Test: Administrative Discretion and Remedies - 2 - CLAT PG MCQ

The Wednesbury principle is the key concept that mandates administrative decisions to avoid arbitrariness, bias, or bad faith. It requires that decisions be reasonable and justifiable within the legal context, ensuring that actions taken by administrative authorities are fair and not capricious.

The Crown Proceedings Act of 1947 marked a pivotal shift by allowing the Crown to be treated as an ordinary litigant, meaning it could be sued for tortious acts. This change recognized that the Government should be accountable for wrongs done to individuals, aligning with the principles of the rule of law. Before this act, the Crown's immunity made it challenging for individuals to seek remedies for grievances against the state.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel aims to prevent unfairness when one party relies on another's promise and acts upon it, changing their position irreversibly. This legal principle ensures that promises made by the government or individuals cannot be revoked if doing so would cause detriment to the party that relied on the promise.

The contractual relationship between the Government and its employees is determined by relevant legislation or rules, rather than being governed solely by Article 299. Once individuals are appointed to government service, their duties and the terms of their employment are defined by law, reflecting the unique nature of public service as opposed to private employment.

Judicial review is an example of non-statutory control over administrative powers. It allows the judiciary to examine the legality of administrative actions and ensure they comply with principles of fairness and reasonableness, even if specific statutes do not govern those actions directly.

The Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment is significant because it prevents a person from retaining a benefit at the expense of another in situations where it would be inequitable to do so. It operates on the principle that one should not profit without compensating the party who provided the benefit, thereby promoting fairness in legal and financial transactions.

The primary purpose of judicial control over administrative actions is to curb abuse of power and provide remedies to those adversely affected. This judicial oversight ensures that the actions taken by administrative bodies are in compliance with established legal standards and principles, promoting accountability and fairness within the governance structure.

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati, the Supreme Court held the State vicariously liable for the negligent driving of a state-owned vehicle. This ruling emphasized that the state could not claim immunity from tortious acts merely because they were committed by its employees while performing their duties, marking a significant development in the accountability of the state for wrongful acts.

Judicial review primarily focuses on the decision-making process of administrative actions rather than the merits of the decisions themselves. This approach ensures that the procedures followed by administrative bodies adhere to legal standards and principles, thereby promoting transparency and accountability in governance.

Non-compliance with Article 299(1) renders the contract unenforceable against the Government. This strict requirement serves to protect the government's interests and ensures that only contracts that meet constitutional standards are legally binding, thereby preventing unauthorized obligations.

The 'socialization of compensation' refers to the idea that employers, including the state, should be responsible for compensating damages caused by their employees during the course of their work. This principle underlines the doctrine of vicarious liability, emphasizing that the burden of compensation should not fall solely on individual employees, especially when they may lack the means to satisfy a judgment. This approach ensures that victims receive fair compensation while holding employers accountable for their employees' conduct.

The principle of 'Respondeat superior' translates to "let the master answer" and establishes that an employer is responsible for the actions of their employees performed within the scope of their employment. This principle underlies the doctrine of vicarious liability, ensuring that employers are accountable for the conduct of their employees, which helps ensure that victims can seek compensation from entities with greater financial resources.

Article 298 grants the Union and State governments the power to carry on trade and business, as well as to make contracts. This provision emphasizes the legal capacity of governmental entities to engage in commercial activities, akin to private individuals, thereby establishing their accountability in contractual relations.

The concept of sovereignty has evolved to signify that sovereignty resides with the people rather than the state, leading to a greater emphasis on accountability. This shift has resulted in the principle that the actions of government officials, even in their sovereign capacity, are subject to judicial scrutiny, thereby enhancing the rights of citizens to seek redress for grievances.

Article 300(1) establishes that the liability of the Union of India and State Governments is equivalent to that of the Dominion of India and the Provinces before the Constitution's commencement. This provision indicates that the governments can be held accountable for tortious acts, which is a critical aspect of ensuring that citizens have legal recourse for grievances against the state.

For a valid contract under Article 299(1), it must be in writing and executed by authorized persons. This requirement ensures that the government is bound by formal agreements and protects against unauthorized commitments, thereby maintaining legal clarity and accountability in government dealings.

A key aspect of the doctrine of legitimate expectation is that it is rooted in the principle of non-arbitrariness, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This doctrine helps protect individuals' expectations based on past practices or commitments made by public authorities, thus promoting fairness in administrative actions.

The case of Union of India v. N.K. (P) Ltd. clarified that contracts signed by unauthorized officers are invalid. This ruling underscores the importance of compliance with the constitutional provisions governing the execution of contracts by government officials, ensuring that only those with proper authority can bind the government legally.

The doctrine of vicarious liability is grounded in the principle that an employer (the principal) can be held liable for the torts committed by an employee (the servant) in the course of their employment. This principle is based on the idea that employers benefit from their employees' actions and should therefore be responsible for any wrongs arising from those actions. This doctrine ensures that victims have a viable source of compensation.

The Supreme Court liberalized the doctrine of promissory estoppel in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v Uttar Pradesh. The court held that the government was bound by its representations regarding a sales tax exemption, thereby reinforcing the principle that promises made by authorities must be honored to prevent injustice.

Recent judicial trends have increasingly favored the idea that the state should be accountable for tortious acts committed by its servants. This shift reflects a broader understanding that citizens have rights and should have access to legal remedies for wrongs done to them, regardless of whether those wrongs arise from sovereign or non-sovereign functions. This evolution signifies a commitment to upholding justice and the rule of law.

Quasi-contractual liability refers to the obligation of the government to compensate for benefits received under circumstances where no formal contract exists. This principle is designed to prevent unjust enrichment, ensuring that if one party benefits at the expense of another without any legal agreement, the benefiting party must compensate the other for the value received.

The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions is crucial in determining the liability of the state. If an act is deemed a non-sovereign function, the state can be held liable for tortious acts. Conversely, if the act is classified as a sovereign function, the state typically retains immunity from liability. This distinction is essential for understanding how legal principles apply to various government actions.

The case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India highlighted the importance of judicial restraint in administrative action. The Supreme Court established that judicial review focuses primarily on the decision-making process rather than the merits of the administrative decisions. This principle helps maintain a balance between judicial oversight and administrative authority.

Statutory contracts are distinguished by being governed by specific statutes rather than by Article 299. While Article 299 applies to contracts made in the exercise of executive powers, statutory contracts operate under the framework of relevant legal provisions, establishing different rights and liabilities for the parties involved.