KSLU Administrative Law Past Questions & Exam Topics
KSLU Administrative Law Past Questions & Exam Topics
To crack the KSLU exam for Administrative Law, analyzing past trends is crucial. Below is a unit-wise breakdown of theory and problem questions compiled from KSLU semester papers.
How to read the map:
- ⭐⭐⭐ : Asked 5+ times — Must Cover
- ⭐⭐ : Asked 3–4 times — High Priority
- ⭐ : Asked 1–2 times
[16M]/[10M]: Essay marks[6M]/[SN]: Short notes / brief topics[Prob]: Solved problem fact patterns
📅 Unit 1 — Foundations of Administrative Law
Topic-wise Questions
| # | Topic | Questions & Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | Definition, nature & scope of Administrative Law | [16M/15M/10M] Define administrative law; explain its nature and scope / definitions, characteristics, objectives & sources (Jun2010(100), Jan2011(100), Jun2013(100), Dec2013(100), Jun2015(100), Dec2016(100), Jun2018(100), Jun2019(100), Dec2019(80), Apr2021b(80), Jun2022(100), Apr2022(100), Feb2025(80), Jun2025(80), Jan2026(100), Jan2026b(80)); [16M] “Administrative law is an instrument to combat administrative authoritarianism through the courts” — explain (Jun2011(100)); [16M] “Administrative law is the phenomenal/outstanding outcome of the 20th century” — discuss with definitions (Apr2021(100), Apr2022b(80), Jun2025-style); [16M] “Administrative law is an adjective law dealing with principles of governance” (Feb2025(80), Nov2022(80)); [16M] “Study of administrative law is not an end in itself but a means to an end” (Jun2015(100)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 1.2 | Reasons / factors for the growth of administrative law | [16M/15M/10M] Explain the reasons / factors responsible for the growth of administrative law in India (Jan2012(100), Dec2013(100), Jun2018(100), Jun2019(100), Dec2019(80), Jan2026b(80)); [16M] Critically examine the growth of administrative law in India (Dec2020(100)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 1.3 | Doctrine of Separation of Powers (UK / USA / India; collegium context; structural vs functional) | [16M/15M/10M] Explain the doctrine of separation of powers; extent followed in UK & USA / its impact on growth of administrative law (Jun2014(100), Dec2014(100), Dec2015(100), Apr2023b-100, Apr2023(100)); [16M] Doctrine of separation of powers in India with reference to the collegium system of appointing judges to HC/SC (Jun2016(100), Jun2025(80)); [10M] Doctrine of separation of powers is “structural than functional” — examine its impact in India (Oct2023(80)); [10M] “The doctrine of separation of powers has influenced and been influenced by the growth of administrative law” (Apr2021(100)); [16M] Application of the doctrine in India with decided cases (Jan2026(100)); [6M/5M] Critically examine / note on separation of powers (Jun2011(100), Jan2011(100), Apr2021b(80), Dec2019(80), Jun2019-SN, Jun2012(100)); relevance in modern progressive administration (Apr2022(80)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 1.4 | Rule of Law (Dicey; three meanings; Indian Constitution) | [16M/15M] Explain/critically examine the concept of “Rule of Law” (Dicey) and its application/incorporation in India, with cases (Jun2011(100), Jun2013(100), Dec2013(100), Jun2016(100), Dec2018(100), Jan2026b(80)); [10M] Applicability of the doctrine of rule of law in administrative law with cases (Feb2025(80), Apr2022(100)); [6M/5M/SN] Doctrine of rule of law / its components (Jun2010(100), Apr2023b(80), Apr2023(100)-SN, Dec2019(80), Apr2022(80)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 1.5 | Classification of Administrative Action & the necessity (administrative / legislative / quasi-judicial / ministerial functions) | [15M/10M/6M] Explain the classification of administrative actions / characteristics of administrative functions (Dec2012(100), Apr2023b(80), Feb2025(80), Nov2022(80)); [16M] Necessity / why classification matters (implicit — see Jan2011 “dividing line” essay) ⭐⭐ |
| 1.6 | Judicial vs Quasi-judicial functions; the “thin dividing line” | [16M/10M] “The dividing line between administrative/judicial power and quasi-judicial power is thin and being gradually obliterated” — discuss / explain in light of classification of administrative action (Jan2011(100), Jun2012-style, Apr2021b(80), Jun2022(100), Nov2022(80)); [6M] Judicial functions vs quasi-judicial functions (Oct2023(80), Apr2022(80)-SN, Jun2018-style); [16M] When do administrative authorities have to act judicially? / tests (Jun2011(100)); [6M] Whether licensing authorities have to act judicially (Jan2011(100)) ⭐⭐ |
| 1.7 | Droit Administratif (French administrative law system) | [6M/5M/SN] Write a note on “Droit Administratif” (Jun2011(100), Jan2012(100), Jun2014(100), Feb2025(80), Apr2021b(80), Jan2026b(80), Dec2020(100)-SN, Nov2022(80)) ⭐⭐ |
| 1.8 | Administrative Law vs Constitutional Law (distinction) | [6M/5M] Distinguish / differentiate administrative law from constitutional law (Jun2013(100), Dec2013(100), Jun2015(100)-in essay, Oct2023(80), Apr2022(80), Nov2022(80)) ⭐⭐ |
| 1.9 | Sources of Administrative Law | [16M] Define administrative law and discuss its various sources (Jun2013(100), Jun2025(80), Apr2022(100)); [6M] Note on sources of administrative law (Jan2026b(80)) ⭐ |
| 1.10 | Rule of Law & Separation of Powers as conceptual objections (LL.M.) | [12M] Are ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Separation of Powers’ conceptual objections against the growth of administrative law? (Dec2016(50)-LLM) ⭐ |
Application Problems (all papers)
Unit I is overwhelmingly theory. The only fact-pattern that surfaces in a Unit-I slot is a discretion problem (self-imposed policy fettering discretion); its legal substance belongs to Unit IV, where it is tabled — kept here only as a cross-reference so it is not “lost”.
| Year(s) (paper) | Problem summary (neutral labels, with the decoy) | Key issue |
|---|---|---|
| Jun2010(100) | Officer A, vested with discretion to permit kidney transplantation, announces a fixed policy he will apply to all cases; applicant P, refused, challenges. Decoy: the “policy” looks like valid guidance, but mechanically applying it = fettering discretion. | Self-imposed rules fettering statutory discretion → tabled in Unit IV (administrative discretion). |
📅 Unit 2 — Legislative Power of Administration (Delegated Legislation)
Topic-wise Questions
| # | Topic | Questions & Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 2.1 | Delegated legislation — definition & reasons for growth | [16M/15M/10M] Define delegated legislation and state/explain the reasons (factors) for its growth (Jun2010(100), Jan2012(100), Jun2013(100), Dec2013(100), Dec2018(100), Jun2019(100), Dec2019(80), Apr2021b(80), Nov2022(80), Jan2026(100), Jan2026b(80), Oct2023(80), Apr2023(100)); [16M] Reasons for growth and procedural control over delegated legislation (Jun2016(100), Apr2023(100)); [16M] Role of administrative legislation in a progressive democratic society + limits on delegation (Jun2015(100)); [16M] Factors responsible for delegation of legislative power in India (Dec2014(100)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 2.2 | Doctrine of excessive delegation / ultra vires (essential legislative functions cannot be delegated; substantive & procedural ultra vires) | [16M/10M] “Essential legislative powers/functions cannot be delegated to the executive” — explain with cases (Jun2013(100), Jan2011(100)); [16M] Explain the doctrine of ultra vires; refer cases (Jan2012(100)); [10M] Effects of substantive and procedural ultra vires on delegated legislation; refer judicial decisions (Jun2022(100)); [10M] “Delegated legislation may be assailed as ultra vires” — explain in light of judicial control (Feb2025(80), Apr2022b(80), Oct2023(80)); [16M] Power of modification of statute (SN) (Apr2023(100)) ⭐⭐ |
| 2.3 | Constitutionality of delegated legislation (India; comparison with USA) | [10M/16M] Critically examine the constitutionality of delegated legislation in India, with cases (Feb2025(80), Apr2022b(80), Oct2023(80)); [16M] Constitutionality of delegated/“obligated” legislation in USA and India (Jun2022(100)) ⭐⭐ |
| 2.4 | Judicial control over delegated legislation (grounds of challenge) | [16M/15M/10M] Discuss judicial control / grounds on which delegated legislation may be challenged, with decided cases (Jun2011(100), Jun2014(100), Dec2018-style, Jun2019(100), Dec2020(100), Apr2022(100), Apr2023b(80), Apr2023(80), Jun2025(80)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 2.5 | Parliamentary / legislative control over delegated legislation | [16M/15M/10M] Discuss parliamentary control / forms of legislative control over delegated legislation, with cases (Jun2012(100), Jun2013(100), Jan2011(100), Jun2014(100), Dec2019(80), Nov2022(80), Oct2023(80), Jun2025(80)); [16M] Effectiveness of parliamentary control — critically examine (Jun2014(100)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 2.6 | Procedural control over delegated legislation (publication, consultation, laying) | [16M] Discuss the procedural control over delegated legislation (Dec2013(100), Dec2016(100), Jun2016(100), Apr2023(100)); [12M] Procedural control over administrative rule-making (SN, LL.M.) (Dec2016(50)) ⭐⭐ |
| 2.7 | Conditional legislation (vs delegated legislation) | [6M] What is conditional legislation? / distinguish conditional from delegated legislation (Dec2019(80), Oct2023(80), Jan2026(100)-SN) ⭐ |
| 2.8 | Sub-delegation | [6M/5M] What are sub-delegations? / write a note on sub-delegated legislation (Jun2011(100), Jan2012(100), Jun2014(100), Dec2019-style, Apr2023b(80), Jan2026b(80), June2025(80)) ⭐⭐ |
| 2.9 | Permissible delegation / limits | [5M] What delegations are permissible? (Jun2011(100)); [16M] limits on delegation of legislative powers (Jun2015(100), Jun2012(100)) ⭐ |
| 2.10 | Henry VIII clause | [6M/5M] Henry VIII clause (Dec2013(100), Feb2025(80)) ⭐ |
| 2.11 | Administrative directions (nature, effect, enforceability, distinction from rules) | [16M/15M/10M] Discuss the enforceability / nature and effect of administrative directions, with cases (Jan2012(100), Jun2012(100), Jun2010(100)-SN, Jun2016(100), Feb2025(80)); [6M/5M] Distinctions between administrative directions and rules; identification of administrative directions; what are administrative directions (Jun2012(100), Jan2011(100), Dec2015(100)-SN) ⭐⭐ |
| 2.12 | Exclusion of judicial review of delegated legislation | (never asked as a standalone question) — syllabus topic with no dedicated PYQ; addressed implicitly inside judicial-control essays (2.4). |
| 2.13 | Advantages & disadvantages of delegated legislation | (never asked as a standalone essay) — *syllabus topic; appears only folded into the “reasons for growth”/“role in progressive society” essays (2.1). |
| 2.14 | Parliamentary Committee on Subordinate Legislation | [5M] Note on parliamentary committee on subordinate legislation (Dec2013(100)); [SN] Parliamentary Committee (Dec2014(100)) ⭐ |
| 2.15 | Publication of delegated legislation | [SN] Publication of delegated legislation (Dec2014(100)); (also engaged by the APMC/gazette problems below) ⭐ |
| 2.16 | Leading case note — Jatindra Nath Gupta | [6M] State the facts and findings in Jatindra Nath Gupta v. Province of Bihar [AIR 1949 FC 175] (Nov2022(80)) ⭐ |
Application Problems (all papers)
Unit II is the problem-heavy unit. Every fact-pattern below was set as an “advise / decide / is it valid” question. Look-alikes (same issue + rule + decoy, only names/figures swapped) are merged into one row with all years and neutral labels; genuinely different decoys are kept separate.
| Year(s) (paper) | Problem summary (neutral labels, with the decoy) | Key issue |
|---|---|---|
| Jun2012(100), Feb2025(80), Dec2018(100) | A statute bans advertising drugs for “venereal diseases” and delegates to the Central Govt power to extend the Act to “any other disease or diseases”. Validity of the delegation? Decoy: the listed subject looks fine; the open-ended “any other disease” is the vice — vague/uncanalised power. | Excessive delegation — absence of legislative policy / standards (Hamdard Dawakhana). |
| Jan2012(100) | Govt office memorandum fixes salary of re-employed personnel; A, re-employed, wants it enforced; Govt says it is a mere administrative direction conferring no enforceable right. Decoy: it reads like a binding rule but is only an internal direction. | Enforceability of administrative directions (no vested right). |
| Jan2012(100) | Advocates Act 1961 lets Bar Council of India prescribe qualifications for an advocate to vote at an election; the State Bar Council fixed the qualifications with BCI’s approval. Valid? Decoy: the “approval” is meant to look like cure of an invalid sub-delegation. | Sub-delegation / delegatus non potest delegare with sanction. |
| Jun2012(100) | A statute delegates powers to the Central Govt, which further sub-delegates the same powers to an administrative authority. Valid? Decoy: silence of parent Act on sub-delegation. | Sub-delegation without express authority. |
| Jun2015(100) | Delhi Corp. Act 1957 s.92(1): persons earning < ₹6,000 p.m. appointed by the General Manager; s.95 bars dismissal by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. GM frames a rule sub-delegating to the Assistant GM, who dismisses a driver earning < ₹6,000. Driver challenges the rule & action. Decoy: GM’s apparent rule-making power masks an unauthorised sub-delegation + s.95 bar. | Sub-delegation + dismissal by subordinate authority. |
| Apr2023b(80) | A State law lets Deputy Commissioners make rules for sanitation at fairs; a rule requires a permit from the District Magistrate, who has discretion to grant/refuse. V, refused, challenges the DC’s order. Decoy: the chain of authority hides whether the discretion is canalised. | Delegated rule-making + unguided licensing discretion. |
| June2025(80) | Central Govt delegates to the State Govt power to borrow from the ADB for infrastructure; State sub-delegates to City/Municipal Corporations; a city corporation borrows and imposes a self-assessment house-tax scheme; citizens challenge the State→city delegation. Decoy: the loan power looks separable from the taxing power actually exercised. | Sub-delegation + taxing power beyond delegated scope. |
| Oct2023(80) / Apr2021b(80) | Liquor traders hold licences; Govt directs municipal bodies to levy a per-bottle tax (₹5/bottle); the local bodies fail to act, so the Govt itself issues a notification imposing the tax (in Apr2021 variant: Parent Act let the municipality levy ₹25/bottle on foreign liquor; municipality fails; State Govt imposes the tax itself). Decoy: “the tax is for the Act’s purposes” / default by the local body is dressed up as justifying the Govt’s own levy. | Excessive delegation / Govt exercising a taxing power conferred on local bodies. (Merged: same issue + decoy, figures swapped.) |
| Jan2026b(80) / Apr2022b(80) | Under the Parent Act the APMC director (Apr2022: rules under the Parent Act) must pre-publish a draft notification affecting farmers in the Official Gazette and a Kannada newspaper; he publishes in the Gazette only. Notification/rules valid? Decoy: partial compliance (Gazette done) looks “substantially” compliant. | Procedural ultra vires — mandatory dual publication. (Merged look-alikes.) |
| Apr2022b(80) | A district municipal corporation orders all business establishments to close by 7 p.m. daily within its limits; A challenges. Decoy: a public-order rationale masks unreasonableness/excess. | Reasonableness / vires of a bye-law. |
| Dec2020(100) | The Mining Act empowers the Central Govt to frame mining regulations in consultation with the Mining Board; the Govt frames them without consulting (Board not yet constituted); the affected Mining Company challenges. Decoy: impossibility of consultation is offered as an excuse. | Mandatory condition precedent / procedural ultra vires. |
| Jun2022(100) | A rule under the Parent Act prohibits playing music/orchestra in any public place within 100 yards of a dwelling house. Validity of the rule? Decoy: blanket distance bar tests reasonableness/over-breadth. | Reasonableness & vires of delegated legislation. |
| Nov2022(80) | The Gujarat Municipal Corporation Act lets the municipality tax land and buildings; the authorities tax machinery installed in building premises; the owner challenges. Decoy: machinery is dressed up as part of the “building”. | Ultra vires — levy beyond the delegated subject. |
| Dec2019(80), Dec2019(100) | State X sets up special courts under a statute for speedier trial; some cases are transferred from regular criminal courts; Y, whose case is transferred, challenges the legality. Decoy: “speedier trial” purpose masks uncanalised power to pick cases/courts. | Excessive delegation — unguided power to classify/transfer (Anwar Ali Sarkar / re Delhi Laws line). |
📅 Unit 3 — Judicial Power of Administration & Natural Justice
Topic-wise Questions
| # | Topic | Questions & Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 3.1 | Administrative adjudication / tribunals (judicial power of administration; reasons & problems) | [16M/10M] What is administrative adjudication? Explain its problems in India / reasons for growth of tribunalised justice (Jun2015(100), Dec2020(100), Oct2023(80), Apr2022b(80), Jan2026b(80), Jun2017(100), Jun2018(100), Apr2023(100)); [16M] “Administrative adjudication is the by-product of the modern progressive state” — explain (Dec2020(100)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 3.2 | Tests — when an administrative authority must act judicially | [16M] When do administrative authorities have to act judicially in India? (Jun2011(100)); [6M] Whether licensing authorities have to act judicially (Jan2011(100)); (also engaged by the “thin dividing line” essay tabled in Unit 1.6) ⭐ |
| 3.3 | Doctrine of Bias — rule against bias & its kinds (personal, pecuniary, subject-matter/official, policy, obstinacy; Nemo judex in causa sua) | [16M/15M/10M] State / discuss the rule against bias; support with case law (Jun2011(100), Jun2013(100), Dec2013(100), Dec2014(100), Apr2022b(80), Oct2023(80)); [16M/10M] Explain the different kinds of bias (Jun2019(100), Dec2019(80), Nov2022(80), Apr2021b(80), Apr2022(100)-via fair-decision); [6M] Pecuniary bias (Jan2012(100), Apr2023b(80)); [6M] Personal bias (Jan2012(100)); [6M] Bias arising on obstinacy (Oct2023(80)); [16M] Nemo in propria causa judex esse debet — explain with cases (Jun2022(100)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 3.4 | Audi Alteram Partem / Fair Hearing (notice, hearing, evidence, cross-examination; stages) | [16M/15M/10M] “Audi Alteram Partem is sine qua non of fair hearing” — discuss with cases / explain the concept and stages of fair hearing; state exceptions (Jun2011(100), Jun2014(100), Jan2011(100), Jun2015(100), Dec2020(100), Apr2021(100), Apr2021b(80), Nov2022(80), Dec2018(100), Apr2023b(80), Jan2026(100), Jan2026b(80)); [16M] “No man shall be condemned unheard” — discuss with leading cases (Jun2014(100)); [10M] Critically analyse Audi Alteram Partem (Jun2012(100)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 3.5 | Principles of natural justice — exceptions | [16M/10M/6M] Discuss the various exceptions to the principles of natural justice, with cases / when can natural justice be exempted (Jun2013(100), Jan2011(100), Jun2012-style, Feb2025(80), Nov2022(80), Jun2018(100)); [16M] “Any action in violation of natural justice is void” — explain; are there exceptions? (Apr2023b(80)) ⭐⭐ |
| 3.6 | Effect of non-compliance with natural justice (void / voidable) | [16M] “Any action taken in violation of principles of natural justice is void” — explain (Apr2023b(80)); (also engaged inside the fair-hearing exceptions essays — 3.5) ⭐ |
| 3.7 | Reasoned / speaking decision | [16M/6M/5M] Discuss “reasoned decisions” / what is a “speaking order” / “reasoned decision”? with cases (Jan2012(100), Jun2011(100), Jun2013(100), Jan2011(100), June2025(80)) ⭐⭐ |
| 3.8 | Principles of natural justice — overview / “fair hearing” concept | [16M] Explain the principles of natural justice briefly, with decided cases (Jun2013(100), June2025(80)); [16M] What are the stages of fair hearing? Discuss the exceptions with cases (Dec2020(100), Nov2022(80), Apr2022(100)) ⭐⭐ |
| 3.9 | Institutional decisions | [16M] Discuss institutional decisions; refer cases (Jun2012(100)); [SN] Institutional decision (Dec2014(100)) ⭐ |
| 3.10 | Quasi-judicial power; grounds to flag a quasi-judicial decision before the Supreme Court | [16M] Define quasi-judicial power; disadvantages of quasi-judicial power (Dec2015(100)); [6M] Judicial vs quasi-judicial functions (Oct2023(80)); grounds to challenge a quasi-judicial decision (folded into judicial-review essays — see Unit 4) ⭐ |
| 3.11 | “Justice must not only be done…” (LL.M.) | [12M] “Justice should not only be done but manifestly seen to be done” — evaluate (Dec2016(50)-LLM) ⭐ |
Application Problems (all papers)
Unit III is the densest problem unit alongside Unit II. Bias and audi-alteram-partem fact-patterns recur with names/figures swapped — merged below with neutral labels and all years; genuinely distinct decoys kept as separate rows.
| Year(s) (paper) | Problem summary (neutral labels, with the decoy) | Key issue |
|---|---|---|
| Jan2012(100), Jan2026(100), Feb2025(80) | A Magistrate fines a dog owner for cruelty, on a complaint by the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; the Magistrate is himself a member of that Society. Decision valid? Decoy: his membership looks incidental but creates subject-matter/personal bias. | Doctrine of bias — adjudicator is interested in the cause. |
| Jun2011(100) | An advocate is removed from the State Bar Council rolls for professional misconduct without an opportunity to defend. Validity? Decoy: the misconduct may be real, but absence of hearing vitiates. | Audi alteram partem — no hearing. |
| Jan2011(100), Jun2014(100), Feb2025(80) | A University cancels a student’s degree/examination with no opportunity to defend / no notice. Validity? Decoy: a “rule violation” is asserted to justify skipping the hearing. | Audi alteram partem in disciplinary action. |
| Apr2023(100), Jan2026b(80) | A University cancels the examination of an entire centre for mass copying; innocent students challenge for want of notice and hearing. Decide. Decoy: collective wrongdoing is used to deny individual hearing. | Natural justice vs administrative necessity (mass malpractice). |
| Jun2014(100), Jun2019(100) | A student writes their register number on every page of an answer book in a coded exam; the Exam Authority cancels results without notice. Valid? Decoy: the marking may breach exam rules, but no-notice is the vice. | Audi alteram partem (post-decisional / no notice). |
| Jun2014(100), Dec2019(80), Dec2019(100) | Girl students complain that boys entered the ladies’ hostel and misbehaved; the enquiry committee records the girls’ statements in the boys’ absence and expels the boys. Advise/valid? Decoy: the boys never got to confront/cross-examine the witnesses. | Fair hearing — right to confront/cross-examine. |
| Jan2012(100) | A Collector’s report on a Village Panchayat’s working leads the State Govt, after a show-cause notice, to dissolve the Panchayat; but the copy of the report is withheld. Valid? Decoy: the show-cause notice looks like sufficient compliance. | Fair hearing — disclosure of adverse material. |
| Jun2012(100) | An adjudication starts without notice; the affected person nonetheless appears and makes a representation. Is the proceeding valid? Decoy: participation is offered as a “waiver/cure” of the notice defect. | Waiver / cure of a natural-justice breach. |
| Jun2012(100) | X is dismissed by the Collector of Customs; appeals to the President of India per service rules; the Ministry of Finance rejects the appeal without reference to the President. Valid? Decoy: the Ministry “acting for” the President. | He who decides must hear / proper authority must decide. |
| Jan2026(100), Apr2021b(80) | A Commercial Tax Officer opines the assessee is not liable, but imposes tax on the advice/instruction of the Assistant Commissioner / a superior. Valid? Decoy: the superior’s “advice” masks dictation. | Non-application of mind / decision under dictation. |
| Apr2023b(80) | A, a workman of X factory, assaults the manager; the manager himself holds the enquiry and dismisses A. Validity of dismissal? Decoy: the manager as “competent authority” hides that he is the victim-judge. | Bias — judge in his own cause. |
| Jan2026b(80), Jun2022(100) | In contempt proceedings, the same judge who heard and decided the case passes a punishment order against a witness for scandalous remarks that brought the court into disrepute; the witness challenges. Will he succeed? Decoy: contempt is an established exception, testing whether bias still applies. | Bias vs the contempt exception (judge personally attacked). |
| Nov2022(80) | A Co-operative Society applies for a licence; 4 members hear it, 3 of whom are members of that Society; the licence is granted; the grant is challenged. Decoy: the favourable outcome looks legitimate despite interested adjudicators (Manak Lal line). | Pecuniary/subject-matter bias of licensing body. |
| Oct2023(80), Dec2014(100), Dec2015(100) | A State assessment committee selects school/college textbooks; some listed books are authored by committee members, who withdraw while their own books are assessed; the approval/selection is challenged. Decoy: the members’ withdrawal is offered as a cure for bias. | Bias — does abstention cure interest? (Merged look-alikes.) |
| Jun2015(100), Jun2016(100) | An employee (a Govt-of-India undertaking) is dismissed by the Managing Director; on appeal to the Board of Directors, the MD participates in the Board’s deliberations and the appeal is dismissed; the employee challenges MD + Board. Will he succeed? Decoy: the Board looks like an independent appellate body, but the MD sat on his own decision. | Bias — author of order sitting in appeal. (Merged Karan/Chandru variants.) |
| Dec2013(100), Jun2019(100) | Civil Service Rules fix a subsistence allowance (₹1/month on conviction in Dec2013; ₹10/month during enquiry in Jun2019) for a suspended government servant. Valid? Decoy: the meagre figure tests whether an illusory allowance defeats a fair defence. | Fair hearing — adequacy of subsistence during enquiry. (Merged look-alikes.) |
| Dec2013(100), Dec2014(100), Dec2018(100) | An institution debars a student from college premises/classes till the pendency of a criminal case (for stabbing a co-student). Valid? Decoy: the pending prosecution is used to justify indefinite exclusion without hearing. | Natural justice in interim disciplinary action. |
| Apr2022b(80) | The petitioner is appointed revenue collector by the Municipality; the Commissioner later sets aside the appointment; the petitioner challenges. Decoy: superior’s revisional power masks absence of hearing. | Natural justice before adverse civil consequence. |
| Apr2022b(80) | Appellant Shankar’s business premises are searched and 420 watches confiscated on suspicion; he challenges. Decoy: “reasonable suspicion” is offered to bypass a hearing. | Natural justice before confiscation. |
| Dec2019(80), Dec2019(100) | A selection committee for promotions includes a member who is himself promoted; an unsuccessful candidate challenges. Decoy: the member’s seniority looks like merit, masking bias. | Bias — interested member of selection body. |
| Apr2021b(80) | A lecturer granted leave for M.Phil. instead joins a Ph.D. course in breach of the leave condition; she is noticed, her reply considered, then terminated; she pleads breach of natural justice. Decoy: she did get notice + reply — testing whether natural justice was actually satisfied. | Fair hearing satisfied? (compliance, not breach). |
| Dec2020(100) | An institution withholds annual increments based on adverse remarks in a confidential report the employee was never shown; he challenges. Decoy: confidentiality of the report is offered to deny disclosure. | Fair hearing — undisclosed adverse material. |
📅 Unit 4 — Administrative Discretion, Judicial Control, Writs & State Liability
Topic-wise Questions
| # | Topic | Questions & Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 4.1 | Administrative discretion — meaning; grant & exercise; abuse | [16M/10M/6M] Define administrative discretion; abuse of discretion / “discretionary power” distinguished from arbitrary power (Dec2013(100)-SN, Dec2014(100), Jun2013(100)-SN, Jun2016(100), Jan2011(100)-SN, Apr2021b(80)-SN, Jun2015(100)-SN, Jun2019(100)-SN, Apr2021(100)-SN); [16M] What is discretion? Elucidate abuse of discretion / judicial control of abuse of discretion (Dec2014(100), Jun2018(100), Jun2017(100)) ⭐⭐ |
| 4.2 | Judicial review of administrative discretion — grounds & scope | [16M/15M/10M] Discuss/examine the scope of judicial review of administrative discretion (in light of fundamental rights) with cases / grounds for exercising it / grounds on which exercise of discretion may be set aside (Jun2011(100), Dec2016(100), Dec2020(100), June2025(80), Apr2022(100), Apr2022b(80), Oct2023(80), Feb2025(80), Nov2022(80), Jan2026(100), Dec2018(100)); [6M] Note on grounds of judicial review of administrative discretion (Apr2021b(80)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 4.3 | Control of administrative action — judicial control & civil/equitable remedies | [16M/15M] Discuss the various civil and equitable remedies to control administrative action / judicial control of administrative actions (Jun2011(100), Jan2011(100)) ⭐ |
| 4.4 | Public Law & Private Law Remedies — distinction (injunction, declaration) | [10M/6M] Explain different private law remedies / injunction & declaration as remedies against administrative action (Jan2026b(80), Jun2014(100)); [6M] Note on “injunctions” (Feb2025(80), Dec2019(80), Dec2019(100)); [12M] Writ remedy under public law — practice & procedure (LL.M.) (Dec2016(50)) ⭐⭐ |
| 4.5 | Writ of Mandamus (conditions, grounds, what petitioner must prove; vs injunction) | [16M/15M/10M] What is mandamus? Discuss the grounds/conditions for its issue & limitations; what must a petitioner prove; how does it differ from injunction (Jan2012(100), Dec2014(100), Jun2015(100), Dec2018(100), Dec2019(80), Dec2019(100), Apr2021b(80), Jan2011(100), Apr2023b(80)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 4.6 | Writ of Certiorari & Prohibition | [16M] Explain/role of certiorari & prohibition in controlling administrative action; when can certiorari be issued (Dec2016(100), Dec2020(100), Jun2017(100), Jan2026(100)); [16M] “Writ of certiorari and prohibition overlap each other” — explain (Apr2022(100)); [6M] Note on writ of certiorari (Oct2023(80), Jan2026b(80)) ⭐⭐ |
| 4.7 | Writ of Quo Warranto | [16M/6M] Examine the scope of / explain quo warranto and grounds/conditions for its issue (Jun2012(100), Apr2023(100), Apr2021(100), Jun2022(100), Nov2022(80)-SN) ⭐⭐ |
| 4.8 | Writ of Habeas Corpus | [16M] What is habeas corpus? Explain the grounds for its issue (Jun2014(100), Jun2019(100)) ⭐ |
| 4.9 | Judicial review of administrative action & types of writs (overview) | [16M] Explain judicial review of administrative action and the various types of writs issued by courts (Jun2013(100), Apr2021(100)); [16M] Conditions for issue of mandamus and quo warranto (Apr2021(100)) ⭐⭐ |
| 4.10 | State liability in Contract / Government contract (Art. 299 essentials, formalities) | [16M/15M/10M] What is a government contract? Essentials/formalities & conditions for govt liability in contract, with cases (Jun2011(100), Jun2012(100), Jun2015(100), Jun2019(100), Dec2013-style, Oct2023(80), Apr2021(100), Apr2022b(80), Jan2026b(80), June2025(80)); [6M] Liability of State in contract (Apr2023b(80), Nov2022(80)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 4.11 | State liability in Tort / Tortious liability (sovereign vs non-sovereign; constitutional tort) | [16M/15M/10M] Discuss the tortious liability of the State for acts of its servants, with leading cases / sovereign vs non-sovereign classification (Jun2012(100)-via problem, Dec2014(100), Dec2018(100), Dec2020(100), Dec2019(80), Apr2021b(80)); [12M] Administrative liability of govt for torts of servants (LL.M.) (Dec2016(50)) ⭐⭐ |
| 4.12 | Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel | [16M] Discuss/explain the law of promissory estoppel against the Government, with cases (Apr2023(100), Jan2026(100), Dec2013(100)-via problem); [SN] Doctrine of promissory estoppel (Dec2018(100)) ⭐⭐ |
| 4.13 | Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation | [16M/10M] Explain doctrine of legitimate expectation (nature, scope, character; USA/UK & India) (Nov2022(80), Dec2016(50)-LLM); [SN] Doctrine of legitimate expectation (Apr2021(100), Jun2022(100)) ⭐⭐ |
| 4.14 | Doctrine of Proportionality | [10M] Explain the doctrine of proportionality (with legitimate expectation) (Nov2022(80)) ⭐ |
| 4.15 | Government privilege to withhold documents / Official Secrets / RTI | [16M] Examine the government privilege to withhold documents in evidence, with cases (Jan2012(100), Jun2013(100)-SN, Jun2014(100)); [5M] Official Secrets and Right to Information (Dec2013(100), Jun2014(100)) ⭐ |
| 4.16 | Whether the State is bound by a statute | [5M] Whether “State” is bound by a statute? (Jun2012(100), Jan2011(100)) ⭐ |
| 4.17 | Court vs Tribunal (distinction) | [5M] Distinguish ‘Court’ from ‘Tribunal’; explain courts & tribunals and their differences (Jun2011(100), Jun2013(100)) ⭐ |
| 4.18 | Ouster clause | (never asked as a standalone question) — syllabus topic with no dedicated PYQ; covered implicitly within judicial-review-of-discretion and writ essays (4.2, 4.5–4.9). |
| 4.19 | Public Interest Litigation (PIL) (remedy / standing) | [5M/SN] Write a note on PIL / narrate its nature and extent (Jun2011(100), Jun2016(100)-SN, Jun2018(100), Dec2019(80), Dec2019(100)) ⭐ |
Application Problems (all papers)
Unit IV problems centre on abuse/fettering of discretion, promissory estoppel, state liability and writs. Look-alikes merged with neutral labels & all years; distinct decoys kept separate.
| Year(s) (paper) | Problem summary (neutral labels, with the decoy) | Key issue |
|---|---|---|
| Jun2010(100) | Officer A, with discretion to permit kidney transplantation, announces a fixed policy applied to all cases; applicant P, refused, challenges. Decoy: the “policy” looks like lawful guidance, but rigid application = fettering discretion. | Fettering discretion by self-imposed rules. |
| Jan2012(100), June2025(80) | The Govt announces 3-year tax exemption for new industrial units; X sets up a factory relying on the assurance; the Govt later withdraws the benefit; X approaches the court. Advise. Decoy: the change of policy is dressed up as a sovereign right to alter taxation. | Promissory estoppel against the Government. |
| Jan2012(100) | A and the Govt of India contract through correspondence of letters; no formal deed is executed. Valid contract? Decoy: clear consensus by letters masks the missing Art. 299 formalities. | Government contract — Art. 299 formalities. |
| Jun2012(100) | Police guarding the Collector’s office, fearing attack by an unlawful assembly, lathi-charge without a magisterial order; X, not a member of the assembly, is seriously injured and claims damages from the State. Will he succeed? Decoy: the “law-and-order/sovereign function” defence vs an innocent victim. | Tortious/constitutional liability — sovereign vs non-sovereign function. |
| Apr2023(100), Jun2015(100), Dec2015(100) | The Cane Commissioner, empowered to reserve sugarcane areas for sugar factories, at the dictation of the Chief Minister excludes 90/99 villages from the area he had reserved. Valid? Decoy: the CM’s “direction” masks abdication of the Commissioner’s own discretion. | Discretion exercised under dictation (Mahadayal line). (Merged look-alikes.) |
| Apr2022(100) | A applies to the Police Commissioner for a licence to build a cinema theatre; the Home Minister tells the Commissioner not to grant it; the licence is refused; A challenges. Decoy: ministerial “instruction” dressed as policy — distinct facts/section from the cane-commissioner row, so kept separate. | Discretion under dictation / non-application of mind. |
| Apr2023(100) | In a jail the food is unfit for consumption and cells unfit for habitation; X, an outsider, wants to file a writ on behalf of the prisoners. Advise. Decoy: X’s lack of personal injury tests locus standi. | PIL / locus standi (epistolary jurisdiction). |
| Feb2025(80) | A convict writes to a Supreme Court judge alleging inhuman torture by jail authorities; decide the authenticity / maintainability of the letter. Decoy: an informal letter tests whether it can be treated as a writ petition. | PIL — letter as writ petition / Art. 32 (Sunil Batra). |
| Jan2026b(80) | The State Police Act gives the Police Commissioner discretion to grant/refuse permission for any public meeting on a public street; decide the validity of the power. Decoy: an apparently unguided power tests excessive/arbitrary discretion. | Validity of an uncanalised discretionary power. |
| Oct2023(80) | The plaintiff deposits money to obtain a ganja-shop licence; the licence is not granted; he sues the State for refund + damages. Decide. Decoy: the illegal-trade subject is used to resist restitution. | State liability / restitution of deposit. |
| June2025(80), Dec2020(100) | The Govt notifies areas for a slum-clearance scheme, then amends the notification, leaving out some originally-notified areas. Validity? Decoy: the amendment looks routine but may be mala fide / defeat legitimate expectation. | Mala fides / legitimate expectation in discretionary action. (Merged look-alikes.) |
| Apr2023b(80) | X is compulsorily retired by the Govt of India; he files a writ in the Karnataka HC; the Govt says the petition is untenable. Decide. Decoy: the “untenability” plea tests maintainability/judicial review of service action. | Judicial review of compulsory retirement. |
| Apr2021(100) | The State frames a regulation to avert hoarding (low vegetable production) requiring listed vegetables be sold only through Hopcoms; the traders’ association challenges. Decoy: the fair-trade objective masks an unreasonable restriction. | Reasonableness of discretionary regulation. |
| Apr2021(100) | A Municipality authorised to acquire land for widening streets acquires it and sells at a higher price to cover a budget deficit. Valid? Decoy: the statutory purpose (road-widening) masks the collateral purpose (revenue). | Improper/collateral purpose — abuse of discretion. |
| Apr2021(100) | A Police Officer travelling in a public service vehicle (against the rules requiring private transport) loses his service revolver and office cash; he is suspended and, after enquiry, dismissed; he challenges. Decoy: the rule-breach is minor relative to dismissal — proportionality. | Proportionality of punishment. |
| Apr2022(100) | The Govt frames a regulation restraining ‘A’-grade-city restaurants from working beyond 9 p.m. for “law and order”; owners challenge. Decoy: the public-order rationale masks unreasonableness. | Reasonableness / proportionality of discretion. |
| Apr2022(100) | Under the Panchayat Raj Act, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate may modify a Panchayat Adalat’s order or cancel its jurisdiction; the SDM cancels the order but maintains it on another violation; the action is questioned. Decoy: partial cancellation tests excess/severability of the discretionary power. | Excess of discretionary jurisdiction. |
| Jun2015(100), Jun2019(100) | An army official disobeys a lawful command (refuses the food offered); a court martial imposes rigorous imprisonment and dismissal (Jun2015 adds future-employment disqualification); he challenges the order. Decoy: military discipline is offered to bar judicial review/proportionality. | Judicial review & proportionality of court-martial punishment. (Merged look-alikes.) |
| Dec2014(100) | A young boy arrested on theft charges is tortured and killed in prison; his father claims compensation from the Govt. Decide. Decoy: a “law-and-order/sovereign function” plea against custodial death. | Constitutional tort — custodial death (Nilabati Behera). |
| June2022(100) | Anuj, an engineering student, is taken into police custody and detained for a prolonged period under MISA; his father’s enquiries with the police yield nothing. Remedy + reasons? Decoy: preventive-detention law is used to resist disclosure of whereabouts. | Writ of Habeas Corpus. |
| Apr2021b(80) | Under the Kerala Education Code, teachers superannuate at 60; later an Act/Rules prescribe 58; a teacher appointed under the Code is retired at 58; he challenges. Decoy: the later rule is applied retrospectively against an existing expectation. | Legitimate expectation / retrospective curtailment. |
| Apr2021b(80) | CBI invites applications for 200 constable posts; complaints of corruption/favouritism lead to cancelling the entire selection, though only 31 candidates’ complaints are true; the cancellation is challenged. Decoy: wholesale cancellation vs limited proven taint. | Proportionality — blanket cancellation vs part. |
| Jun2016(100) | The BDA, with statutory power to demolish buildings built without permission, demolishes many unauthorised buildings; victims claim compensation, pointing out the BDA itself formed 15+ layouts by encroaching lake areas. Advise the Govt. Decoy: the BDA’s own unclean hands vs its statutory demolition power. | Discretion + estoppel / clean-hands; arbitrary exercise. |
📅 Unit 5 — Corporate & Public Undertakings, Ombudsman & Control Mechanisms
Topic-wise Questions
| # | Topic | Questions & Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| 5.1 | Public / statutory corporations — juristic status, characteristics, classification, functions | [16M/10M] Juristic status of public corporations (liability in tort & contract) / legal status & importance for social security / characteristics & legal status / development & extent of liability (Jun2011(100), Oct2023(80), Jan2026b(80), Jun2022-style, Feb2025(80), June2025(80)); [16M] Explain “public undertaking” & its functions, with illustrations (Jun2013(100), Dec2014(100)-via control); [6M] Functions of public corporation (Apr2023b(80)); [6M] Classification of public corporations (Apr2022b(80), Nov2022(80), Jan2026b(80)); [6M] Role of public undertakings (Dec2020(100)-SN) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 5.2 | Control over public undertakings / statutory corporations (parliamentary, judicial, governmental, public) | [16M/15M/10M] Discuss the various controls over public undertakings / parliamentary & judicial control / extent of parliamentary & public control (Jun2012(100), Dec2012-style, Dec2013(100), Jun2014(100), Dec2014(100), Jun2015(100), Dec2016-style, Jun2017(100), Jun2019(100), Dec2019(80), Apr2022(100), Apr2023b(80), Jan2011(100)); [16M] Examine critically the scope of controls over public corporations (Apr2021(100), Jun2015(100)); [10M] “Controls over public corporations need to be intensified considering their significance” — examine (Nov2022(80)); [10M] Civil & criminal liability of public corporation for acts of servants (Jun2014(100)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 5.3 | Ombudsman in India — concept & development | [16M] Explain the concept of Ombudsman; trace its development in India / meaning of Ombudsman (Jun2013(100), Dec2020(100)-SN, Apr2022(100)-SN, Feb2025(80)-via Lokayukta) ⭐ |
| 5.4 | Lokpal (establishment, jurisdiction, powers) | [16M] Explain the establishment, jurisdiction and powers of Lokpal under the Lokpal & Lokayukta Act / critical note on Lokpal in India (Jun2019(100), Jan2012(100), Jun2017(100)); [6M] Note on Lokpal (Dec2018(100), Jan2026b(80)); opinion on the proposed Lok Pal Bill (Jun2012(100)) ⭐⭐ |
| 5.5 | Lokayukta (esp. Karnataka) — powers, procedure, jurisdiction, role | [16M/10M] Explain how far the Karnataka Lokayukta helps redress citizens’ grievances against mal-administration & corruption / its powers, functions & impact on public administration / role in public administration (Jun2010(100), Jan2011(100), Jun2011(100), Apr2023b(80), Apr2022b(80), Nov2022(80), Feb2025(80)); [10M] Critically examine the role of Lokpal & Lokayukta in public administration (Apr2021b(80)); [6M] Lokayukta in Karnataka / jurisdiction of Lokayukta (Jun2025(80), Apr2021(100)-SN, Jun2015(100)-SN, Oct2023(80)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 5.6 | Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) | [6M/5M] Write a note on the Central Vigilance Commission (composition, powers, functions, role, status) (Jun2010(100), Jan2011(100), Jun2012(100), Oct2023(80), Apr2021b(80), Apr2022(100)-SN, Apr2023b(80), Nov2022(80), Feb2025(80), Jan2012(100), Apr2022b(80)); [10M] Composition, powers & functions of CVC (Oct2023(80)) ⭐⭐⭐ |
| 5.7 | Commission of Enquiry (Act, 1952) | [16M/10M] Examine the scope / salient features / efficacy of the Commission of Inquiry Act 1952; impact of an inquiry commission’s report (Jun2012(100), Jun2025(80), Dec2019(80), Jan2026b(80), Apr2021b(80)-SN); [5M/6M] Write a note on Commission of enquiry (Dec2012(100), Oct2023(80)); [6M] Distinguish “Court” from “Commission of Enquiry” (Jun2011(100), Feb2025(80)); [5M] Distinguish “Inquiry” from “Investigation” (Dec2012(100)) ⭐⭐ |
| 5.8 | Parliamentary Committees | [6M] Note on Parliamentary Committee (June2025(80), Dec2014(100)-SN) ⭐ |
| 5.9 | Administrative deviance / Corruption / Maladministration & control mechanism | [5M] Write a note on “mal-administration” (Jun2012(100)); (corruption & maladministration are the framing of the Lokayukta/CVC/Ombudsman essays — 5.3–5.6); [12M] Doctrine of public accountability (SN, LL.M.) (Dec2016(50)) ⭐ |
| 5.10 | Other commissions / civil services / PIL (occasional) | [5M] State Human Rights Commission (Jun2010(100), Jan2011(100)); [5M] Civil services in India (Dec2013(100)); [5M] Public Interest Litigation (Jun2011(100)) — (PIL primarily tabled in Unit 4.19) ⭐ |
Application Problems (all papers)
Unit V is largely essay/short-note. The recurring fact-pattern concerns the Commission of Enquiry power; merged below.
| Year(s) (paper) | Problem summary (neutral labels, with the decoy) | Key issue |
|---|---|---|
| Dec2018(100), Jun2019(100), Dec2019(80) | The Central Government appoints a Commission to enquire into the conduct of a State Minister / Chief Minister. Is the Central Govt’s action valid? Decoy: the State-subject character of “conduct of a State Minister” tests the Centre’s competence to set up the enquiry. | Centre’s power under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 over State subjects. (Merged look-alikes.) |
← Back to Administrative Law Home
💎 Get Exam-Ready Solved Answer Banks
Looking for model answers to all these questions? Get the Administrative Law Notes + Question Bank Bundle containing full 16-mark essay blueprints and solved IRAC problems for all previously-asked KSLU questions!