals and ensure proper functioning of administrative
and judicial processes. Writ jurisdiction is a crucial aspect of judicial review, enabling courts
to oversee the actions of public authorities and ensure adherence to the law.
Types of Writs

In common law jurisdictions, particularly those influenced by English law, there are several
types of writs that courts can issue. The five primary writs are:

1. Habeas Corpus:
o Purpose: To protect an individual's liberty by determining the legality of their
detention or imprisonment.
o Function: Orders a person or agency holding someone in custody to bring the
detainee before the court and justify the detention.
2. Mandamus:
o Purpose: To compel a public official or authority to perform a duty that they
are legally obligated to complete.
o Function: Directs the performance of a public duty or statutory obligation that
has been refused or neglected.
3. Prohibition:
o Purpose: To prevent lower courts or tribunals from exceeding their
jurisdiction or acting contrary to the law.
o Function: Orders a lower court or tribunal to cease proceedings that are
outside its jurisdiction.
4. Certiorari:
o Purpose: To review and correct the proceedings of lower courts or tribunals.
o Function: Orders the transfer of a case from a lower court or tribunal to a
higher court for review, typically to quash an illegal or erroneous decision.
5. Quo Warranto:
o Purpose: To challenge the legality of a person's claim to a public office.
o Function: Requires an individual to show by what authority they hold or
claim a public office.

JUDICIAL REVIEW IN CONTEMPORARY TIMES

In contemporary times, judicial review remains a cornerstone of ensuring the accountability of
government actions and protecting individual rights. The recent case involving Arvind Kejriwal's
interim bail order underscores the significance of judicial oversight in the face of executive decisions.
Kejriwal, a prominent political figure, sought interim bail in response to a defamation case filed
against him. The court's decision to grant him interim bail exemplifies the judiciary's role in
safeguarding fundamental rights, including the right to liberty and fair treatment under the law. This
case illustrates how judicial review continues to play a vital role in scrutinizing executive and
legislative actions, ensuring they adhere to constitutional principles and legal standards. By providing
a check on potential abuses of power and upholding the rule of law, judicial review remains a crucial
pillar of democratic governance in contemporary society.

Conclusion

Judicial review in contemporary times ensures that government actions conform to

constitutional and legal standards, adapting to emerging issues such as digital privacy and
human rights. It remains a fundamental mechanism for maintaining democratic governance
and protecting individual liberties.
 JUDICIAL REVIEW CONCLUSION

In conclusion, judicial review stands as a fundamental pillar of contemporary governance,

ensuring the adherence of government actions to constitutional principles and legal standards.
Through its critical role in safeguarding individual rights, providing checks on executive and
legislative powers, and upholding the rule of law, judicial review plays a vital role in
preserving democratic values and protecting the liberties of citizens. Recent cases, such as
those involving Arvind Kejriwal's interim bail order, underscore the ongoing relevance and
importance of judicial oversight in the face of evolving societal and political challenges. As
societies continue to evolve, judicial review remains essential for maintaining accountability,
promoting fairness, and safeguarding the integrity of democratic institutions. Thus, in
contemporary times, the role of judicial review remains indispensable in upholding the
principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law.

MEANING OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Administrative action is the action which is neither legislative nor
judicial in nature but only concerned with the analysis and treatment
of a particular situation and is devoid of generality. It has no
procedure of collecting evidence and weighing arguments but only
based upon subjective satisfaction where decision is based on policy
and expediency. It does not decide a right or wrong , neither it
ignores the principles of natural justice completely though it may
affect a right. Unless the statute provides otherwise, a minimum of
the principles of natural justice must always be observed depending
on the fact situation of each case.

Administrative action may be statutory, having the force of law, or

non statutory, devoid of such legal force. The bulk of the
administrative action is statutory because a statute or the
Constitution gives it a legal force but in some cases it may be non-
statutory, such as issuing directions to subordinates not having the
force of law, but its violation may be visited with disciplinary action.
Though by and large administrative action is discretionary and is
based on subjective satisfaction, however, the administrative
authority must act fairly, impartially and reasonable.

CLASSIFICATION
Administrative action is classified broadly into three main organs of
the government namely-

 Legislative
 Executive
 Judiciary
In Jayantilal Amritlal Shodhan V. F.N Rana and Ors

Generally an administrative action can be further bifurcated into 3

parts-
  Quasi-legislative action or Rule making: It includes the rule
making power and delegated legislation. Under this organ the
administration performs the function of legislation in such
situations where it is not possible for any legislation to legislate
laws for the kind of conflicts arising.
 Quasi-Judicial action or Rule decision action: It includes such
conditions under which the administration puts on the hat of
the judiciary and confers the special power of taking decisions
in cases where legal rights of individual are effected.
 Purely administrative action or Rule application action: This
includes the actions which are neither legislative nor judiciary
but purely administrative in nature.
In Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India, the concept of
natural justice is defined in case of consequences suffered in
administrative action.

1. Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet – no one should be made

a judge in his own cause, or the rule against bias.

2. Audi alteram partem – no one should be condemned unheard.

In case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, the Court held that in

order to determine whether the action of the administrative
authority is quasi-judicial or administrative in nature, one has to see
the power conferred, to whom power is given, the framework within
which power is conferred and the consequences.

CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Administrative actions are controlled by courts in certain
circumstances by issuing different writs and thus plays an important
role in judicial control of administrative actions in India. Article 32(2)
states the power of the Supreme court to issue writs in nature of-

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The expression “Habeas Corpus” in Latin means ‘to have the body’.
Under this writ, if a person is unlawfully detained, his friends or
relatives or any person or any person on behalf of the prisoner or
the prisoner himself can file an application in court under Article 226
in High Court or under Article 32 in Supreme Court .

Even a letter to the judge mentioning illegalities committed on

prisoners in jail can be admitted. If he Court will be satisfied with the
contents of the application ,it will issues the writ and will produce an
order calling upon the person who has detained another to produce
the same before the Court, to let know the grounds of confinement
and set the peron free if there is no legal justification and will award
exemplary damages.

In the case of Bhim Singh v State of Jammu& Kashmir, AIR 1986

SC 494, the Hon’ble Court awarded the exemplary damages of
Rs.50,000 for the wrongful confinement.

Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579, is another

landmark judgement ,in which a convict wrote a letter to one of the
Judges of the Supreme Court alleging inhuman torture and
illegalities on a fellow convict.

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

The expression ‘Mandamus’ in Latin means “We Command”.

Mandamus is a Judicial order strictly following the rule of rule of
Locus Standi . It is issued in the form of a command to any
Constitutional, Statutory or Non-Statutory authority asking to carry
out a public duty imposed by law or to refrain from doing a
particular act, which the authority is not entitled to do under the
law. It is an important writ to check arbitrariness of an
administrative action. It is also called ‘Writ of Justice’.

WRIT OF PROHIBITION

The expression ‘prohibition’ literally means ‘to prohibit’. It is a

judicial order issued by the Supreme Court or a High Court to an
inferior Court or quasi-judicial body which forbids the inferior courts
to continue proceedings and keep themselves within the limits of
their jurisdiction. The writ of prohibition can be issued on the
following grounds:

(i) Absence or Excess of jurisdiction;

(ii) Violation of the principles of natural justice;

(iii) Unconstitutionality of a Statute;

(iv) Infraction of Fundamental Rights

WRIT OF CERTORI

The expression “certiorari” in Latin word means “to certify”. This

writ is a judicial order which confers power on the Supreme Court
under Article 32 and High Courts under Article 226 of the
Constitution to correct illegality of their decisions or otherwise quash
it.

The grounds on which the writ of certiorari may be issued are:

(a) Error of Jurisdiction- Lack of jurisdiction or Excess of jurisdiction

(b) Abuse of jurisdiction

(c) Error of law apparent on the face of the record

(d) Violation of principles of natural justice

E.P. ROYAPPA V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (1974) AND THE

WEDNESBURY DOCTRINE

The case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) and the Wednesbury doctrine both
pertain to administrative law, but in different legal contexts and jurisdictions. Here's a brief
overview of each, followed by their connection:

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)

Background:

 E.P. Royappa, an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, challenged his

premature retirement by the State of Tamil Nadu.
 He argued that the decision was arbitrary and violated his fundamental right to
equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

Judgment:

 The Supreme Court of India held that administrative actions must be reasonable, fair,
and non-arbitrary.
 The court introduced the concept of "equality clause" under Article 14, emphasizing
that equality before the law is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution.
 It ruled that the premature retirement of Royappa without any valid reasons violated
his right to equality and was therefore unconstitutional.

Wednesbury Doctrine

Background:

 The Wednesbury doctrine originates from the British case of Associated Provincial
Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1948).
 It establishes a standard for judicial review of administrative decisions, stating that a
decision can be challenged if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could
ever have come to it.
Criteria:

 The Wednesbury test requires the decision to be:

1. Reasonable in the sense that it is not absurd, perverse, or irrational.
2. Made within the scope of the authority conferred by the statute.
3. Based on relevant considerations and not influenced by irrelevant
considerations.
4. Made in good faith, without bias or mala fides.

Connection

The connection between the E.P. Royappa case and the Wednesbury doctrine lies in their
shared emphasis on the requirement of reasonableness in administrative actions. Both
contexts underscore the principle that administrative decisions must be rational, fair, and
based on relevant considerations.

In the E.P. Royappa case, the Supreme Court of India articulated the requirement of
reasonableness in administrative actions within the framework of Indian constitutional law,
emphasizing the fundamental right to equality.

Similarly, the Wednesbury doctrine provides a legal standard for assessing the reasonableness
of administrative decisions under English law. It establishes a test to determine whether an
administrative decision falls within the bounds of reasonableness, thereby serving as a check
on arbitrary or irrational exercises of administrative power.

In summary, while the E.P. Royappa case and the Wednesbury doctrine arise in different
legal contexts and jurisdictions, they both underscore the importance of reasonableness as a
guiding principle in administrative law.

DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

The doctrine of public accountability is a fundamental principle in governance that holds

public officials and institutions responsible for their actions, decisions, and use of public
resources. It emphasizes transparency, integrity, and responsiveness in the conduct of
government affairs, aiming to ensure that public officials act in the best interests of the public
they serve. Here are key aspects of the doctrine of public accountability:

1. Transparency

 Openness: Public officials and institutions are expected to conduct their activities in
an open and transparent manner, providing access to information and decision-making
processes.
 Disclosure: Governments should disclose relevant information to the public,
including financial records, policies, and actions, to enable scrutiny and
accountability.

2. Answerability
  Obligation to Explain: Public officials are accountable for their decisions and actions
and must be prepared to justify and explain them to the public, stakeholders, and
oversight bodies.
 Responsiveness: Officials should respond to inquiries, concerns, and criticisms from
the public and other stakeholders, addressing issues promptly and effectively.

3. Integrity

 Honesty and Ethics: Public officials are expected to act with honesty, integrity, and
ethical conduct in the performance of their duties, avoiding conflicts of interest and
corruption.
 Stewardship of Resources: Officials should use public resources responsibly and
efficiently, ensuring they are used for the public good and not for personal gain or
private interests.

4. Answerability

 Obligation to Explain: Public officials are accountable for their decisions and actions
and must be prepared to justify and explain them to the public, stakeholders, and
oversight bodies.
 Responsiveness: Officials should respond to inquiries, concerns, and criticisms from
the public and other stakeholders, addressing issues promptly and effectively.

5. Participation

 Public Engagement: Governments should actively engage with the public,

encouraging participation in decision-making processes, policy development, and
governance initiatives.
 Consultation: Authorities should consult with affected stakeholders, communities,
and civil society organizations when formulating policies or making decisions that
impact them.

6. Oversight and Enforcement

 Checks and Balances: Mechanisms such as legislative oversight, judicial review, and
independent auditing bodies provide checks on government actions and ensure
accountability.
 Enforcement of Standards: Legal and regulatory frameworks establish standards of
conduct for public officials and institutions, with enforcement mechanisms to address
violations and ensure compliance.

7. Continuous Improvement

 Learning and Adaptation: Governments should embrace a culture of continuous

improvement, learning from mistakes, evaluating performance, and implementing
reforms to enhance accountability and effectiveness.
 Evaluation and Monitoring: Regular evaluation and monitoring of government
programs, services, and performance metrics help identify areas for improvement and
ensure accountability to the public.
Conclusion

The doctrine of public accountability is essential for maintaining trust, legitimacy, and
effectiveness in government. By promoting transparency, integrity, responsiveness, and
participation, this doctrine helps ensure that public officials and institutions serve the interests
of the public and uphold democratic principles of governance. It is a cornerstone of good
governance and democratic accountability in societies around the world.

LAW OF ESTOPPEL

The law of estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from asserting something
contrary to what is implied by a previous action or statement of that person or by a previous
pertinent judicial determination. Estoppel is designed to prevent injustice by precluding a
party from taking a position that contradicts their past actions, statements, or behaviors when
such a contradiction would unfairly disadvantage another party who relied on the original
actions, statements, or behaviors.

Types of Estoppel

1. Estoppel by Representation:
o Definition: Occurs when one party makes a representation of fact to another
party, and the second party relies on that representation to their detriment.
o Example: If a landlord tells a tenant that they won’t enforce a no-pet policy,
and the tenant buys a pet relying on this assurance, the landlord may be
estopped from later enforcing the no-pet policy.
2. Promissory Estoppel:
o Definition: Prevents a party from going back on a promise that the other party
has relied upon, even if a legal contract does not exist.
o Example: If an employer promises an employee a bonus if they complete a
project, and the employee completes the project relying on this promise, the
employer may be estopped from not paying the bonus.
3. Estoppel by Conduct (or Estoppel in Pais):
o Definition: Arises when one party’s actions or behavior have led another party
to act to their detriment.
o Example: If someone continually acts as though a debt has been paid off, and
the creditor, relying on this behavior, destroys the documentation of the debt,
the debtor may be estopped from later asserting that the debt was not paid.
4. Equitable Estoppel:
o Definition: Applies when a party has, through their actions or representations,
induced another party to believe in certain facts and the latter has acted upon
such belief to their detriment.
o Example: If a seller misleads a buyer about the boundaries of a property, and
the buyer, relying on this, makes improvements on the land, the seller may be
estopped from denying the boundary lines as represented.
5. Collateral Estoppel (Issue Preclusion):
o Definition: Prevents re-litigation of issues that have already been resolved in a
previous lawsuit between the same parties.
o Example: If a court has determined a specific issue in one case, the same
parties cannot dispute that same issue in another case.
 6. Judicial Estoppel:
o Definition: Precludes a party from adopting a position in a legal proceeding
that contradicts a stance they successfully adopted in earlier legal proceedings.
o Example: If a party successfully argues in one case that they were not liable
for an action, they cannot later claim that they were liable for the same action
in a different case to gain some advantage.

Key Elements of Estoppel

 Representation or Assurance: There must be a clear and unequivocal representation

or assurance made by one party.
 Reliance: The other party must have relied on this representation or assurance.
 Detriment: The party relying on the representation or assurance must have suffered a
detriment as a result of their reliance.
 Unfairness: It would be unfair or unjust to allow the party making the representation
to go back on their word.

Legal Basis

Estoppel principles are based on notions of fairness and justice and are recognized in various
forms across many legal systems. They are often codified in statutes and case law and can be
applied in both civil and common law jurisdictions.

Conclusion

The law of estoppel serves to protect parties from unfair practices by ensuring consistency in
representations and behaviors. It is a vital legal doctrine that promotes fairness and prevents
injustice by holding parties accountable for their statements, actions, and conduct, ensuring
that those who rely on them are not unfairly disadvantaged.

MEANING OF OMBUDSMAN IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

An Ombudsman in administrative law is an independent official or
body appointed by the government to oversee and investigate
complaints and grievances against administrative actions and
decisions made by government agencies, departments or public
officials.

The primary purpose of an Ombudsman in administrative law is to

ensure transparency, fairness, accountability and adherence to legal
and procedural standards within the administrative processes of the
government.

This official is often referred to as a grievance officer. The

Ombudsman’s job is to examine the complaints made by citizens
when they believe that a government agency is not doing its job
properly. In simple terms, if the government isn’t doing things right,
citizens can report their concerns to this official, who works for the
government but is independent and impartial.
Importance of Ombudsman in Administrative Law
Regarding the importance of the Ombudsman in administrative law,
it’s essential to understand that this official is not a super
administrator to whom you can appeal just because you’re not
happy with a decision made by a government official. The main role
of the Ombudsman is to investigate complaints of mismanagement
or unfair treatment.

In terms of its usefulness, think of the Ombudsman in administrative

law as a guardian of the government’s actions and a protector of
regular people. The Ombudsman looks into all complaints made by
citizens when they believe that the government is using its power
improperly, not doing its job well or being unfair. The Ombudsman
has extensive authority, including access to government records.
People who file complaints don’t have to provide evidence; the
Ombudsman investigates and can provide remedies to those who
have been wronged.

The Ombudsman’s role is to make sure complaints are valid and

address them appropriately. They can even take action on their own
if they see a problem and their authority is not limited like that of a
Civil Court.

A classical Ombudsman functions in government to receive and investigate

complaints. The irreducible minimum characteristics such an Ombudsman
must have are:

A. Independence
B. Impartiality and Fairness
C. Credibility of the Review Process
D. Confidentiality

Each of those characteristics are effectuated by a number of essential

provisions found in the laws creating such ombudsmen. This article describes
the provisions, explains their effects and suggests why they are necessary for
a classical Ombudsman.

Origin of Concept of Ombudsman

The idea of an Ombudsman first started in Sweden over two
hundred years ago in 1809. As the twentieth century began, other
European countries began to take notice of this system.

For instance, Finland established the Ombudsman institution in

1919, Denmark followed suit in 1955 and Norway did the same in
1961. Many European countries adopted the term “Ombudsman” for
this role. However, some countries, like New Zealand, used the term
“Parliamentary commission.”

In the early 1960s, the British government began to seriously

consider creating a body to address people’s complaints about
public administration and to protect against the misuse of power. In
1966, the British government appointed a Parliamentary
Commissioner for this purpose. By 1973, this Parliamentary
Commissioner also took on the role of a Health Commissioner.

Types of Ombudsmen
In 1962, during the “All India Lawyers’ Conference,” a social
reformer named M.C. Setalvad proposed the idea of establishing an
Ombudsman system in India to improve how the government
functions.

An Ombudsman can be anyone, from an inspector general to a

citizen advocate, appointed by the national legislature. Ombudsmen
are also appointed at the state, local and municipal levels.

To handle complaints in a confidential, independent and impartial

manner, the government appoints various Ombudsmen for different
domains and issues. There are several types of Ombudsmen:

Organisational Ombudsman

These Ombudsmen review, administer and investigate complaints

from employees, members or clients of public or private sector
organisations regarding problems or policy violations. They ensure
issues are properly addressed and communicate changes and
conflicts within the organisation.

Classical Ombudsman

Appointed by the government, Classical Ombudsmen deal with

problems and conflicts of the general public concerning authorities
or the government itself. They have the authority to review and
address public grievances and take appropriate actions.

Advocate Ombudsman

These Ombudsmen work in both the private and public sectors and
are focused on publicly defending and advocating for persecuted
individuals or groups. They are often found in social work entities or
government agencies and primarily address policies practised by
government entities or organisations.
Hybrid Ombudsman

Their main role is to informally investigate complaints from both

private and public sectors. They have the power to conduct
investigations and produce annual reports.

Legislative Ombudsman

As part of the government, Legislative Ombudsmen address issues,

conflicts and disputes faced by the public when dealing with
government agencies and branches. They emphasise issues related
to government policies and legislation and can propose changes
based on public demands.

Executive Ombudsman

These Ombudsmen assess complaints and failures in government

conduct, involving government officers and authorities. They make
public reports for reference and work with officials to improve
individual experiences.

Media Ombudsman

These Ombudsmen investigate complaints in various news

organisations and media outlets. They handle issues like false news,
misleading advertisements, controversial statements, defamation
cases and inappropriate customer-media relations to ensure fair
resolution of conflicts and disputes in the media industry.

Powers and Functions of Ombudsman in Administrative Law

 One of the key roles of an Ombudsman is to safeguard the
rights and freedoms of citizens. The establishment of the
Ombudsman position primarily serves this purpose.
 In Scandinavian countries, the Ombudsman has an additional
responsibility: supervising the general civil administration. This
duty closely ties the Ombudsman’s role to the oversight of
public administration.
 Many states, including some institutions similar to the
Ombudsman, engage in the general supervision of government
functions. This oversight is often referred to as monitoring the
government’s performance.
 In certain countries, the Ombudsmen wield significant
authority. For instance, in Sweden, the Ombudsman is
empowered to investigate cases of corruption, in any form, not
only involving government officials but also judges of the
highest court.
  In the United Kingdom, the Parliamentary Commissioner, a
British version of the Ombudsman, also serves as a Health
Commissioner. In 1974, the British parliament passed a law to
expand the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner to
cover local government matters. This allows local councillors to
file complaints against local authorities and seek resolution for
their grievances.
 Another crucial aspect of the Ombudsman’s role is the exercise
of discretionary powers. These powers encompass a wide
range of issues, including corruption, negligence, inefficiency
and misbehaviour. How these powers are applied depends on
the individual Ombudsman and their judgment.
Ombudsman in India
The success of the Ombudsman functions in other countries served
as inspiration for the establishment of Lokpal and Lokayuktas in
India. Lokpal functions as the Indian Ombudsman at the national
level, while Lokayuktas serve as State Ombudsmen.

The idea of setting up an Ombudsman in India was first proposed by

M.C. Setalvad at the All India Lawyers’ Conference in 1962.

In 1968, the Administrative Reforms Committee presented a

proposal to the Government regarding the establishment of an
Ombudsman. However, it wasn’t until 1971 that a bill was
introduced for this purpose, but it ultimately did not pass.

Lokpal in India, established under the Lokpal Act of 2013, serves as

a national anti-corruption ombudsman. Its role is to investigate
complaints against public servants defined by the Lokpal Act, with
the aim of combating corruption in India.

Salient features of The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 established the Lokpal at the
national level, which has the authority to investigate cases of
corruption involving Members of Parliament and central government
employees. Lokayuktas, on the other hand, operate at the state
level and perform similar functions.

Both the Lokpal and Lokayuktas handle corruption charges against

public officials, including the Prime Minister, but with certain
safeguards in place. They conduct investigations and trials based on
their findings.

The Act allows for the creation of Lokayuktas in each state with their
respective powers, although it doesn’t clearly define the extent of
these powers. This has resulted in variations in the powers of
Lokayuktas across different states. To bring uniformity, there has
been a proposal to implement Lokayuktas consistently across all
Indian states. The Act also mandates that all states establish the
office of the Lokpal and/or Lokayukta within one year from the
commencement of the Act.

The Lokpal consists of a chairperson and a maximum of eight

members. Half of the members are judicial and the other half are
from SC/ST/OBCs, minorities and women.

Under the newly enacted Lokpal Act, corruptly acquired properties of

government officials can be confiscated and attached even while
proceedings against them are ongoing.

The Act requires all public officials to disclose their assets and
liabilities as well as those of their dependents. It also provides
protection for government officials who act as whistleblowers and an
accompanying Whistle Blowers Protection Act has been enacted to
support this aspect.

Composition of the Lokpal

The Lokpal office is composed of a Chairman and up to 8 members.
The Chairman of the Lokpal can either be a current or former judge
of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of a High Court.
Alternatively, the Chairman can also be an eminent person known
for their impeccable reputation and exceptional expertise, with at
least 25 years of experience in areas such as anti-corruption policy,
public administration, vigilance, law, management, finance
(including insurance and banking) and related matters.

The powers of the Lokpal are defined in Section 25 of the 2013 Act.
If the Lokpal receives a complaint under the Prevention of
Corruption Act of 1988, it has the authority to initiate an
investigation. If the complaint is substantiated during the
investigation, the Lokpal can recommend that the government take
disciplinary action against the accused public servants or file a
corruption case in a special court.

Conclusion
The role of the Ombudsman in administrative law is pivotal in
upholding the principles of transparency, fairness and accountability
within the workings of government. This independent authority
serves as a beacon of hope for individuals and organisations who
encounter administrative issues, ensuring that their grievances are
heard and resolved impartially.
The Ombudsman’s multifaceted functions, from mediating disputes
to conducting thorough investigations, shine a light on potential
shortcomings within the administrative apparatus. Through their
recommendations and proactive measures, Ombudsmen help
governments enhance their processes, reducing the likelihood of
future conflicts.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION (RTI) ACT OF 2005

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 in India is a pivotal piece of legislation aimed at
promoting transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities. While the
RTI Act itself does not establish an ombudsman, it incorporates mechanisms that function
similarly to the role of an ombudsman by ensuring that public authorities are answerable to
citizens regarding the disclosure of information. Here's an overview of the essentials of the
RTI Act and its alignment with the principles of an ombudsman in administrative law:

Key Provisions of the RTI Act, 2005

1. Right to Information
o Scope: Every citizen has the right to request information from any "public
authority," which is defined broadly to include any body of government and
non-government organizations substantially funded by the government.
o Obligation to Respond: Public authorities are required to provide the
requested information promptly, or within thirty days.
2. Public Authorities’ Responsibilities
o Proactive Disclosure: Public authorities must suo motu publish certain
categories of information to minimize the need for citizens to file RTI
requests.
o Appointment of Public Information Officers (PIOs): Every public authority
must designate PIOs to handle requests for information.
3. Mechanisms for Accountability
o Central and State Information Commissions: The Act establishes Central
and State Information Commissions to oversee the implementation of the RTI
Act. These commissions function similarly to an ombudsman by addressing
grievances and ensuring compliance.
o Complaint and Appeal Mechanisms: Citizens can file complaints and
appeals if they are denied information or are dissatisfied with the response.
The Information Commissions have the power to hear these appeals and direct
the public authorities accordingly.
4. Enforcement and Penalties
o Penalties for Non-Compliance: The Information Commissions can impose
penalties on PIOs who fail to comply with the provisions of the Act, such as
not providing information within the stipulated time frame or providing
incorrect information.

Similarities to the Role of an Ombudsman

1. Independence
 o Autonomy: The Central and State Information Commissions operate
independently of the public authorities they oversee, ensuring impartiality in
their functions.
2. Authority and Jurisdiction
o Investigative Powers: The Information Commissions have the authority to
investigate complaints, summon witnesses, and access documents, much like
an ombudsman.
o Wide Mandate: Their jurisdiction covers a broad range of public authorities
and issues related to the transparency and disclosure of information.
3. Accessibility
o Ease of Filing Requests: The RTI Act provides a straightforward process for
citizens to file information requests and complaints, ensuring accessibility and
ease of use.
o Support for Citizens: PIOs are designated to assist citizens in obtaining
information, similar to how an ombudsman facilitates the redressal of
grievances.
4. Transparency and Accountability
o Annual Reports: The Information Commissions are required to produce
annual reports detailing their activities, decisions, and the status of compliance
by public authorities.
o Public Scrutiny: These reports are made public, ensuring transparency in the
functioning of the Information Commissions themselves.
5. Remedial Powers
o Binding Directions: While the recommendations of a traditional ombudsman
are often advisory, the Information Commissions under the RTI Act have the
authority to issue binding directions to public authorities to provide
information or take corrective action.
6. Preventive Role
o Advisory Functions: The Information Commissions advise public authorities
on compliance with the RTI Act and promote best practices in transparency
and information dissemination.
o Training and Awareness: They also engage in activities to educate public
officials and the general public about their rights and obligations under the
Act.

Conclusion

The RTI Act, 2005, through the establishment of Information Commissions, incorporates
many principles akin to those of an ombudsman in administrative law. These mechanisms
ensure that public authorities are held accountable for their actions, promoting transparency,
responsiveness, and integrity in public administration. This alignment underscores the vital
role of oversight bodies in safeguarding democratic values and empowering citizens with the
right to information.

ANTI-CORRUPTION BODIES

Anti-corruption bodies and the ombudsman play crucial roles in promoting transparency,
accountability, and integrity within public administration. They serve as watchdogs to
prevent, investigate, and address corruption and maladministration. Here’s an overview of the
various anti-corruption bodies and the role of the ombudsman in this context:

Anti-Corruption Bodies

1. Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) - India

o Role: The CVC is the apex body for preventing corruption in the Indian
government. It monitors all vigilance activities and advises organizations in
planning, executing, and reviewing their vigilance work.
o Functions: The CVC investigates corruption cases, coordinates with other
agencies (like the Central Bureau of Investigation - CBI), and provides
guidelines to central government organizations.
o Powers: It can recommend inquiries and direct the CBI to conduct
investigations.
2. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) - India
o Role: The CBI investigates a wide range of criminal cases, including
corruption cases, economic crimes, and serious crimes.
o Functions: It conducts investigations, collects evidence, and prosecutes
offenders.
o Powers: The CBI operates under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions and can take up cases referred by the CVC or
state governments.
3. Lokpal and Lokayuktas - India
o Role: Lokpal (at the national level) and Lokayuktas (at the state level) are
anti-corruption ombudsmen institutions designed to address complaints
against public servants, including high-level officials.
o Functions: They investigate complaints of corruption, initiate prosecutions,
and ensure administrative reforms.
o Powers: Lokpal and Lokayuktas have the authority to inquire into allegations
of corruption against current and former public officials.
4. Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) - Various States in India
o Role: State-level agencies that investigate corruption in state government
departments.
o Functions: Conducting raids, investigations, and trapping corrupt officials.
o Powers: Similar to the CBI but confined to the state level.
5. Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) - Hong Kong
o Role: A dedicated body to combat corruption through law enforcement,
prevention, and education.
o Functions: Investigates corruption complaints, recommends preventive
measures, and conducts public education campaigns.
o Powers: ICAC can arrest, search, and prosecute individuals suspected of
corruption.

Ombudsman in Anti-Corruption

1. Definition and Role

o An ombudsman is an independent official appointed to investigate complaints
against public administration, often including issues related to corruption and
maladministration.
 oThe ombudsman helps ensure that public officials and institutions act with
integrity and in the public interest.
2. Functions of an Anti-Corruption Ombudsman
o Investigating Complaints: An ombudsman investigates complaints from the
public about corruption and misconduct in public offices.
o Recommendations: They can make recommendations for corrective actions,
policy changes, and disciplinary measures against corrupt officials.
o Monitoring and Reporting: They monitor the implementation of anti-
corruption measures and report on their findings and recommendations to the
public and the legislature.
o Public Awareness: Engaging in public education to raise awareness about
corruption, the role of the ombudsman, and the mechanisms available for
reporting corruption.
o Advisory Role: Advising government departments on best practices and
preventive measures to reduce opportunities for corruption.

Examples of Anti-Corruption Ombudsman Institutions

1. Lokpal and Lokayuktas - India

o Structure: Lokpal is a national body while Lokayuktas operate at the state
level.
o Jurisdiction: They can investigate allegations of corruption against all public
officials, including the Prime Minister (with certain limitations), ministers, and
members of Parliament.
2. Parliamentary Ombudsman - Sweden
o Role: The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman investigates complaints against
public authorities and officials.
o Function: It ensures compliance with laws and regulations, including those
related to corruption and mismanagement.
3. Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) - South Korea
o Role: The ACRC investigates corruption and protects civil rights.
o Function: It handles public complaints, conducts anti-corruption
investigations, and recommends policy changes.

Conclusion

Anti-corruption bodies and the ombudsman play complementary roles in ensuring clean and
transparent governance. Anti-corruption bodies like the CVC, CBI, and ICAC focus on
investigating and prosecuting corruption, while the ombudsman addresses complaints of
maladministration and ensures that public officials adhere to ethical standards. Together, they
form a robust framework to combat corruption and promote accountability in public
administration.

LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS ACT, 2013

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, is a significant piece of legislation in India aimed at
curbing corruption in public offices and ensuring accountability among public officials. The
Act establishes the institution of Lokpal at the central level and Lokayuktas at the state level.
Here’s an overview of the administrative procedures under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act,
2013:

Key Provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

1. Establishment and Composition

 Lokpal:
o Structure: The Lokpal consists of a chairperson and up to eight members, with at
least 50% of the members being judicial members.
o Appointment: Members are appointed by the President of India based on the
recommendations of a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, Speaker
of the Lok Sabha, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or
a Supreme Court judge nominated by him, and an eminent jurist.

 Lokayuktas:
o Structure: Lokayuktas are to be established in each state by the respective state
legislatures.
o Appointment: The procedure for appointment varies by state legislation but
generally involves a similar selection process to that of the Lokpal.

2. Jurisdiction and Scope

 Lokpal:
o Jurisdiction: The Lokpal has jurisdiction over the Prime Minister (with certain
limitations), ministers, members of Parliament, groups A, B, C, and D officers and
officials of the central government.
o Scope: It covers allegations of corruption, which include abuse of position, bribery,
criminal misconduct, and other offenses defined under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.

 Lokayuktas:
o Jurisdiction: Lokayuktas have jurisdiction over state-level public officials, including
the Chief Minister, ministers, members of the state legislature, and state government
officials.
o Scope: Similar to the Lokpal, Lokayuktas address allegations of corruption within
their respective states.

3. Complaint Handling Procedure

 Filing Complaints:
o Any person may file a complaint to the Lokpal or Lokayukta.
o Complaints must be in a prescribed format and accompanied by an affidavit.

 Preliminary Inquiry:
o Upon receipt of a complaint, the Lokpal/Lokayukta may order a preliminary inquiry
to determine whether there is a prima facie case.
o The inquiry can be conducted by the Lokpal/Lokayukta themselves or referred to the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or state vigilance departments.
  Investigation:
o If a prima facie case is established, a full investigation is launched.
o The Lokpal/Lokayukta has the power to summon documents, call witnesses, and
conduct hearings.
o Investigations must be completed within a specified period, typically six months,
with possible extensions.

 Prosecution and Disciplinary Action:

o Based on the investigation, the Lokpal/Lokayukta may recommend prosecution or
disciplinary action.
o Recommendations are forwarded to the competent authority for action. For
example, in the case of the Prime Minister or central ministers, the President of
India; for members of Parliament, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or Chairman of the
Rajya Sabha.

4. Powers and Functions

 Inquiry and Investigation:

o The Lokpal/Lokayukta can inquire into complaints, investigate alleged corruption,
and recommend actions.
o They have the authority to initiate suo motu (on their own) investigations.

 Search and Seizure:

o The Lokpal/Lokayukta can conduct searches and seizures during investigations.

 Provisional Attachment:
o They have the power to provisionally attach assets acquired through corrupt means
to prevent them from being disposed of during the investigation.

 Oversight of CBI:
o The Lokpal has supervisory powers over the CBI for cases referred to it by the Lokpal.

5. Safeguards and Accountability

 Protection for Whistleblowers:

o The Act provides for the protection of complainants against victimization and
harassment.

 Transparency:
o Proceedings before the Lokpal/Lokayukta are generally conducted in public, and
their orders are made available to the public.

 Appeals:
o Decisions of the Lokpal/Lokayukta can be challenged in the High Court or Supreme
Court.

Administrative Procedure under the Act

1. Receipt of Complaints:
 o Complaints are received in the prescribed format along with supporting documents
and an affidavit.

2. Preliminary Examination:
o Initial assessment to determine if the complaint merits further investigation.
o If no prima facie case is found, the complaint is dismissed.

3. Detailed Investigation:
o Comprehensive investigation by Lokpal/Lokayukta or referred agencies.
o Collection of evidence, examination of witnesses, and other investigative
procedures.

4. Hearing and Decision:

o Hearings may be conducted to examine evidence and arguments from both sides.
o Decisions are based on findings and can include recommendations for prosecution or
administrative action.

5. Follow-Up:
o Implementation of recommendations by the relevant authorities.
o Monitoring compliance with the decisions and recommendations.

Conclusion

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, establishes a structured process for handling
corruption complaints, involving thorough preliminary inquiries and detailed investigations.
These bodies are empowered to ensure accountability among public officials and promote
integrity within the public sector, thus reinforcing the principles of good governance and
public trust.

CASES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

The cases of Deep Chand, S.P. Sampath Kumar, and L. Chandra Kumar are landmark
judgments in Indian administrative law, particularly concerning the establishment,
functioning, and jurisdiction of administrative tribunals. Here’s an overview of each case and
their significance in the context of administrative tribunals:

1. Deep Chand Case

Case Name: Deep Chand vs. State of Rajasthan

Citation: AIR 1961 SC 1527

Key Points:

 The Deep Chand case primarily dealt with the constitutionality of administrative
actions and the delegation of legislative powers.
 The Supreme Court examined the scope and limits of legislative delegation to
administrative bodies.
 The decision underscored that while the legislature can delegate powers to
administrative authorities, it must lay down clear guidelines and standards to prevent
arbitrary actions.
Significance in Administrative Tribunals:

 Though not directly related to administrative tribunals, the principles established in

this case influence the framework within which tribunals operate, particularly
concerning the delegation of powers and ensuring that tribunals adhere to standards
preventing arbitrariness and ensuring accountability.

2. S.P. Sampath Kumar Case

Case Name: S.P. Sampath Kumar vs. Union of India

Citation: 1987 SCR (3) 233

Key Points:

 This case challenged the constitutionality of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
which established the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State
Administrative Tribunals (SATs).
 The primary contention was that the Act took away the jurisdiction of the High Courts
over service matters and transferred it to administrative tribunals, potentially violating
the principle of judicial review.
 The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act but emphasized the need
for judicial independence and safeguards to maintain the credibility and effectiveness
of the tribunals.

Significance in Administrative Tribunals:

 The judgment confirmed the validity of administrative tribunals while asserting that
they must function as effective substitutes for High Courts.
 It stressed the need for tribunals to maintain judicial standards and independence,
ensuring that they are not perceived as mere extensions of the executive.

3. L. Chandra Kumar Case

Case Name: L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India

Citation: AIR 1997 SC 1125

Key Points:

 This case revisited the issues addressed in S.P. Sampath Kumar regarding the
exclusion of High Court jurisdiction over service matters.
 The Supreme Court held that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of High Courts and the
Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32, respectively, was unconstitutional.
 The Court ruled that decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and
State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) are subject to judicial review by High Courts
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

Significance in Administrative Tribunals:

  The ruling reaffirmed the role of the High Courts and the Supreme Court in exercising
judicial review over tribunal decisions, ensuring a check on the powers of
administrative tribunals.
 It enhanced the accountability and credibility of administrative tribunals by subjecting
their decisions to scrutiny by the higher judiciary.
 The judgment reinforced the principle that administrative tribunals are supplemental
to the judicial system and cannot be entirely insulated from judicial oversight.

Conclusion

The judgments in Deep Chand, S.P. Sampath Kumar, and L. Chandra Kumar
collectively shaped the landscape of administrative tribunals in India. They underscore the
importance of maintaining judicial standards, independence, and the principle of judicial
review to ensure that administrative tribunals serve their purpose without compromising the
fundamental principles of justice and accountability