Unit–IV: Administrative Bodies & Liabilities

Ombudsman – (Meaning)
An Ombudsman in administrative law is an independent official or body appointed by the
government to oversee and investigate complaints and grievances against administrative
actions and decisions made by government agencies, departments or public officials.
The primary purpose of an Ombudsman in administrative law is to ensure transparency,
fairness, accountability and adherence to legal and procedural standards within the
administrative processes of the government.
This official is often referred to as a grievance officer. The Ombudsman’s job is to examine
the complaints made by citizens when they believe that a government agency is not doing
its job properly. In simple terms, if the government isn’t doing things right, citizens can
report their concerns to this official, who works for the government but is independent and
impartial.

Need Of Ombudsman
Regarding the importance of the Ombudsman in administrative law, it’s essential to
understand that this official is not a super administrator to whom you can appeal just because
you’re not happy with a decision made by a government official. The main role of the
Ombudsman is to investigate complaints of mismanagement or unfair treatment.
In terms of its usefulness, think of the Ombudsman in administrative law as a guardian of the
government’s actions and a protector of regular people. The Ombudsman looks into all
complaints made by citizens when they believe that the government is misusing its power,
not doing its job well or being unfair. The Ombudsman has extensive authority, including
access to government records. People who file complaints don’t have to provide evidence; the
Ombudsman investigates and can provide remedies to those who have been wronged.
The Ombudsman’s role is to make sure complaints are valid and address them appropriately.
They can even take action on their own if they see a problem and their authority is not limited
like that of a Civil Court.

Composition of the Ombudsman (Lokpal)

The Lokpal office is composed of a chairman and up to 8 members. The Chairman of the
Lokpal can either be a current or former judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of a
High Court. Alternatively, the Chairman can also be an eminent person known for their
impeccable reputation and exceptional expertise, with at least 25 years of experience in areas
such as anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, law, management, finance
(including insurance and banking) and related matters.

United Kingdom
Ombudsman was commissioned in 1954 to deal with complaints filed against government
agencies or officials. The ombudsman first emerged as a formal office in 1951. The idea to
create the office came from the experience of maladministration and grievances caused by the
actions of certain government agencies. The Crichel Down affair is an example of this.
During World War II, about 725 acres of land were taken from British farmers to be used by
the military. The amount of land was repressed, and British people were promised that it was
to be returned to the owners. However, the land which was to be returned to farmers was
given over to the Agriculture Ministry.
A report published by the International Commission of Jurists states that “Turbulent and
common flows, often not sufficient themselves to attract sufficient public concern, turn out to
be serious injustices for some individuals, which frustrate or distress them.
This injustice becomes infamous and often leads to sympathy for those in the hot seat and
resentment towards the authorities who can and should prevent such injustices.” The
Parliamentary Commissioner Act of 1967 (PCA, 1967) was adopted so that the Parliament
would have a commissioner to deal with the administrative details of proceedings of the
Parliament.
1. Around law enforcement bodies, look into the complaints made by citizens.
2. They design policies to redress the gap and act as experts
3. Regis tents are free to access ombudsmen
4. Fastest resolution without being unbiased
5. Every year, it reports to the Abbott government concerning its educational performance.
Included in these reports are tables that state the work they produced, their statistics, and their
method to solve the problem. Apart from these duties, they place an annual publication
containing the recommendations for the system itself. Lacking any internal remedy for this
problem, and occasions of claims for their remedies, there can be a judicial review of the
findings of the Ombudsman

India
We have different terms for this in India – Lokpal and Lokayukta. The term "Lokpal" was
coined by Dr. Laxmi. Mall. Singhvi in 1963. The concept of a constitutional ombudsman was
first proposed in parliament by Law Minister Ashoke Kumar Sen in the early 1960s India, we
have an Act called Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013. Although this Act came into force in
2013, it has been responsible for solving many cases of administrative malpractice. It was a
result of the Administrative Reforms Commission in 1966. Dewang Mehta (1961–2003)
became the first ombudsman (OV) in 1969.
The Government of India made several recommendations on improving the working
conditions of state agencies, which became known as The Santhanam Committee (SC)
(1962–64, recommended by V.V. Santhanam). The SC suggested the establishment of an
independent institution for lodging consumer complaints in various sectors. The Government
of India pressed for state-level ombudsmen (OVs). They would have jurisdiction over state-
level agencies. Lokpal An anti-corruption ombudsman or "People's Friend" in the Republic of
India protects the public interest in the long run. Since 2010, the People's Republic of China
has had an ombudsman or Public Prosecutor General who prosecutors’ corruption in the
country. The Republic of India has an anti-corruption body, the Lokpal, designed to protect
the public against corruption by investigating allegations against public officials, particularly
at the level of the Central Government. The Lokpal acts at the national level, while voting in
the Lokayukta, or local representative of citizens, works at the state level. The Lokpal
chairperson or member should be at least 45 years old on the date of assuming office as a
chairperson.

Lokayukta (at the State level)

The first state to establish one state-level Lokpal (ombudsman) was Orissa. In 1930, Tamil
Nadu was the first state to create a Lokayukta (an anticorruption body). Other states
followed: Bihar (1934), Uttar Pradesh (1952), Madhya Pradesh (1958), Andhra Pradesh
(1963), Himachal Pradesh (1963), Karnataka (1967), Gujjarwal Pradesh (1972), Amarbhsenia
(1980), Delhi (1995), Punjab (1996), Nagaland (1997), Madhya Pradesh (1997), Assam
Kerala is represented by Administrative Boundaries, where each block consists of 15-16
Assembly constituencies, a standing committee with a proposal, and a working committee
with a proposal to be forwarded to the Assembly, under the Kerala Panchayat Federation Act.
The Kerala Panchayat Act provides for specifications and directions to the Panchayat
president, and Panchayat members to take action under various heads: administrative control,
action in complaints, constitution,

Need of Lokpal and Lokayukta

1. Lokpal and Lokayukta are free bodies. ACB and CBI will be merged with these bodies.
The capacity to start investigations against any public servant, without requiring
anybody's authorization, will also become a reality.

2. Lokpal and Lokayukta have comprehensive powers to establish ownership, secure

recovery, and order institutions of authority to prosecute in civil and criminal courts

3. Justice Lokpal and Lokayukta will have the power to dismiss officers who are found
guilty of corruption. Justice Lokpal and Lokayukta will have the authority to research and
arraign any adjudicator who is not chosen by anybody.

4. After finishing of examination, the case records will be available open to open. The
administration was a whole new world for a civil servant who grew up as a teleguide in
an army camp

5. Lokpal and Lokayukta will get accused persons to be honourably punished for their
wrong decisions and levy them social reparation of Rs 250 every day if their resolution is
taken in manifestly of unreasonable delay. They will be forced to take proper notice of
cases and to settle them within eight days in every 25-day-long case, due to their
inefficient legacy. Social violence should be prevented.
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) - India
1. Establishment: The CVC was established in 1964 by an executive resolution of the
Government of India, and it became a statutory body under the Central Vigilance
Commission Act of 2003.
2. Objective: To address governmental corruption and to ensure integrity in public
administration.
3. Functions:
o Conducts inquiries into offenses committed under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
o Supervises vigilance activities in government departments and organizations.
o Recommends appropriate actions based on inquiries and investigations.
4. Powers: Can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate certain
cases of corruption. However, it does not have the power to prosecute; it can only
recommend action to the appropriate authorities.
5. Structure: Composed of a Central Vigilance Commissioner and two Vigilance
Commissioners. These officials are appointed by the President of India on the
recommendation of a committee.
6. Jurisdiction: Covers all central government departments, public sector undertakings,
and some private entities that fall under its mandate due to their dealings with the
government.
UK's Anti-Corruption Mechanisms
1. Establishment: The UK's primary anti-corruption body, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO),
was established in 1988 under the Criminal Justice Act. Additionally, the Bribery Act
2010 provides a comprehensive legislative framework to combat corruption.
2. Objective: To investigate and prosecute serious or complex fraud, bribery, and
corruption.
3. Functions:
 Investigates and prosecutes serious fraud and corruption cases.
 Operates independently but collaborates with other agencies like the National Crime
Agency (NCA).
 Conducts proactive operations and intelligence gathering.

4. Powers: The SFO has significant powers to investigate and prosecute, including the
authority to compel the production of documents and testimony, and to arrest and charge
suspects.
5. Structure: Headed by a Director, who is appointed by and reports to the Attorney
General. The SFO operates as a multidisciplinary agency with lawyers, investigators,
accountants, and other specialists.
6. Jurisdiction: Covers all serious or complex fraud and corruption cases within the UK,
including those with international aspects involving UK entities or citizens.
Comparison
1. Legislative Framework: Both countries have robust legislative frameworks, but the UK's
Bribery Act 2010 is considered more comprehensive and stringent compared to India's
Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Independence: The SFO operates with more independence compared to the CVC, which
relies on the CBI for investigations and does not have prosecutorial powers.
3. Powers and Functions: The SFO has broader investigative and prosecutorial powers,
whereas the CVC mainly plays a supervisory and advisory role.
4. Effectiveness: The effectiveness of each body can be debated. The UK's SFO is often
seen as more proactive due to its comprehensive powers and independent operation, while
the CVC's effectiveness is sometimes hampered by its limited powers and reliance on
other agencies for enforcement.
5. Public Perception: The public perception of effectiveness varies, with the UK's
mechanisms often viewed as more robust and efficient in dealing with high-profile
corruption cases compared to India's CVC.

Administrative Tribunals
Definition and Purpose: Administrative Tribunals are specialized quasi-judicial bodies
established by the government to adjudicate disputes arising in specific areas of
administrative law. They operate outside the regular court system and are designed to provide
expert adjudication, faster resolution of disputes, and relieve the burden on conventional
courts.
Key Features:
 Specialization:
 Administrative Tribunals focus on specific areas such as taxation, labor disputes,
environment, intellectual property, etc.
 This specialization allows for in-depth understanding and expertise in the relevant
subject matter.
 Quasi-Judicial Nature:
 Tribunals exercise judicial functions but are not part of the ordinary judicial
hierarchy.
 They are empowered to hear evidence, make decisions, and issue orders similar to
courts.
 Speedier Justice:
 Tribunals aim to provide quicker resolutions compared to traditional courts, which
helps in reducing backlog and delays.
  They often have streamlined procedures and are more accessible to parties
involved.
 Expertise and Efficiency:
 Members of Administrative Tribunals often possess specialized knowledge and
experience in the field they adjudicate.
 This expertise contributes to more informed decisions and ensures the application
of technical knowledge.
 Limited Appellate Review:
 Decisions of Administrative Tribunals may be subject to judicial review by higher
courts, but usually, appellate review is limited to questions of law rather than
facts.
Legal Framework in India:
1. Constitutional Basis:Article 323A and Article 323B of the Indian Constitution
empower the Parliament and State Legislatures to establish Administrative Tribunals.
2. Central Administrative Tribunals (CAT):CAT was established under the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to adjudicate disputes related to recruitment,
service conditions, and disciplinary matters of central government employees.
3. State Administrative Tribunals (SAT):SATs were set up under state-specific
legislation to address similar issues for state government employees and other matters
within state jurisdiction.
Advantages:
1. Expert Adjudication:Tribunals ensure decisions are made by experts in the relevant
field, enhancing the quality and accuracy of judgments.
2. Specialized Justice:They offer specialized forums tailored to handle complex issues,
which may not be efficiently addressed in general courts.
3. Administrative Efficiency:Tribunals relieve the burden on regular courts, allowing
them to focus on more critical matters and reducing backlog.
4. Accessible Remedies:Provide accessible avenues for aggrieved parties to seek
redressal without the formalities and costs associated with traditional litigation.
Challenges:
1. Limited Jurisdictional Clarity:Overlapping jurisdiction with regular courts or other
tribunals can lead to confusion and disputes over which forum has authority.
2. Delays in Appointments:Vacancies and delays in appointing members to tribunals
can affect their functioning and efficiency.
3. Quality of Decisions:Despite expertise, inconsistencies in decisions and lack of
uniformity may arise due to varying interpretations by tribunal members.
 Unit–V: Administrative Discretion & Judicial Control

What is administrative Discretion?

Administrative discretion is an informal unilateral practice and is therefore unprotected by the
protections inherent in the structured procedure. Discretion in simple words means choosing
among the different alternatives available without respect to any predetermined criterion,
irrespective of how fanciful that choice may be. The administrative discretionary issue is
complex. Really, the government cannot work in any intensive form of government without
the officials exercising some discretion. It is important not only for the individualization of
the administrative power but also because in the dynamic nature of the modern state, it is
humanly impossible to lay down a guideline for every imaginable eventually. Equally true,
however, is that absolute power is a merciless master. It is more destructive of liberty than
any other technology made by man.
There are three main heads under which the control over administrative discretion is
exercised.
1. Parliamentary Control over administrative discretion
2. Judicial Control over administrative discretion
3. Procedural and Executive Control

Parliamentary control over Administrative Discretion

There are several grounds for parliamentary control.
1. Direct General Control – The first form of parliamentary control shall be exercised at the
time the enabling act is passed. This is Parliamentary hearings that are of a general and direct
control sort. In India, different methods and procedures are used, such as discussions on the
delegation bill, which include aspects such as requirement, scope, form of delegation and
authority delegated. In addition, any Member can. ask questions on any aspect of the
delegation of legislative powers and, if disappointed, may give notice of discussion under
Rule 59 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. Budget cuts during
grant voting and committee debate through a private member’s Bill requesting changes to the
parent act or through a debate at the time of the President’s speech to. the joint parliamentary
session is also useful. Yet in India as well as in the UK. Those methods are seldom employed.
This is due solely to a lack of tradition or experience. However, scholars think that this
approach should be used wisely and efficiently to nip delegation vices in the bud.

2. Direct Special Control – Prominent among these remedies is the “laying on the table”
method, which demands that administrative “laws” rendered under delegated authority be
submitted for approval to the legislature. Under direct control, laying is an important and
necessary feature, and it is laid down in compliance with the law, which ensures that it should
be put before Parliament after making the regulation. It contains three important parts to be
exercised according to. the degree of control required.
 Simple Laying
 Negative Laying
 Affirmative Laying

And two key tests are the “Mandatory test” & “Directory test.”
i. Mandatory testing – Where laying demand is a condition pattern to direct the rule into
effect, then laying need is compulsory in such case. Where the clause that the rules should be
drafted in a particular format is specified then it becomes mandatory to adopt the format.

ii. Directory test – If the laying prerequisite is next to enforce the rule, it will be a
directory in nature.

3. Indirect control – This is a power in every Parliament and its committee’s exercise.
Subordinate legislation is another term for such a form of committee. The committee’s
principal job is to investigate.
 Whether rules are according to the general object of the act.
 It bars the jurisdiction of the court in direct or indirect ways.
 Whether it has a retrospective effect or not.
 Whether it safeguards or destroys the Principle of Natural Justice.
 Expenditure involved in it is from Consolidated funds.
In the case of Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, it was held by the Supreme Court that the
provision under Section 3(5) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which explains that
any rules framed under the Act must be presented before both the houses of the Parliament.
Therefore, clause 4 of Non–Ferrous Control Orders, 1958 has no effect until it is presented in
the Parliament.

Judicial Control over Administrative Discretion

The rule of law has been applied to judicial review. The court must see that the delegated
authority as defined is within the meaning of the Constitution. Judicial review is more
effective as it is[2] not recommended by the. court, but it specifically violates the ultra vires
law. In accordance with section 13(3)(a) “Rule” is stated in the Indian Constitution which
clearly indicates that the State should not make any law which abridge the right given in Part
iii of the Constitution. It is dependent on two basic grounds:
 It is ultra vires to the Constitution of India, and
 It is ultra vires to the enabling Act.
Although Indian courts have established some successful guidelines for proper exercise of
discretion, the conspectus of judicial conduct remains stagnant, varied, and residual, and
lacks American activism. The administrative direct judicial review process is exercised on
two grounds :

(1) Control at the stage of delegation of discretion – The court exercises control
over the delegation of discretionary powers to the government by adjudicating the
constitutionality of the law under which these powers are delegated in relation to the
fundamental rights set out in Part III of the Constitution of India. Consequently, if the law
confers undefined and broad discretion on any administrative authority, it may be considered
ultra vires Article 14, Article 19 and other Constitutional provisions.

(2) Control at the stage of the exercise of discretion – In India, unlike the USA,
there is no Administrative Procedure Act which provides for judicial review of administrative
authority exercising. The. power of judicial review therefore derives from the statutory
structure of the tribunals. Indian courts have always held the view that judge-proven
discretion is a negation of the rule of law. Thus, they developed different formulations to
control the exercise of administrative discretion.
In P.B. Samant v. State of Maharashtra, the court held the distribution of cement against the
law and the circulars or guidelines issued by the Government on that behalf as bad. The
distribution of cement was in favour of certain builders in return for the donations given by
them to certain foundations of which the Chief Minister was a trustee. It was a clear case of
mala fide exercise of power. The power to control the distribution of an essential commodity
like cement is given to the Government with a view to ensuring its equitable distribution.
When this power is used for obtaining donations for a trust, it is a clear case of abuse of
power.

Procedural and Executive Control

There is no clear protocol for this until the legislature compels the executive to obey those
laws or procedures. It may take a long time to follow a particular format which will certainly
negate the actual purpose of the act. Procedural regulation therefore means that certain rules
are laid down under the Parent Act which must be followed whilst it is compulsory or
directory to follow it or not. It includes three components:
 Pre-publication and consultation with an expert authority.
 Publication of delegated legislation.
 Laying of rules.
It can be either Mandatory or Directory, to know, certain specified parameters are given:
 Scheme of the Act.
 The intention of the Legislature.
 Language used for drafting purposes.
 Inconvenience caused to the public at large scale.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation

The doctrine of ‘Legitimate Expectations’ is one amongst several tools incorporated by the
Court to review administrative action. This doctrine pertains to the relationship between an
individual and a public authority. According to this doctrine, the public authority can be made
accountable in lieu of a ‘legitimate expectation’. A person may have a reasonable or
legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by the administrative authorities
owing to some consistent practice in the past or an express promise made by the concerned
authority.

Origin of the doctrine of legitimate expectations

The doctrine is not a specific legal right engraved in a particular statute or rule book. The first
time, an attempt was made to establish the principles of the doctrine were in the case
of Council of Civil Service Unions and Others v. Minister for the Civil Service ([1985] AC
374), that the decision by the public authority should affect the person such that-
 His rights or obligations are altered, which are enforceable by or against him
 He is deprived of some benefit or advantage which he had been permitted by the
authorizing body in the past and which he could have legitimately expected to enjoy
until a valid ground for withdrawal of the same was communicated to him or he had
been assured by the decision-making body that such a benefit or advantage would not
be withdrawn until him being given an opportunity of contending reasons as to why
they were withdrawn.

What is a legitimate expectation?

The term “legitimate expectation”, which was coined by Lord Denning in 1969, is an
expectation of an ordinary man to have benefit or relief, which is a consequence of a promise
or representation, either express or implied, made by the administrative authority concerned
or its prior established practice. Hence, a legitimate expectation is an expectation to be treated
in a particular way by the administrative authority or to receive some benefit as a matter of
public law, although no such enforceable right is conferred on him under private law. Thus,
this doctrine creates a central space between ‘no claim’ and a ‘legal claim’.

Illustration
A state government introduced a ‘drinking water supply’ programme to remote areas where
people were walking miles to get drinking water. In the notification of the programme, the
names of all villages are mentioned as initial targets. However, through another notification,
the government removed a few previously mentioned villages without citing any reasons. In
this case, the legitimate expectations of the people from these villages, which are excluded
from the purview of the scheme, are violated. If the decision to exclude those villages by the
state government is just and reasonable, the Court cannot intervene. Contrarily, if it was
unfair and arbitrary, the Court would accept the matter and hold the government responsible.
Therefore, the doctrine of legitimate expectation ensures that the administrative authorities
are abiding by the principles of natural justice.

Conditions for Legitimate Expectation

For a legitimate expectation to be recognized, certain conditions typically need to be met:
1. Clear and Unambiguous Representation: There must be a clear and unequivocal
promise or established practice.
2. Reliance: The individual must have relied on the representation or practice to their
detriment.
3. Fairness: It must be fair and just for the public authority to be held to its
representation or practice.

Essential Elements of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

1. Legitimacy of the Expectation:

 The expectation must be legitimate or reasonable, meaning a prudent and ordinary

person would anticipate the same response or behaviour from a public authority.
 Legitimate expectation arises from a specific past event or established practice, not
from random thoughts, wishes, desires, or mere anticipation.
 The court assesses the legitimacy based on laws, customs, or consistent established
practices, considering the larger public interest, not just the individual's perception.

2. Established Practice or Express Promise:

 There must be an established and regular practice or an express promise from the
administrative authority.
 "Established and regular practice" refers to consistent actions performed by the
authority over a considerable period, within its powers.
 This consistency in past behaviour or explicit assurance creates a legitimate
expectation for the claimant.

Concept of Absolute Discretion

Definition: Absolute discretion refers to the unrestrained power granted to an individual or

authority to make decisions without being bound by established guidelines, standards, or
legal constraints. This power allows for decisions based solely on personal judgment, without
the need for justification or adherence to specific procedures.

Key Features

1. Unfettered Authority:
o Decision-makers have complete freedom to decide as they see fit.
o There is no requirement to follow predefined rules or provide explanations for
their decisions.
2. Lack of Oversight:
o Decisions made under absolute discretion are not subject to review or appeal
by higher authorities or courts.
o This absence of checks and balances can lead to a lack of accountability.
3. Potential for Abuse:
o Absolute discretion can lead to arbitrary or biased decisions.
 o The absence of constraints can result in decisions that do not necessarily align
with principles of fairness or justice.

Examples

1. Executive Pardons: Heads of state often have the absolute discretion to grant
pardons, allowing them to forgive offences without providing reasons or following
criteria
2. Corporate Decisions: CEOs or corporate executives may have absolute discretion
over certain strategic or financial decisions, especially when these decisions do not
require board approval.

Legal Context

1. Judicial Review:Courts typically refrain from interfering with decisions made under
absolute discretion unless there is evidence of illegality, irrationality, or procedural
impropriety.
2. Statutory Limits:While absolute discretion implies total freedom, it is often
constrained by statutory provisions, principles of natural justice, or human rights
considerations.

Criticism and Challenges

1. Transparency: The lack of transparency can erode public trust and confidence in the
decision-making process.
2. Fairness: Decisions made under absolute discretion can be inconsistent and unfair
due to the absence of guidelines ensuring equitable treatment.
3. Accountability: Without accountability mechanisms, decision-makers may not be
held responsible for their actions, potentially leading to misuse of power.

Balancing Absolute Discretion

1. Guidelines and Policies: Establishing guidelines can help balance the need for
discretionary power with the need for fairness and accountability.
2. Oversight Mechanisms: Implementing oversight mechanisms, such as review boards
or ombudsmen, can help ensure that discretion is exercised appropriately.
3. Legal and Ethical Standards: Adherence to legal and ethical standards can provide a
framework within which discretion is exercised, helping to prevent abuse and ensure
decisions are in the public interest.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

Definition: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) refers to legal actions initiated in a court of law
for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the
community has a pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities
are affected. PIL is a mechanism to ensure justice to the marginalized and unrepresented
sections of society.

Key Features

1. Locus Standi:Traditionally, only the aggrieved party had the right to approach the
court. However, in PIL, any public-spirited individual or organization can file a
petition on behalf of those who are unable to approach the court themselves.
2. Broad Scope:PIL can address a wide range of issues, including environmental
protection, human rights violations, consumer protection, and government
accountability.
3. Judicial Activism:PIL is a tool of judicial activism, enabling courts to address issues
of public concern even if they are not directly brought by the aggrieved parties.

Objectives

1. Access to Justice: Ensures that justice is accessible to all, particularly the poor,
marginalized, and disadvantaged groups who might otherwise be unable to afford
legal representation.
2. Enforcement of Rights: Facilitates the enforcement of fundamental rights and
constitutional provisions, ensuring that the government and public authorities are held
accountable.
3. Promoting Accountability: Holds public authorities accountable for their actions,
ensuring they perform their duties effectively and without prejudice.

Process

1. Filing the Petition: A PIL can be filed in any High Court or directly in the Supreme
Court of India.
o The petitioner must show that the issue at hand affects the public at large and not just
a private individual.
2. Admissibility: The court assesses whether the case is maintainable as a PIL,
considering the public interest involved.
3. Court Proceedings: The court may issue notices to the government or public
authorities, seek reports, and appoint committees to investigate the matter.
4. Judgment: Based on the findings, the court can issue directions or guidelines to
remedy the situation, enforce rights, and ensure compliance by the concerned
authorities.

Examples of Landmark PILs

1. MC Mehta v. Union of India:A series of cases leading to significant environmental

jurisprudence, including the cleaning of the Ganga River and the regulation of
hazardous industries.
 2. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan:Established guidelines to prevent sexual harassment
at the workplace, leading to the formulation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar:Highlighted the plight of undertrial prisoners
and led to reforms in the criminal justice system to ensure timely justice.

Advantages

1. Empowerment:
o Empowers citizens and civil society to seek judicial intervention in matters of
public concern.
2. Judicial Remedies:
o Provides a platform for redressal of grievances that affect large sections of
society, ensuring comprehensive judicial remedies.
3. Policy Influence:
o Influences policy-making and legislative actions by highlighting gaps and
ensuring governmental accountability.

Challenges

1. Misuse:PILs can be misused for personal or political gains, leading to frivolous

litigation that clogs the judiciary.
2. Judicial Overreach:Excessive judicial intervention in administrative matters can lead
to conflicts between the judiciary and the executive.
3. Delay in Justice:Due to the increasing number of PILs, courts can become
overburdened, causing delays in the adjudication of cases.

Writ Jurisdictions in India

Definition: Writ jurisdiction in India refers to the power vested in the Supreme Court and
High Courts to issue certain writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other
purpose. This power is provided under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution.

Key Features

1. Constitutional Basis:

Article 32: Grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of
fundamental rights.

Article 226: Grants the High Courts the power to issue writs not only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights but also for any other purpose.

2. Types of Writs:
 1. Habeas Corpus: Commands the production of a person detained unlawfully before
the court.
2. Mandamus: Directs a public official or body to perform a duty they are obligated to
carry out.
3. Prohibition: Orders a lower court or tribunal to cease proceedings that exceed its
jurisdiction.
4. Certiorari: Transfers a matter from a lower court or tribunal to a higher authority for
review.
5. Quo Warranto: Challenges the legality of a person’s claim to a public office.

Objectives

1. Protection of Rights:
o Ensures the protection and enforcement of fundamental rights granted by the
Constitution.
2. Judicial Review:
o Provides a mechanism for judicial review of administrative actions and
decisions, ensuring they adhere to the law.
3. Remedy for Grievances:
o Offers an effective remedy for individuals whose rights have been violated by
state actions.

Process

1. Filing a Petition:An individual or entity can file a writ petition directly in the High
Court or Supreme Court.
2. Admission:The court assesses whether the petition is maintainable and if a prima
facie case exists for issuing the writ.
3. Hearings and Orders:The court may issue notices to the respondent(s), hold
hearings, and then decide whether to grant the writ based on the merits of the case.

Jurisdiction

1. Supreme Court:Under Article 32, the Supreme Court can issue writs solely for the
enforcement of fundamental rights. It is considered the guardian of the Constitution.
2. High Courts:Under Article 226, High Courts can issue writs for both the enforcement
of fundamental rights and for other legal purposes. This broader jurisdiction allows
High Courts to address a wider range of issues.

Examples of Writs

1. Habeas Corpus:In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme Court used
Habeas Corpus to address the conditions of prisoners and ensure humane treatment.
 2. Mandamus:In Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels, the court
issued Mandamus directing a financial corporation to fulfill its contractual
obligations.
3. Prohibition:In S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India, the Supreme Court issued
Prohibition preventing a tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction.
4. Certiorari:In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, the court used Certiorari to review
and quash an arbitrary administrative decision related to awarding contracts.
5. Quo Warranto:In University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, Quo Warranto was
used to challenge the appointment of a university professor who did not meet the
requisite qualifications.

Advantages

1. Accessibility:Provides an accessible remedy for individuals seeking to protect their

constitutional rights.
2. Quick Relief:Offers swift judicial intervention in cases of rights violations, ensuring
timely justice.
3. Judicial Oversight:Ensures that administrative and quasi-judicial bodies act within
their legal limits and uphold the rule of law.

Challenges

1. Overburdened Judiciary: The high volume of writ petitions can lead to delays and
overburden the courts.
2. Complexity: Writ jurisdiction cases can be complex, requiring thorough legal
understanding and interpretation.
3. Potential for Misuse: The broad scope of writ jurisdiction can sometimes lead to
frivolous petitions, affecting judicial efficiency.

Laches, Locus Standi, and Alternative Remedy

Introduction: Judicial control of administrative action is a critical mechanism for ensuring

that public authorities act within the bounds of law and uphold principles of fairness, justice,
and reasonableness. Key doctrines like laches, locus standi, and alternative remedy play
significant roles in this control, shaping the accessibility and scope of judicial review.

Laches

Definition: Laches refers to an unreasonable delay in pursuing a legal remedy, which can be
a ground for denying relief. It is based on the principle that "equity aids the vigilant, not those
who slumber on their rights."
Purpose:

 Prevents stale claims and ensures timely enforcement of rights.

 Protects respondents from facing difficulties due to loss of evidence or changes in
circumstances over time.

Application:

 Courts assess whether the delay was justifiable and whether it caused prejudice to the
respondent.
 If a petitioner fails to act promptly without a valid reason, the court may refuse to
grant relief.

Case Law:

 Maharashtra SRTC v. Balwant Regular Motor Service: The Supreme Court held
that laches could bar the claim if there was an inordinate delay in challenging the
administrative action.

Locus Standi

Definition: Locus standi refers to the legal standing or capacity of a party to bring a lawsuit.
It determines who is entitled to seek judicial intervention.

Purpose:

 Ensures that only those with a sufficient interest or injury can approach the court.
 Prevents frivolous or vexatious litigation by individuals who have no stake in the
matter.

Broadening of Locus Standi:

 In Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the traditional rules of locus standi have been
relaxed to allow public-spirited individuals or organizations to file petitions on behalf
of those unable to approach the court themselves.

Case Law:

 SP Gupta v. Union of India: The Supreme Court expanded the concept of locus
standi in India, allowing any member of the public to maintain an action if it is in the
public interest.

Alternative Remedy
Definition: The doctrine of alternative remedy mandates that a petitioner should exhaust all
available administrative remedies before approaching the judiciary.

Purpose:

 Prevents unnecessary judicial intervention and respects the hierarchy of dispute

resolution mechanisms.
 Ensures that specialized tribunals and bodies with subject-matter expertise are utilized
effectively.

Exceptions:

 Cases where the alternative remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

 Situations involving a violation of fundamental rights, lack of jurisdiction, or manifest
injustice.

Case Law:

 State of UP v. Mohd. Nooh: The Supreme Court held that if an alternative remedy is
available, it must ordinarily be exhausted before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the
High Court.