Deciphering Administrative Discretion: The Evolution and Control in Modern Governance
Keywords:
Deciphering AdministrativeAbstract
The evolution of administrative law reflects the shifting landscape of state functions and societal values over time. From past authoritarian regimes to modern democratic states, government roles have transformed significantly. This journey, spanning from the Police State to the Welfare State and eventually to the Modern State, corresponds with changes in administrative practices and legal frameworks. Administrative law encompasses various actions, including rule-making, decision-making, application of rules, and ministerial powers, highlighting the diverse functions of modern governance. However, the exercise of administrative discretion presents challenges in balancing autonomy with accountability. In India, mechanisms like judicial review under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution safeguard against power abuses, ensuring administrative actions are reasonable and just. Comparative analysis with countries like the United States and England offers insights into different approaches to judicial review and protecting individual rights within administrative frameworks. In essence, administrative law offers a window into the complexities of modern governance, striving to balance state authority with individual rights as we confront 21st-century challenges.
References
I.P. MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 10th ed. (Eastern Book Co. 2022), Pg 47.
U.S. CONST. art. I.
THE WHITE HOUSE, https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-legislativebranch/ (last visited March 20, 2024).
AUST. CONST. §§ 51, 52.
AUST. CONST. § 1.
Avinder Singh v. State Of Punjab & Anr., 1979 SCR (1) 845.
NSDL v. SEBI, (2017) 5 SCC 517.
Shri Bhagwan & Anr. V. Ram Chand & Anr., 1965 AIR 1767.
Fedco (P) Ltd. v. S.N. Bilgrami, AIR 1960 SC 415; Raman and Raman Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 694; D. Natraja Mudaliar v. State Transport Authority, (1978) 4 SCC290.
Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare, (2002) 5 SCC 685.
MacDermott, cited by Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol. B (1975151); see also, Labour Relations Board v. John East Iron Works Ltd., 1949 AC 134: AIR1949 PC 129, 133: 53 CWN 389 (PC).
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262.
Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. The Designated Authority and Ors. MANU/SC/0022/2011. 14 I.P. MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 10th ed. (Eastern Book Co. 2022).
(Hill, Gerald N. (2002). THE PEOPLE'S LAW DICTIONARY: TAKING THE MYSTERY OUT OF LEGAL LANGUAGE. New York, NY: MJF Books. ISBN 9781567315530.)
Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, 2005 (6) SCC 321.
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 10th ed., Pg. 1405 (Bryan A. Garner ed., West Publishing Co. 2004). 18 Susannah Sharp v. Wakefield, [1891] A.C. 173.
COMPILATION OF THE INSTRUMENTS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE, Administrative Right-Recommendations, 2005, p. 283-284, 288-289.
DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION, Assoc. Dr. Dejan Vitanski, (JPMNT) Journal of Process Management – New Technologies, International Vol. 3, No.2, 2015.
U.S. v Wunderlich, 342 US 98,101 (1951).
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
INDIA CONST. art. 19.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, 294.
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.
Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, (1967 AIR 1836).
Himat Lal K. Shah Vs Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Anr. 1973 AIR 87. 28 Virendra v. Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896.
Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. E.S.I. Corpn., 1994 SCC (5) 346.
Jagannath Singh v. State of Orissa, AIR 1996 SC 1140.
I.P. MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 10th ed. (Eastern Book Co. 2022), Pg. 64. 32 Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72.
Marbury v. Madison, Id. R. B. 29.
Minersville School District v. Gobitis., 310 U.S. 586.
City London v. Wood, 12 Mod. 669.
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v. Lincoln City Council, [1999] 2 AC 347, 378.
