Test: Introduction to Administrative Law - 2 - CLAT PG MCQ

The primary challenge in classifying executive functions lies in the overlapping nature of administrative tasks and legislative activities. This overlap creates confusion, as decisions that may appear administrative can also incorporate elements of legislative or quasi-judicial functions. Without a precise legal framework to distinguish these functions, it becomes difficult to determine the appropriate category for each action, which can have significant legal implications.

A contemporary view of the separation of powers suggests that it should be seen as a cooperative exercise of power among state organs, particularly in the context of liberalization and globalization. This perspective emphasizes the need for branches to work together for the public good, rather than adhering to a rigid separation that may limit effective governance. This cooperative approach can enhance responsiveness to complex challenges in modern society.

The mutuality principle is essential for fostering cooperation and engagement among the branches of government. This principle recognizes that while the branches have distinct functions, collaborative efforts are necessary to uphold constitutional values such as freedom, equality, and the rule of law. This principle allows for a functioning government that operates effectively while respecting the boundaries of each branch.

The rule of law in India emphasizes that everyone, including government officials, is subject to the law, promoting fairness and accountability. This principle ensures that no individual or institution is above the law, which is essential for protecting individual rights and maintaining justice in society.

The doctrine of separation of powers operates in a negative sense by imposing limits on the power exercised by each branch of government. This means that while each branch has its own defined powers, they are also restricted from encroaching on the functions of the others, ensuring a balanced distribution of power.

The case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakanth Shukla is notable for the Supreme Court's attempts to uphold the rule of law during the emergency in India. The court's decision highlighted the importance of judicial oversight and the protection of individual rights against arbitrary government actions.

The Keshavananda Bharathi case established that the doctrine of separation of powers is part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Constitution does not explicitly separate powers, the separation of functions among the branches of government is crucial and cannot be altered by amendments, emphasizing the importance of this doctrine in maintaining democratic governance.

In the context of the rule of law, "arbitrariness" refers to the exercise of power without legal justification, which is opposed to the principles of fairness and accountability. The rule of law seeks to prevent arbitrary actions by ensuring that all government actions are grounded in law and reason.

Montesquieu is credited with the systematic formulation of the doctrine of separation of powers in his influential work "Esprit des Lois" published in 1748. He argued that political liberty is best protected when the legislative, executive, and judicial powers are separated, which has significantly shaped modern democratic governance.

The principle of checks and balances ensures that each branch of government can monitor and limit the actions of the others. This system is designed to prevent any one branch from gaining excessive power or authority, thereby promoting accountability and protecting civil liberties. Each branch has specific powers to check the others, fostering a balanced government structure.

The Upanishads are cited as having roots for the concept of rule of law in India, stating that "Law is the king of Kings." This highlights the supremacy of law over even the mightiest rulers and underscores the idea that justice prevails over power.

The ideological sense of the rule of law encompasses the regulation of citizen-government relationships, establishing an ethical framework for how public power should be exercised. This regulation is essential for maintaining a just society where citizens' rights are protected and government actions are held accountable.

Certiorari is a common legal remedy available against administrative actions that exceed their powers. It allows a higher court to review the decision-making process of an administrative authority to ensure that it acted within its lawful authority. If the authority has acted beyond its powers or failed to follow due process, the court can nullify the decision, thereby upholding the rule of law.

A decision by an administrative authority is likely to be considered quasi-judicial when it adjudicates a dispute between two parties. This involves a duty to act judicially, meaning the authority must consider evidence and arguments from both sides before making a decision. Quasi-judicial functions require a more structured approach than purely administrative functions, which can operate more subjectively.

A significant drawback of a strict interpretation of the separation of powers is that it can prevent cooperation among the branches of government. This rigidity can create practical difficulties, such as hindering the legislature from punishing breaches of privilege or delegating functions, which may undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of governance. Flexibility in interpretation allows for necessary collaboration while maintaining accountability.

In the case of Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani, the Supreme Court ruled that the governmental function of requisitioning property under the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance was not quasi-judicial. This decision was based on the subjective satisfaction of the government rather than a requirement for judicial action, highlighting the distinction between administrative discretion and judicial review. This case exemplifies the complexities involved in categorizing governmental functions.

The doctrine of separation of powers is designed to establish distinct centers of power within governance, preventing any single branch from becoming tyrannical. By dividing responsibilities among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, this doctrine aims to safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of power. This structure promotes a system of checks and balances, ensuring that each branch can monitor and limit the actions of the others.

In the United States, the separation of powers is formalized in the Constitution, explicitly dividing powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. In contrast, the United Kingdom has an informal separation of powers where the three branches are not rigidly separated and often overlap in their functions, reflecting a mixed government system.

The principle of natural justice does not apply to legislative functions. Legislative actions, such as rule-making, do not require adherence to natural justice principles, which are essential in judicial or quasi-judicial contexts. Legislative processes are more about setting forth broad rules and policies rather than adjudicating specific disputes where fairness and due process are critical.

One of the key roles of the Supreme Court in India is to uphold the rule of law through judicial interpretation. The Court ensures that laws are applied fairly and consistently, protecting citizens' rights and maintaining checks on government actions, thus reinforcing the principles of justice and accountability.

The requirement for a dispute between parties is a key distinction between judicial and quasi-judicial functions. Judicial functions involve resolving clear disputes, while quasi-judicial functions may not always require a formal dispute but do involve decision-making that affects the rights of individuals. This nuanced understanding helps in classifying the nature of the authority's actions.

The postulate of equality under the rule of law implies that all individuals should have equal opportunities for social, economic, and political development. This principle is crucial for ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to succeed and participate in society, regardless of their background.

Administrative functions can indeed be delegated or sub-delegated unless specifically prohibited by law. This flexibility distinguishes them from quasi-judicial functions, which do not allow for such delegation due to the need for impartiality and adherence to legal standards. Administrative decisions often prioritize expediency and policy considerations over rigid procedural requirements.

Resolving disputes between parties is a characteristic of judicial or quasi-judicial functions, not legislative functions. Legislative functions focus on creating rules, regulations, and policies that govern behavior, such as fixing prices and imposing taxes. They do not involve adjudicating disputes but rather set frameworks within which disputes may arise.

The term "quasi-judicial" implies that the actions involve decision-making with some judicial characteristics, such as considering evidence and providing fair hearings. However, they do not adhere to the strict rules of procedure and evidence that apply to full judicial functions. This blend allows for a flexible approach that can accommodate the needs of various administrative contexts.