Unit I — Foundations of Administrative Law

“Be you ever so high, the law is above you.” — the essence of the Rule of Law

What is Administrative Law & Why it Grew

Administrative law is the branch of public law that governs the organisation, powers, duties and functions of administrative authorities and the remedies available when those powers are abused. Its concern is not the substance of policy but the legality, fairness and reasonableness of the way administrative power is exercised. Its principal sources are the Constitution, statutes, delegated legislation, and judge-made law (precedent).

flowchart TD
    A["Why did Administrative Law GROW?"]:::root
    A --> B["Shift from laissez-faire<br/>to a WELFARE STATE"]:::leaf
    A --> C["Legislature lacks time &<br/>technical expertise -> delegation"]:::leaf
    A --> D["Ordinary courts slow & costly<br/>-> tribunals & quick remedies"]:::leaf
    A --> E["Need for flexible, preventive,<br/>expert regulation"]:::leaf

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Dicey’s Rule of Law rests on three pillars: (1) supremacy of law — no one is punished except for a breach of law established before ordinary courts; (2) equality before the law — all, including officials, are subject to the ordinary law and ordinary courts; (3) the constitution is the result of the ordinary law (rights flow from judicial decisions, not a written charter). In India the Rule of Law is a part of the basic structure (Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain) and finds expression in Article 14, but Dicey’s rejection of a separate body of administrative law (droit administratif) has not been accepted — India has tribunals and a developed administrative law of its own.

Separation of Powers & Classification of Administrative Action

India follows no rigid separation of powers (unlike the USA); there is a functional separation with checks and balances — Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab held the doctrine is not fully embodied, while Kesavananda Bharati and Indira Gandhi made it part of the basic structure in the sense that no organ may usurp another’s essential function. Administrative action is classified into three kinds, and the classification matters because it decides how much natural justice and judicial review apply.

The once-rigid line between administrative and quasi-judicial functions has blurred since A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), which held that the duty to act fairly attaches even to administrative action that affects rights — natural justice is no longer confined to quasi-judicial decisions.

✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)

Problem: A selection board recommends candidates for a public service; one member of the board is himself a candidate for the same service, though he withdraws while his own name is considered. The selection is challenged. Is it valid?

I — Issue

Whether an administrative selection is vitiated where a member of the deciding body is personally interested, and whether the duty to act fairly applies to such an administrative function.

R — Rule

• A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) — the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions has thinned; the duty to act fairly (and the rule against bias) applies to administrative action affecting rights.
• A decision in which an interested person participates is vitiated by the real likelihood of bias, even if he abstains on his own item, because he continues to judge the rival candidates.

A — Analysis

The tempting argument is that selection is a purely administrative act, so the strict bias rule should not bite — and that the member’s withdrawal during his own turn cured any conflict. Kraipak defeats both points. First, the administrative label no longer ousts natural justice where rights (here, appointment) are at stake. Second, withdrawal during one’s own item is not a complete cure: by sitting on the assessment of competing candidates the interested member can advance his own relative position, so the reasonable apprehension of bias runs through the whole process.

C — Conclusion

The selection is invalid. Following Kraipak, the duty to act fairly applied to this administrative function, and the interested member’s participation vitiated the entire selection despite his partial withdrawal.

📄 The full bundle (₹199) has the complete Unit I — definition, nature & scope, every reason for growth, the Rule of Law, separation of powers and the full classification of administrative action — plus the Question Bank’s model answers to the rule-of-law, separation-of-powers and classification essays. Get Notes + Question Bank — ₹199