Topic 1 – Nature and Scope of Administrative Law
1.1 Definition and Scope of Administrative Law
1.2 Rule of Law – Dicey’s Rule of Law
1.3 Theory of Separation of Powers
H.M. Seervai “The Supreme Court of India and the Shadow of Dicey 01
The Position of the Judiciary under the Constitutional of India, 83-96 (1970)
CASES:
1. Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab(1955) 2 SCR 225
2. Asif Hameed v. State of J. & K. AIR 1989 SC 1899
3. State of M. P. & Another v. Thakur Bharat Singh 1967 AIR 1170: 1967 SCR (2) 454
4. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207.
5. Indira Gandhi (smt.) v. Raj Narian AIR 1975 SC 2299
Topic 2 – Delegated Legislation
2.1. Meaning
2.2. Reasons for growth
2.3. Conditional Legislation
2.4. Permissible limits of delegation of legislative power
2.5. Judicial control
2.6. Legislative control – laying requirement
2.7. Procedural Control – Pre-and post-publication, consultation of affected interests; The General Clauses Act, 1897, sections 20-24
CASES:
6. In re Delhi Laws Act AIR 1951 SC 332
7. Lachmi Narain v. Union of India(1976) 2 SCC 953
8. Darshan Lal Mehra v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 28 : AIR 1992 SC 714
9. Govindlal Chhaganlal Patel v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee AIR 1976 SC 263
10. Sonik Industries, Rajkot v. Municipal Corpn. of the City of Rajkot (1986) 2 SCC 608 : AIR 1986 SC 1518.
11. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1979) 2 SCC 196 : AIR 1979 SC 1149
12. Rajnarain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, AIR 1954 SC 519.
Topic 3 – Administrative Discretion
3.1 Meaning of discretion; Judicial Review of conferment and exercise of discretionary power, abuse of discretionary power;
3.2 Nature and Scope of Judicial Review
3.3 Grounds of Judicial Review:
3.3.1 Abuse / Misuse of discretion – mala fides/ ill-will, motive, Unreasonableness / Arbitrariness, Improper Purpose, Ignoring relevant considerations, Relying on irrelevant considerations;
3.3.2 Non application of mind – acting mechanically, acting under dictation, imposing fetters by self-imposed rules or policy decisions;
3.3.3 Violation of the Principles of Natural Justice
CASES:
13. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. State of U. P. 1954 SCR 803 : AIR 1954 SC 224
14. A.N. Parasuraman v. State of Tamil Nadu (1989) 4 SCC 683 : AIR 1990 SC 40
15. J. R. Raghupathy v. State of A. P., AIR 1988 SC 1681. AIR 1988 SC 1681; 1988 (4) SCC 364
16. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v.Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank Employees Assn.(2007) 4 SCC 669
17. Om Kumar & Others v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3689; 2000 (7) SCALE 524, 2000 Supp 4 SCR 693
18. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Daly [2001] UKHL 26
19. G. Sadanandan v. State of Kerala (1966) 3 SCR 590 : AIR 1966 SC 1925
20. Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 872.
21. State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan(1961) 1 SCR 227 : AIR 1960 SC 1223
22. Ranjit Singh v. Union of India 1981 AIR 461, 1981
23. Nandlal Khodidas Barot v. Bar Council of Gujarat and others AIR 1981 SC 477, 1980 Supp (1) SCC 318
24. Shri Rama Sugar Industries Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1974) 1 SCC 534 : AIR 1974 SC 1745
25. Associated Provincial Picture Hose Ltd. V Wednesbury Corporation(1947)
26. DM Aravali Golf Club v Chander Hass, 2007 (14) SCALE 1.
27. Internet & Mobile Assn. of India v. RBI, (2020) 10 SCC 274
Topic 4 – Principles of Natural Justice
4.1 Administrative and quasi-judicial functions
4.2 Meaning and need for Administrative Adjudication, lis inter partes, concept of fairness
4.3 Nemo judex in causa sua (rule against bias)
4.4 Audi alteram partem (rule of fair hearing)
4.4.1 Notice
4.4.2 Right to cross-examination
4.4.3 Right to legal representation
4.5 Reasoned Decision (Speaking Order)
4.6 Effect of non-observation of the Principles of Natural Justice
4.7 Requirement of supplying Enquiry Report – Effect of non-supply of such Report.
CASES:
28. A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150 : (1969) 2 SCC 262
29. Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 : AIR 1987 SC 454
30. G.N. Nayak v. Goa University (2002) 2 SCC 712 : AIR 2002 SC 790
31. Amar Nath Chowdhury v. Braithwaite and Co. Ltd. (2002) 2 SCC 290 : AIR 2002 SC 678
32. State of W.B. v. Shivananda Pathak (1998) 5 SCC 513
33. Hira Nath Mishra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College (1973) 1 SCC 805 : AIR 1973 SC 1260
34. J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd. (1991) 2 SCC 283 : AIR 1991 SC 1221
35. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (1999) 1 SCC 626
36. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
37. H.L. Trehan v. Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 764: AIR 1989 SC 568
38. K I Shepherd v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 686.
39. S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594: AIR 1990 SC 1984
40. Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727
Topic 5 – Judicial Review
5.1 Review and Appeal
5.2 Power of Judicial Review of the Supreme Court and the High Courts – Articles 32, 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
5.3 Writs – Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition, Habeas Corpus, Quo Warranto
5.3.1 Certiorari – (to decide the legality of an order/decision already passed/given) and for that purpose to produce all records of the case before the writ court – Grounds on which issued
5.3.2 Jurisdictional Errors – Excess of jurisdiction, Exercising jurisdiction not vested; Non-exercise of jurisdiction. The court exercising power does not act as an appellate court and therefore neither the merits of the case nor re-appraisal of evidence is allowed; Errors of law alone can be subject of judicial review but not the errors of fact howsoever grave they may be; Review possible if a decision/order was based on ‘no evidence’ or on irrelevant considerations;
5.3.3 Non-compliance with the prescribed procedure or the rules of natural justice;
5.3.4 Errors of law apparent on the face of record can be corrected – that may occur when the conclusion of law recorded by the lower court/tribunal is based on an obvious mis-interpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it or even in disregard of it or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law.
5.4 Mandamus – To command the performance of a statutory or public duty; not issued for exercise of discretionary power or against the legislature/legislators; can be issued both against the executive authorities as well as private individuals/persons.
5.5 Prohibition – To decide the legality of pending proceedings
5.6 Habeas Corpus – To decide the legality of an arrest/detention. It is necessary to produce the arrested/detained person in the court and if dead, the dead body must be produced in the court.
5.7 Quo warranto – To decide the legal authority of a person to hold a public office.
5.8 Ouster clauses (constitutional and statutory exclusion)
5.9 Curative Petition
CASES:
41. Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (1964) 5 SCR 64
42. Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai AIR 2003 SC 3044 : (2003) 6 SCC 675
43. Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani(1989) 2 SCC 691 : AIR 1989 SC 1607
44. Common Cause v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 4493.
45. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Another AIR 2002 SC 177
Topic 6 – Right to Information
6.1.Transparency and accountability of the administration; Right to Information under the Constitution of India;
6.2.The Right to Information Act, 2005 – Object of the legislation – effective and responsive Government/public authorities; Scope of the right to information – Obligation of public authorities to supply information; Grounds of refusal to disclose information
CASES:
46. Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal 166 (2010) DLT 305 (FB)
47. Disclosure of Accounts and Funding of Political Parties, CIC Order Dated 3rd June 2013.
Topic 7 – Tribunals
7.1. Concept; Justice by Tribunals – Advantages: Openness, Fairness, Impartiality, Absence of Technicalities of Evidence and Procedure, Cheapness;
7.2. Constitution of India, Articles 323A and 323B;
7.3. Overview of Tribunals in India with particular reference to Administrative Tribunals established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985;
CASES:
48. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261
49. Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association 2010 (5) SCALE 514
50. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 1
Topic 8 – Commissions of Inquiry & Central Vigilance Commission
8.1. The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 – Object and Scope of the legislation – ‘to inquire into any definite matter of public importance’;
8.2. Power of Central/State Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry – discretionary and mandatory nature of power;
8.3. Powers and Procedure of the Commission of Inquiry; Compliance with the principles of natural justice;
8.4. Submission of report and follow up action – effectiveness.
8.5. The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Constitution, Powers and Functions.
Topic 9 – Regulatory Agencies
Need of Regulatory Bodies; Composition, powers, functions and procedure; of the Regulatory Bodies including the securities and exchange board of India;
The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992; Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997; The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999; Electricity Commission); Competition commission of India under the Competition Act, 2002
Topic 10- Redressal of Complaints against the administration: The Institution of Ombudsman
