Controls over Administrative Powers | Administrative Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

The governing power must adhere to fundamental constitutional limitations, a cornerstone of modern democratic governance. When Parliament cannot effectively oversee administrative powers, the judiciary steps in to prevent executive overreach and ensure actions are in the public interest.

Judges, though unelected, represent the people by upholding legal principles established through judicial precedents. The objectives of judicial control over administrative actions are to curb abuse of power and provide remedies to those affected by such actions.
In the landmark case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court outlined key principles for administrative law:

• Judicial restraint in administrative action
• Judicial review focuses on the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision
• Courts lack the expertise to correct administrative decisions
• Fair play is essential in administrative functioning
• Administrative decisions must adhere to the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness, avoiding arbitrariness, bias, or bad faith

Kinds of Controls over Administrative Power

• Statutory controls are outlined in statutes, rules, or regulations. Actions violating these controls are deemed illegal by courts through the ultra vires doctrine.
• For instance, the London County Council could purchase and operate tramways but not run omnibuses, as it exceeded its statutory powers.
• When a statute delegates power to a specific authority, that authority cannot sub-delegate the power unless permitted by the statute.
• Discretion exercised by a prescribed authority under the direction of a higher authority is also illegal.
• Subjective discretion granted by statutes, such as "as deemed fit" or "reasonable grounds to believe," poses challenges. Courts must ensure relevant material supports the authority's satisfaction and the discretion is exercised within the statute's purpose.
• In Liversidge v. Anderson, the court upheld the Secretary of State's detention order based on reasonable cause to believe the detenu was of hostile origin. However, Lord Atkin argued for relevant material supporting the Secretary's satisfaction.

Non-Statutory Controls

• Wednesbury principle
• Rules of natural justice
• Proportionality
• Promissory estoppel
• Legitimate expectation

Promissory Estoppel

• The doctrine of promissory estoppel is rooted in equity, rendering a promise irrevocable when the acceptor acts on it and changes their position irreversibly. It aims to prevent unfairness when one party, relying on another's promise, suffers detriment without consideration due to revocation.
• Similar to individuals or entities, the government can enter into contracts. State officials make promises to individuals who commit based on these assurances, only to find the government's discretion unreliable. In the context of increasing administrative and executive roles, promissory estoppel has gained significance in administrative law.
• The foundation of promissory estoppel in India was established in the case of Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, where it was emphasized that the government must fulfill promises to promote honesty and good faith.
• In Union of India vs. Anglo Afghan Agencies, the Supreme Court applied the rule of estoppel based on equity, binding the government to promises even without constitutional formalities for contracts.
• The Anglo Afghan case reflects a judicial trend where different standards of conduct for individuals and public bodies are not ordinarily permitted.
• In Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court liberalized the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The government notified a sales tax exemption for new industrial units. The appellant company relied on this exemption, but the government later rescinded it. The court held the government bound by its representation.
• The doctrine of promissory estoppel was emphasized as preventing injustice and could be the basis of a cause of action, not just a defense.
• The doctrine's application was debated in the context of executive necessity, which prevents the government from contracting to refrain from statutory functions. The doctrine of executive necessity has become a defense against promissory estoppel in government contracts.

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

• Originates in public law to remedy situations where claims can't be justified legally.
• Introduced by Lord Denning in 1969, now vital in public law across jurisdictions.
• In India, it curbs arbitrary power by authorities, allowing claims based on legitimate expectations.
• Example: If a government scheme changes to exclude certain villages, it violates their legitimate expectation of receiving services.
• Rooted in Article 14 of the Constitution, promoting fairness and non-arbitrariness in administrative actions.
• Judicially creative yet grounded in legal and constitutional principles.

Key Aspects of the Doctrine

• Judicial Creativity: The doctrine showcases judicial innovation within legal boundaries.
• Article 14 Foundation: Grounded in the Constitutional principle of non-arbitrariness.
• Protection Scope: Available in cases of arbitrary state action, not just class legislation.
• Power-Liberty Reconciliation: Aims to balance governmental power with individual liberties.

Case Illustrations

• State of Kerala v. K. G. Madhavan Pillai: Legitimate expectation created by a sanction was violated by a subsequent order without due process.
• SC and WS Welfare Association v. State of Karnataka: Earlier notifications raised legitimate expectations that couldn't be dismissed without a fair hearing.

Supreme Court Interpretation

• Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corp: Clarified the doctrine's meaning and scope, distinguishing between expectation and mere anticipation.
• Legitimate Expectation Criteria: Based on law, custom, or established procedures, not mere wishes or hopes.

Judicial Review and Administrative Discretion

• Judicial review limited to cases of arbitrary, unreasonable actions not in public interest.
• Denial of legitimate expectation does not prevent policy changes by administrative bodies.
• Fair hearing essential before negating promises or undertakings.

Recent Developments

• Expansion of legitimate expectation in various contexts beyond statutory rights.
• Application in cases involving promotion, contracts, and government charge distributions.