MEANING OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Administrative action is the action which is neither legislative nor judicial in nature but only concerned with the analysis and treatment of a particular situation and is devoid of generality. It has no procedure of collecting evidence and weighing arguments but only based upon subjective satisfaction where decision is based on policy and expediency. It does not decide a right or wrong , neither it ignores the principles of natural justice completely though it may affect a right. Unless the statute provides otherwise, a minimum of the principles of natural justice must always be observed depending on the fact situation of each case.

Administrative action may be statutory, having the force of law, or non statutory, devoid of such legal force. The bulk of the administrative action is statutory because a statute or the Constitution gives it a legal force but in some cases it may be non-statutory, such as issuing directions to subordinates not having the force of law, but its violation may be visited with disciplinary action. Though by and large administrative action is discretionary and is based on subjective satisfaction, however, the administrative authority must act fairly, impartially and reasonable.

CLASSIFICATION
 

Administrative action is classified broadly into three main organs of the government namely-

Legislative
Executive
Judiciary

Generally an administrative action can be further bifurcated into 3 parts-

Quasi-legislative action or Rule making: It includes the rule making power and delegated legislation. Under this organ the administration performs the function of legislation in such situations where it is not possible for any legislation to legislate laws for the kind of conflicts arising.
 

Quasi-Judicial action or Rule decision action: It includes such conditions under which the administration puts on the hat of the judiciary and confers the special power of taking decisions in cases where legal rights of individual are effected.
 

Purely administrative action or Rule application action: This includes the actions which are neither legislative nor judiciary but purely administrative in nature.
 

In Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India, the concept of natural justice is defined in case of consequences suffered in administrative action.

1. Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet – no one should be made a judge in his own cause, or the rule against bias.

2. Audi alteram partem – no one should be condemned unheard.

CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Administrative actions are controlled by courts in certain circumstances by issuing different writs and thus plays an important role in judicial control of administrative actions in India. Article 32(2) states the power of the Supreme court to issue writs.

Meaning of Administrative Actions
 

Administrative actions are those actions which are carried out in the administrative law and an administrative law deals with the powers and functions of the administrative authorities. An administrative actions are those legal action which are related to the public administrative body. These actions protect the public and maintain law and order in the society. It is an action which is not a legislative and not a judicial action. While exercising administrative powers, principles of natural justice must always follow but depending on the situation of each case. These action forces an authority to do or not to do a thing.

Administrative action can be

(1) quasi-legislative( rule making action ) because when the administrative body exercises the power of law making which has been delegated to it, it is called as rule making action- quasi-legislative action For example – Civil Servant Efficiency rules 1973, Conduct Rules etc.

(2) quasi-judicial (rule decision action) because when an act which is administrative in nature has been performed by using the administrative decision making power but that work involves the judicial characteristics For example – Disciplinary actions against the students or Disciplinary proceedings against an employee for misconduct etc. 

(3)  Fully administrative action (rule application action) because this involves the application of a rule which has been made by legislative to a case. For example – Transfer of a Civil Servant, Appointment of inquiry officer.

Nature, Scope and Significance of Administrative actions
 

It is not compulsory that the executive authorities that are performing its function is fully administrative, quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative in nature. A lots of activities fall within the area of administrative actions. The action which is neither a legislative nor a judicial in nature is the administrative action. Administrative action can be statutory which is having the force of law or non statutory. If these actions are against the principles of natural justice or violating the rights of the citizens then the courts can remove such actions.

Our judiciary is already being overburdened by lots of cases which are pending in the courts. So it is not possible for the judiciary to solve the problems of administration side by side. So that’s why quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative bodies are given power to reduce the existing load on the judiciary. At the time of emergencies like war administrative action is the best possible remedy because executive has the powers to deal with the the situation.

Evolution of the Rule of Law in India.

Administrative law is a historical concept -its philosophies and techniques are what mandates it in the present world. With time, it develops, however, retaining principles that have formed the basis of this law. They have not lost their underlying ideologies, but have been amended with time to fit the legal system accordingly, for example, be the separation of powers between the legislature, judiciary, and executive, could be one and another would be the Rule of law. It is an ideal that ensures justice, equality, and fairness, preventing arbitrariness on the government’s side. It can be inferred that the Rule of law (Dicey’s interpretation) has three essential features:

(i) supremacy of law

(ii) equality before the law

(iii) judge-made law.

This ideal is what prevents the state from turning into a totalitarian authority since it helps preserve the structure of the democratic values.Democratic values also include individual rights (Fundamental Rights), significantly being the protection of freedom of thought, freedom to practice any religion, freedom of choice of work, and liberty to necessary living facilities. When individuals assert their rights, it helps preserve the democratic structure, since it is this respect that forms the basis for a democratic society, ethically and morally.

POST MANEKA GANDHI JUDGEMENT
 

Article 21 which has lain dormant for nearly three decades was brought to life by the now famous Supreme court decision in Maneka Gandhi. Since then, Article 21 has been on its way to emerge as the Indian version of the American concept of due process. It has become the source of many substantive rights and procedural safeguards to the people. Now it is settled that that article 21 confers positive rights to life and liberty The word “life” in article 21 means a life of dignity and not just mere animal survival which was also upheld in the case of Francis caralie[19]. The procedure of depriving a person of his life and liberty must be reasonable, fair and just.

In the 1978, the 44th amendment of the constitution took place, article 359 was amended, and it provided that article 20 and 21 could not be suspended even during declaration of an emergency. A.k. Bindal vs. Union of India[20], It was held that no person should be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Thus with the above brief preview of article 21 it is clear that it has a multidimensional interpretation. Any arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful act of the part of any state depriving the life or personal liberty would be against article 21 of the Indian constitution.

The Supreme Court has asserted in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab that the procedure contemplated by Article 21 is that it must be “right, fair and just” and not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive. The expression “procedure established by law” extends to both substantive as well as procedural law. A procedure not fulfilling these attributes is no procedure at all in the eyes of Article 21.

Separation of Powers in Indian Context
 

After independence, the Constituent Assembly was set up to make our own Indian constitution. The Indian constitution has adopted different things from the constitutions of different nations.

The Constitution of India, does not contain any provision for an absolute or rigid division of the functions of the three organs of government. Legislative and judicial powers are often entrusted to the executive, but the functional separation of powers has nevertheless been emphasized. The analysis shows that, pursuant to the various provisions of our Constitution, Like Articles 53(1) and 154(1), the executive powers of the Union and the States are conferred on the President and the Governors. According to this scheme, the President is the Chief Executive Officer of the Indian Union, who exercises his powers constitutionally on aid and advice

The Council of Ministers referred to in Article 74(1). The three-fold division of powers is partially recognized and no unbridled legislative powers have been conferred on the Parliament and the State legislatures and on the judiciary of the Supreme Court and other courts. The Constitution of India has taken a middle course in this matter. Article 50 of the Constitution provides that the State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the judiciary. This is to ensure that the parliamentary form of government is functional as well as the rule of law.

Development on Separation of Powers
 

Observation of Justice Das in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar when he said, “The Constitution does not express the existence of a separation of powers, and it is true that the division of powers of government into legislative, executive and judicial powers is implicit in the Constitution, but the doctrine does not constitute a fundamental foundation stone of the constitutional framework as such.

In Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P It was held that, although our Constitution does not accept the strict doctrine of the separation of powers, but provides for an independent judiciary in the State, it constitutes a High Court for each State to lay down the institutional conditions for the service of its judges, confers extensive jurisdiction on it to issue writs to keep all courts, including, where appropriate, the Government.

Again in Udai Ram Sharma v. Union of India, the Court categorically held that this doctrine had not been accepted by our Constitution. The Court expressed its opinion that the American doctrine of separation of powers has no application in India.

The landmark judgment came in the case of Ram Jawaya v State of Punjab. The court held that Doctrine of separation of powers was not fully accepted in India. Mukherjee J adds that:

“The Indian constitution has not indeed recognize the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity but the functions of the different parts or branches of the government have been sufficiently differentiated and consequently it can very well be said that our constitution does not contemplate assumption, by one organ or part of the state, of functions that essentially belong to another”.

Later in I.G. Golak Nath v State of Punjab, Subha Rao, C.J opined that:

“The constitution brings into existence different constitutional entitles, namely the union, the state and the union territories. It creates three major instruments of powers, namely the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. It demarcates their jurisdiction minutely and expects them to exercise their respective powers without overstepping there limits. They should function with the spheres allotted to them.”

The above opinion of the court clearly states the change in the courts view pertaining to the opinion in the case of Ram Jawaya v. state of Punjab related to the doctrine of separation of powers.

The landmark judgments delivered by the Supreme Court in Keshvananda Bharti v Union of India the court was of the view that amending powers was now subject to the basic features of the constitution. And hence, any amendment tampering these essential features will be struck down as unconstitutional.

Then in Indira Gandhi Nehru v. Raj Narain, where the dispute regarding P.M. election was pending before the Supreme Court, opined that adjudication of a specific dispute is a judicial function which parliament, even under constitutional amending powers, cannot exercise i.e. the parliament does not have the jurisdiction to perform a function which the other organ is responsible for otherwise there will be chaos as there will be overlapping of the jurisdictions of the three organs of the state.

Delegated Legislation in India

Among many functions of the legislature, policy and law making would happen to be its most important one. However, many democratic countries accept that the legislative output barely emanates from such authority, since most of its duties have been delegated and regulated to the Executive. In the words of Salmond, delegated legislation would be that which proceeds from any authority other than a sovereign power, hence dependent for its continuity and validity on a superior authority.Delegated Legislation is that rule which allows the principle body to dispense certain responsibilities to a lower body to carry out. It is a form of decentralization as it confers duties to lower bodies of the government to carry smoothly.

Delegated legislation is woven deep into administrative procedures and system in such a way that any statue, policy, law or rule created by the legislature is always delegated to certain relevant authorities/bodies. However, it is pertinent to point out that this delegation can only be conferred when the legislative policy that has been properly laid down allows for the same. Also, that the delegate must work within the four corners of the delegation, and if violated can only be held valid if ratified by the delegator. Moreover, a delegatee cannot further delegate the duty that has been given to them by the delegator. This is based on the principle of Delegatus Potest non Delegare.