Paper 13 – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Second Assignment Questions

Q1. Principles of Natural Justice?

Natural justice is a fundamental concept in legal and administrative proceedings that ensures
fairness, impartiality, and transparency in decision-making. Rooted in moral principles and
common law traditions, natural justice is essential for preventing bias, upholding due process, and
ensuring justice is both done and seen to be done. The principles of natural justice serve as a
safeguard against arbitrary decisions and provide individuals with the right to a fair hearing.

Meaning of Principles of Natural Justice

The Principles of Natural Justice are fundamental legal doctrines ensuring fairness, impartiality,
and reasoned decision-making in judicial and administrative proceedings. Rooted in moral
principles and common law traditions, they protect individuals from arbitrary actions by
requiring due process in decision-making.

These principles are primarily based on three key rules:

1. Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem) – No person should be judged without a fair
opportunity to be heard.
2. Bias Rule (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua) – No one should be a judge in their own case to
prevent bias.
3. Reasoned Decision (Speaking Orders) – Every decision should be based on valid reasons to
ensure transparency and accountability.

Natural justice is essential in safeguarding fairness and rule of law in legal systems worldwide.
Historical Background of Natural Justice

The concept of natural justice has existed since ancient times. The Greeks and Romans recognised
the importance of fairness in decision-making. The term ‘natural justice’ is derived from the Roman
words jus naturale and lex naturale, which refer to principles of justice, equity, and fairness.

Even in religious texts such as the Bible, the principle of fairness was evident in the story of Adam
and Eve. Before punishment was handed down, both were given an opportunity to explain
themselves. This idea of providing individuals with an opportunity to be heard before judgement is
passed remains a cornerstone of natural justice today.

In England, natural justice was further developed by jurists and incorporated into the common law
system. Over time, it has been recognised in administrative and constitutional law as a necessary
component of due process. In India, the Supreme Court affirmed the importance of natural justice
in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, ruling that fairness should be present in all
judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative, and quasi-administrative actions.

23
The Three Principles of Natural Justice

Natural justice is based on three primary principles:

1. Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem)
2. Bias Rule (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua)
3. Reasoned Decision (Speaking Orders)

Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem)

This Latin maxim means “let the other side be heard.” It ensures that no individual should be
condemned or punished without having a fair opportunity to present their case.

The hearing rule is crucial in preventing one-sided decisions. It mandates that all relevant parties
must be informed of any allegations or decisions affecting them and must be given a fair chance
to respond. The rule also ensures that individuals are provided with prior notice, enabling them to
prepare their defence.

A fair hearing is not just a procedural requirement but a substantive right. Courts have ruled that a
fair hearing must include:
• Proper notification of the proceedings.
• An opportunity to present evidence and arguments.
• The right to cross-examine witnesses where necessary.
• An unbiased adjudicating authority.

This principle is particularly important in administrative law, where government bodies make
decisions that affect individuals’ rights and interests. Without adherence to the hearing rule, justice
may be denied or appear to be denied.

Bias Rule (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua)

The second principle of natural justice ensures impartiality in decision-making. It translates to “no
one should be a judge in their own case.” This rule prevents bias, whether actual or perceived, in
judicial and administrative processes.

Bias can arise in different forms:

• Personal Bias: Occurs when a decision-maker has a personal relationship (friendship, enmity,
or professional rivalry) with one of the parties involved. For instance, if a judge presides over a
case where a relative is involved, it can compromise impartiality.
• Pecuniary Bias: Arises when the decision-maker has a financial interest in the outcome of the
case. Even a small financial benefit can be enough to raise concerns about fairness.
• Subject Matter Bias: Occurs when the decision-maker has a personal stake in the case’s
subject matter. If an adjudicator has previously expressed an opinion about an issue before
them, it can create an impression of prejudice.
• Departmental Bias: Common in administrative law, this bias occurs when officials from the
same department handle disputes where their department is an interested party. This can lead
to decisions favouring the department rather than being neutral.

24
• Policy Notion Bias: Arises when a decision-maker is influenced by a pre-existing policy stance.
While judges and administrators are expected to follow policies, they should not allow their
decisions to be dictated solely by preconceived notions.
• Bias Due to Stubbornness: A new category of bias identified by the courts where a judge
upholds their own previous decision in an appeal, violating impartiality.

To maintain public confidence in the legal system, decision-makers must recuse themselves from
cases where there is even an appearance of bias.

Reasoned Decision (Speaking Orders)

The third principle of natural justice requires that decisions be supported by valid reasoning.
Known as the “speaking order” principle, it mandates that authorities provide an explanation for
their rulings.

The rationale behind this principle is to:

• Prevent arbitrary decision-making.

• Enable parties to understand the basis of the decision.
• Allow for judicial review or appeal if necessary.
• Promote accountability and transparency.

When a decision is made without providing adequate reasons, it raises suspicions of injustice. The
courts have consistently emphasised that reasoned decisions are fundamental to good governance
and the rule of law.

Application of Natural Justice in Administrative Law

Natural justice plays a crucial role in administrative law, ensuring that governmental and quasi-
judicial bodies act fairly. Since administrative decisions can have significant consequences on
individuals and businesses, the principles of natural justice act as a safeguard.

One of the landmark cases in Indian administrative law is Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978),
where the Supreme Court ruled that natural justice must be upheld in administrative procedures.
The case reinforced the notion that laws restricting personal liberty must be fair, just, and
reasonable.

Exceptions to Natural Justice

While natural justice is a fundamental principle, there are certain exceptions where strict adherence
may not be possible:

• Emergency Situations: In cases involving national security or public safety, authorities may
bypass some procedural safeguards.
• Confidential Matters: When protecting sensitive information, such as military operations,
natural justice may be limited.

25
 • Legislative Action: When a law is passed, it applies generally to all citizens without individual
hearings.
• Academic Evaluations: In examinations and academic grading, natural justice may not
require individual hearings unless specific unfairness is alleged.

Conclusion

Natural justice is a cornerstone of fairness in legal and administrative proceedings. The principles
of the hearing rule, bias rule, and reasoned decision ensure that decisions are made
transparently, impartially, and with due process.

By adhering to these principles, legal and administrative systems maintain public confidence and
prevent miscarriages of justice. While exceptions exist, they must be justified within the broader
framework of fairness and due process. Natural justice remains an essential pillar of good
governance and the rule of law in modern democracies.

Q2. Liabilities of State in Contracts and Torts?

Introduction

The liability of the State in torts and contracts is a fundamental aspect of administrative law,
determining when and how the government can be held accountable for wrongful acts or
contractual breaches. Unlike private individuals, the State enjoys certain immunities and privileges,
but it is also expected to function fairly and lawfully.

In India, the doctrine of sovereign immunity has historically protected the government from
lawsuits, but judicial decisions and statutory provisions have evolved to ensure that the State is not
above the law.

This topic is broadly divided into two parts:

1. State liability in torts (civil wrongs such as negligence, trespass, defamation)

2. State liability in contracts (agreements entered into by the government)

Liability of the State in Torts

Meaning of Tort

A tort is a civil wrong that results in injury or damage to another person, entitling the injured party
to compensation. Examples include negligence, defamation, trespass, and false imprisonment.
The liability of the State in tort arises when its actions, through its officers or employees, cause
harm to an individual. However, the key question is whether the wrongful act was performed in the
exercise of sovereign functions (which may be immune) or non-sovereign functions (which may
be liable).

26
Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

The principle that “the king can do no wrong” originated in English common law, granting
immunity to the Crown (government) from being sued.

Under Indian law, this doctrine has been modified to suit a democratic system, and the State is
now held responsible for non-sovereign functions.

Sovereign Functions (No Liability)

• Defense & national security

• Foreign affairs
• Law-making
• Administration of justice
• Taxation

Non-Sovereign Functions (Liability Exists)

• Commercial and industrial activities

• Public transport services
• Medical services
• Construction and maintenance of public infrastructure

Judicial Developments on State Liability in Torts

1. P & O Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India (1861)

• First major case on State liability in India.
• The government was held liable for the negligent act of its employees in running a ferry (a
commercial activity).
• Established the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions.

2. Kasturi Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965)

• Plaintiff’s gold was stolen by a police officer.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the police’s actions were sovereign functions, so the State
was not liable.
• Criticized for its regressive approach to sovereign immunity.

3. N. Nagendra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1994)

• The State was held liable for negligence in handling seized goods.
• The Court held that in a welfare state, sovereign immunity must be limited.

4. Common Cause v. Union of India (1999)

• Addressed negligence in government hospitals.
• State was held liable for medical negligence in public healthcare facilities.

5. State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962)

• A government driver negligently killed a pedestrian while driving an official vehicle.

27
 • The Supreme Court held the State liable, as driving a vehicle was a non-sovereign
function.

Liability of the State in Contracts

Legal Provisions

The Constitution of India, under Article 298 and Article 299, governs the contractual liability of
the government.

1. Article 298: Power to Carry on Trade & Business

• The Union and State governments have the power to enter into contracts and carry on
trade/business.
• The State can acquire, hold, and dispose of property just like any private entity.

2. Article 299: Manner of Execution of Contracts

• All government contracts must be executed in the name of the President (Central
Government) or Governor (State Government).
• Such contracts must be signed by an authorized officer.
• If these conditions are not met, the contract is legally unenforceable.

Judicial Developments on State Liability in Contracts

1. Chatturbhuj Vithaldas v. Moreshwar Parashram (1954)

• A government contract was not signed in the President’s name, making it void.
• The Supreme Court ruled that compliance with Article 299 is mandatory.

2. K.P. Chowdhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1966)

• The petitioner sought enforcement of an oral contract with the government.
• The Court ruled that an oral contract with the government is void, as Article 299
requires written contracts.

3. State of Bihar v. Karam Chand Thapar (1962)

• A government contract was terminated arbitrarily.
• The Court ruled that the State is bound by contractual obligations and cannot act
arbitrarily.

4. Union of India v. Rallia Ram (1964)

• Established that even if a contract is defective under Article 299, the claimant may
recover compensation for services already rendered under quantum meruit (unjust
enrichment).

5. D.G. & S.D. v. G.S. Rattan (1970)

• Reinforced that government contracts must be strictly in compliance with Article 299.

28
Distinction Between State Liability in Torts & Contracts

Aspect Torts Contracts

Legally binding agreement between the

Definition Civil wrong causing injury to a person government and a party

Legal Basis Judicial precedents and common law Articles 298 & 299 of the Constitution

Sovereign immunity applies in some No immunity—government contracts are

Immunity cases legally enforceable

Procedure Tort claims must be proven in court Contracts must comply with Article 299

Negligence by government hospitals,

Examples police brutality Breach of contract in infrastructure projects

Reforms & Suggestions

1. Limit Sovereign Immunity – The government should not escape liability for arbitrary or
negligent actions.
2. Improve Clarity in Contracts – All government contracts must strictly follow Article 299,
ensuring transparency.
3. Compensation Mechanism – A structured mechanism should be in place to compensate
victims of State negligence.
4. Strengthening Judicial Oversight – Courts must ensure that State liability is fair and
just.

Conclusion

The liability of the State in torts and contracts is an essential part of administrative law,
ensuring that government actions are accountable and just. While the doctrine of sovereign
immunity still applies in some areas, courts have progressively limited its scope, ensuring that
the government is liable in cases of negligence and contractual breaches.

A balance must be maintained between protecting essential sovereign functions and holding
the State accountable for wrongful acts, ensuring a just and fair legal system.

Q3. Lokpal and Lokayukta

The Lokpal and Lokayukta are statutory anti-corruption bodies in India, functioning as the
country’s Ombudsman system. The Lokpal investigates corruption allegations against public
officials at the national level, while the Lokayukta handles similar cases at the state level.
Established under the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013, these institutions aim to ensure
transparency, accountability, and integrity in public administration.

29
What are Lokpal and Lokayuktas?

The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, provided for the establishment of Lokpal for the Union and
Lokayukta for States. These institutions are statutory bodies without any constitutional status. They
perform the function of an "ombudsman" and inquire into allegations of corruption against certain
public functionaries and related matters.

Background of Formation of Lokpal and Lokayukta in India

Lokpal and Lokayukta are anti-corruption authorities established in India to investigate complaints
against public officials and ensure transparency and accountability. The Lokpal functions at the
central level, while the Lokayuktas operate in the states.

Their origin lies in the recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commission (1966), but
they gained prominence with the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, passed after widespread public
movements against corruption.
o The concept of ombudsman originated in 1809 in Sweden.
o In India, the former law minister Ashok Kumar Sen became the first Indian to propose the
concept of a constitutional Ombudsman in Parliament in the early 1960s.
o Further, Dr. L. M. Singhvi coined the term Lokpal and Lokayukta in 1963. Later, in the year
1966, the First Administrative Reform Commission passed recommendations regarding the
setting up of two independent authorities at the central and state levels.
o After the recommendations from the First Administrative Reform Commission, the Lokpal
bill was passed in Lok Sabha in 1968 but lapsed due to the dissolution of Lok Sabha. Since
then, the bill was introduced many times in Lok Sabha but has lapsed.
o Later, in 2002, the National Commission for Review of the Working of the Constitution
(NCRWC) recommended the appointment of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas. In 2005, the 2nd
Administrative Reform Commission(ARC) also recommended the same.
o The Anna Hazare movement, also known as the India Against Corruption (IAC) movement,
was led by social activist Anna Hazare, who began a hunger strike in April 2011 to demand
the creation of an independent, effective anti-corruption body known as the Lokpal.
o As a result of the movement, the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill was introduced in the Indian
parliament and passed into law in 2013.

About Lokpal

The Lokpal is a statutory anti-corruption authority at the central level, created under the Lokpal
and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. It acts as an ombudsman to inquire into allegations of corruption
against public functionaries, including ministers, Members of Parliament, and central government
officials.

Structure of the Lokpal

The Lokpal consists of a Chairperson and up to eight Members, of which 50% must be judicial
members. Additionally, at least 50% of the members must belong to SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, or

30
women, ensuring representation and diversity. Lokpal is a multi-member body consisting of one
Chairperson and a maximum of 8 members.

Component Details
Former Chief Justice of India, or
Former Judge of the Supreme Court, or
Eminent person with 25+ years experience in:
Anti-corruption policy
Chairperson
Public administration
Vigilance
Finance (incl. banking & insurance)
Law and management
Total Members Maximum 8 Members

50% of total members must be judicial

Judicial Members
Former SC Judge or Former Chief Justice of High Court

Eminent persons with 25+ years experience in anti-corruption,

Non-Judicial Members
vigilance, finance, law, or administration

Social Representation 50% of members must be from SC/ST/OBC/Minorities/Women

Tenure 5 years or till 70 years of age, whichever is earlier

Appointing Authority President of India

Prime Minister (Chairperson)

Speaker of Lok Sabha
Selection Committee Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
Chief Justice of India or nominated SC Judge
One eminent jurist

Search Committee At least 8 eminent persons short listing names for selection

Prime Minister, Union Ministers, MPs, and Central Government

Jurisdiction
employees (Groups A-D)

Lokpal Search Committee

The Lokpal Search Committee is an independent body formed to recommend potential candidates
for the positions of Chairperson and Members of Lokpal. It consists of at least seven persons of
eminence, drawn from various fields like public administration, law, anti-corruption, and social
service.
o Under the Lokpal Act 2013, DoPT compiles a list of candidates for Lokpal chairperson and
members.
o This list goes to the proposed 8-member search committee to shortlist names.
o The search committee sends the shortlisted names to the selection panel headed by the
PM.
o The selection panel can pick names from the search committee list or not.
o In 2018, a search committee headed by former SC judge Justice Desai was formed.
31
 o The Act mandates all states to establish the Lokayukta office within 1 year of the Act.

Lokpal Jurisdiction

o The Lokpal Act applies to a broad spectrum of public officials, including the Prime Minister,
ministers, MPs, and central government personnel in categories A, B, C, and D.
o According to the Act, "Lokpal must enquire or cause an investigation into any issue involved
in, resulting from, or connected with any accusation of corruption made in a complaint"
against the Prime Minister.
o However, a Lokpal investigation is not permitted if the charge against the Prime Minister
involves foreign relations, external and domestic security, public order, atomic energy, or
space.
o Furthermore, allegations against the Prime Minister will only be investigated once the
complete Lokpal bench recommends launching an investigation and at least two-thirds of
the members accept it.
o If an inquiry into the Prime Minister is held, it will be conducted in secret. If the Lokpal
decides that the complaint should be dismissed, the records of the investigation will not be
published or made available to the public.

Powers and Functions of Lokpal and Lokayukta in Administrative Law

Here are some key points about the powers and functions of Lokpal and Lokayukta:
o The Lokpal and Lokayuktas have the power to conduct independent investigations into
allegations of corruption against public functionaries.
o Lokpals have jurisdiction over the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, MPs, and Group A
officers of the Central Government. Lokayuktas have jurisdiction over public functionaries at
the state level.
o Lokpal and Lokayuktas can receive complaints related to corruption from individuals or any
other source.
o They can conduct preliminary inquiries to ascertain the veracity of the complaint and gather
initial evidence.
o If the preliminary inquiry establishes a prima facie case, the Lokpal or Lokayuktas can initiate
a full-fledged investigation. They have the power to summon witnesses, examine evidence,
and take necessary action.
o If the investigation reveals evidence of corruption, the Lokpal or Lokayuktas can initiate
prosecution against the accused public functionaries.
o They can recommend disciplinary action against public functionaries found guilty of
corruption. This can include removal from office, too.
o The Lokpal and Lokayuktas can recommend measures to improve transparency,
accountability, and integrity in public administration.
o They ensure the protection of whistleblowers who report corruption or misuse of power.
Whistleblowers are safeguarded against any harassment or victimization.

32
About Lokayuktas

Lokayuktas are state-level institutions. They deal with complaints related to corruption against
public functionaries at the state level.
o The Governor of the state appoints the Lokayuktas. The appointment process ensures their
independence and impartiality.
o They have jurisdiction over public functionaries in the state. This includes ministers, MLAs,
government officials, and local government representatives.
o The Lokayuktas have powers similar to those of Lokpal. This includes the power to receive
complaints, conduct investigations, and recommend action against corrupt officials.
o Lokayuktas promote transparency and accountability in state administration. This is by
addressing corruption-related grievances and suggesting measures for improving
governance.
o Lokayuktas act as watchdogs against corruption at the state level. They play a crucial role in
ensuring integrity in public administration and restoring faith in the government.

About the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, is an anti-corruption legislation enacted by the Parliament of
India. It establishes the institution of Lokpal at the central level and Lokayuktas at the state level.
The main objective of this Act is to inquire into allegations of corruption against public
functionaries and take necessary action.

Key Provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013

The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 forms the legal foundation for India’s anti-corruption
ombudsman.
o Establishes Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in States (mandatory within 1 year of the
Act).
o Jurisdiction: Includes Prime Minister (with certain restrictions), Union Ministers, MPs,
and central government employees (Groups A-D).
o Independent Inquiry & Investigation: Lokpal can direct CBI or any investigating
agency to conduct a probe.
o Asset Disclosure: Public servants and some NGOs receiving government or foreign funding
must declare assets and liabilities.
o Protection for Whistleblowers: Complaints can be filed confidentially, with safeguards for
informants.
o 2016 Amendment: Allowed the largest opposition party leader to join the selection
panel if no official LoP exists and revised asset declaration timelines.

Lokpal and Lokayukta Amendment Act, 2016

Following the adoption of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013, Parliament enacted a bill in July
2016 amending the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act.
o In the absence of a recognized Leader of the Opposition, this change allowed the leader of
the biggest opposition party in the Lok Sabha to become a selection committee member.

33
 o Section 44 of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013 was also changed by this Bill.
o Section 44 of the Act dealt with the need for each public official to provide information
about their assets and liabilities within 30 days of joining the government service.
o This modification replaced the 30-day time restriction. It specified that government
employees must declare their assets and liabilities in the form and manner prescribed by
the government.
o When a non-governmental organization gets more than Rs. 1 crore in government grants or
more than Rs. 10 lakh in foreign financing, the assets of the trustees and board members
must be revealed to the Lokpal.
o The Bill extended the deadline for trustees and board members to report their assets and
those of their spouses.

Limitations of the Act

Despite being a landmark anti-corruption reform, the Act faces implementation gaps:
o Delay in Appointments: Lokpal was constituted only in 2019, six years after the Act.
o Limited Jurisdiction on PM: Exemptions on issues of national security, foreign affairs,
and atomic energy limit effectiveness.
o Dependence on Existing Agencies: Lokpal relies on CBI and vigilance bodies, which can
affect autonomy.
o State-Level Variations: Several states delayed Lokayukta appointments or created weak
institutions.
o Low Public Awareness: Many citizens remain unaware of complaint procedures.

Effectiveness of the Lokpal and Lokayukta

To enhance the functioning and credibility of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas, experts suggest:
o Strengthening Autonomy: Provide independent investigation and prosecution wings.
o Timely Appointments: Ensure permanent Lokpal members and chairperson without
delay.
o Uniform State Lokayukta Standards: Establish model guidelines for all states.
o Digital Complaint Systems: Promote citizen-friendly portals for grievance registration
and tracking.
o Whistleblower Protection: Implement the Whistleblower Protection Act effectively.
o Regular Reporting to Parliament: Annual performance reports for public transparency.

Challenges Faced by Lokpal and Lokayuktas

Despite being a landmark in India’s anti-corruption framework, the Lokpal and Lokayukta
system faces several operational, legal, and structural challenges:
o Lokpal was constituted six years after the Act (2019), and key positions remain vacant in
many states. Weakens the timely handling of corruption complaints.
o Exemptions for cases related to national security, foreign relations, atomic energy, and
public order restrict the Lokpal’s effectiveness.
o Lokpal relies on CBI, CVC, and other agencies for inquiries. Lack of independent
investigative powers can dilute the impact of cases.

34
 o Several states delayed forming Lokayuktas or created weaker versions with limited
powers.
o The selection process is often delayed due to political disagreements,
affecting institutional credibility.
o Many citizens do not know the complaint procedure or Lokpal’s role, reducing the
number of effective petitions.
o Slow investigations and limited prosecution success undermine the deterrence factor.
o Though linked with the Whistleblower Protection Act, poor implementation leaves
informants vulnerable.
o Even after establishment, very few high-profile cases have been pursued, raising questions
about effectiveness.

Q4. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations

Doctrine of Legitimate expectations under administrative law

The principle of legitimate expectations means that expectations raised by administrative conduct
have to be respected and fulfilled, at least for the public interest, unless betterment demands
otherwise. And non-fulfillment can have some serious legal consequences. The main role played
by the courts in the entire transaction of this doctrine is to safeguard individuals’ expectations in
the face of changes in policy.

Legitimate expectation is a concept in administrative law that refers to the reasonable expectation
of a person or a group of people to be treated in a certain way by a public authority, such as a
government agency or a court. Legitimate expectations can arise from:
• An express promise or assurance made by the authority.
• A regular practice or policy of the authority.
• A legal provision or a general principle of law.

Legitimate expectations can be classified into two types:

• Procedural legitimate expectation: This is the expectation of a fair and transparent process
before a decision affecting one’s rights or interests is made by the authority. For example, a
person may have a legitimate expectation to be given a hearing or a notice before their license
is revoked.
• Substantive legitimate expectation: This is the expectation of a favorable outcome or a
benefit from the authority based on its promise, practice, or policy. For example, a person may
have a legitimate expectation to receive a grant or a subsidy if they meet the eligibility criteria.

Legitimate expectation is not an absolute right but a ground for judicial review of administrative
actions. If the authority breaches the legitimate expectation of a person or a group of people, the
court may intervene and order the authority to:
• Fulfill the legitimate expectation.
• Provide a valid justification for departing from the legitimate expectation.
• Compensate the affected person or group for the loss or damage caused by the breach.

35
Legitimate expectation is a dynamic and evolving concept that aims to protect the interests of the
people and promote good governance, accountability, and fairness in public administration.

Legitimate expectation under administrative law in India is similar to the concept in the UK, but
with some differences. According to the Supreme Court of India, a legitimate expectation is:
• A right that arises from the principles of natural justice, equity, and good conscience
• A reasonable and rational expectation of a person or a group of people from a public
authority based on its past actions, representations, or promises
• A flexible and pragmatic tool to ensure fairness and justice in administrative actions
• A ground for judicial review of administrative actions, but not a source of substantive rights

Some of the case laws that illustrate the concept of legitimate expectation in India are:

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a principle of administrative law that grants a person the
right to a fair hearing or a fair procedure when a public authority makes a decision affecting their
interests. The doctrine is based on the idea that a person who has a reasonable expectation of a
certain outcome from a public authority should not be disappointed by a sudden change of policy
or action by the authority.

In India, the doctrine of legitimate expectation was first recognized by the Supreme Court in the
case of Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society vs. Union of India (1992), where the court held
that the allottees of flats under a housing scheme had a legitimate expectation of getting
possession of the flats as per the terms and conditions of the scheme, and any arbitrary
cancellation of the allotment by the authority would violate their right to a fair hearing.

Some other cases where the doctrine of legitimate expectation was applied in India are:

• Union of India vs. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993): The court held that the
respondent company had a legitimate expectation of getting a renewal of its mining lease as
per the previous practice of the government, and the government’s refusal to renew the lease
without giving any reasons or hearing the company was arbitrary and unjust.
• Food Corporation of India vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993): The court held
that the appellant corporation had a legitimate expectation of getting a supply of rice bran
from the respondent industry as per the agreement between them, and the industry’s
unilateral termination of the agreement without any notice or opportunity to the corporation
was illegal and unfair.
• Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation vs. Subhash Sindhi
Cooperative Housing Society (2013): The court held that the respondent society had a
legitimate expectation of getting a lease of land from the appellant corporation as per the
allotment letter issued by the corporation, and the corporation’s cancellation of the allotment
on the ground of non-payment of dues without giving any notice or hearing to the society
was violative of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

36
Limitations or Restrictions of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

The restriction of legitimate expectation is a concept that limits the scope and application of the
doctrine of legitimate expectation in administrative law. The doctrine of legitimate expectation
grants a person the right to a fair hearing or a fair procedure when a public authority makes a
decision affecting their interests based on a reasonable expectation of a certain outcome from the
authority.

However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation is not an absolute or inflexible rule of law but a
flexible and pragmatic tool of justice. It is subject to certain restrictions, such as:
• The doctrine cannot override or contradict the statutory provisions or the public interest.
• The doctrine cannot create a substantive right or entitlement that does not exist in law.
• The doctrine cannot be invoked to challenge a policy decision or a legislative act of the
government.
• The doctrine cannot be based on an illegal, irrational, or unreasonable expectation.
• The doctrine cannot be applied retrospectively to nullify a valid decision or action of the
authority.
These restrictions are meant to balance the interests of the individual and the authority and to
prevent the abuse or misuse of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

Some of the cases where the restriction of legitimate expectation was applied are:

• Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Krishna Kant (1995): The Supreme Court
held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to challenge the policy
decision of the government to abolish the post of General Manager in the corporation, as it
was a matter of public interest and administrative efficiency, and the petitioner had no legal
right or entitlement to the post.
• Reliance Energy Ltd. vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. (2007):
The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot create a
substantive right or entitlement in favour of the respondent company to get the contract for
the construction of a bridge, as it was subject to the statutory provisions and the competitive
bidding process, and the appellant corporation had the discretion to award the contract to the
best bidder.
• State of Bihar vs. Bihar Distillery Ltd. (1997): The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of
legitimate expectation cannot be based on an illegal or irrational expectation, and the
respondent company had no legitimate expectation of getting a renewal of its license to
manufacture liquor, as it was contrary to the prohibition policy of the state government and
the public interest.

Conclusion:

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is a principle of administrative law that grants a person the
right to a fair hearing or a fair procedure when a public authority makes a decision affecting their
interests. The doctrine is based on the idea that a person who has a reasonable expectation of a
certain outcome from a public authority should not be disappointed by a sudden change of policy
or action by the authority.

37
Q5. Right to Information

Introduction:

Administrative law is a branch of public law that regulates the activities of government
administrative agencies. It concerns the organization, powers, duties and functions of public
authorities, as well as the procedures followed by them. Administrative law guarantees the legality
of administrative acts, aims to ensure justice and transparency in decision-making, prevents abuse
of power and provides legal remedies for those affected by administrative acts. This area of law
plays a crucial role in regulating the relationship between individuals and government agencies,
ensuring that the latter act within their authority. It includes various principles, such as natural
justice, the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights, and includes judicial review of
administrative decisions to check arbitrary or unjust actions.

The Right to Information Act (RTI), enacted in 2005, is a landmark law in India that aims to
promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities. It allows citizens
to request information from government agencies, thus promoting an informed citizenry and
helping to curb corruption. The law covers a wide range of public authorities at the central and
state level and requires that information be publicly available, unless it falls under specific
exceptions related to national security, privacy or other sensitive matters.

The RTI Act is an important tool for strengthening democracy, as it gives individuals the right to
access information held by public authorities, thereby promoting openness and strengthening
government accountability. The Act also provides remedial mechanisms against nondisclosure of
information and has led to a move towards a more transparent administrative system in India.

Administrative law governs the activities of government agencies and officials. The Right to
Information Act plays an important role in ensuring that the exercise of administrative powers is
Transparent and accountable to the public. This explores the relationship between Administrative
law and the RTI Act, examining how the law enables citizens to scrutinize public Officials and their
decisions.
• Wade, H.W.R., and Forsyth, C.F. Administrative laws (ed. 11). Oxford University Press.
• Mishra, S.K (2010). The right to information: a key to good governance. Transparency
International India.

The Role of Administrative Law in the RTI Regime

The Right to Information Act (RTI), enacted in 2005, marks a significant shift in governance by
promoting transparency and accountability in public administration. Administrative law plays a
critical role in the RTI regime, as it establishes the legal framework within which government
agencies operate. This article examines how administrative law underpins the RTI framework,
ensuring that citizens have the right to access information and hold public authorities accountable.

1. Foundations of the RTI Act

The RTI Act aims to Authority citizens by providing them with the right to access information
held by public authorities. It complements administrative law principles by enforcing the idea
38
 that transparency is essential for a functional democracy. Administrative law regulates how
decisions are made, ensuring that the processes involved in governance are fair and open.

2. Legal Framework and Public Accountability

Administrative law establishes the principles of legality, fairness, and reasonableness in the
exercise of public power. These principles are crucial for the effective implementation of the RTI
Act, as they guide public authorities in handling information requests. The obligation of
government agencies to provide information is rooted in these administrative law principles,
reinforcing the accountability of public officials.

3. Judicial Interpretations and Precedents

Judicial interpretations of the RTI Act have often drawn upon administrative law principles.
Courts have emphasized the need for transparency in administrative processes and have
interpreted the RTI Act in ways that enhance citizens’ rights to access information. Landmark
judgments, such as Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash
Chandra Agarwal (2019), illustrate the judiciary's role in reinforcing the link between
administrative law and the RTI framework.

4. Challenges and Barriers

Despite its strengths, the implementation of the RTI Act faces challenges, including bureaucratic
resistance and inadequate awareness among citizens. Administrative law provides mechanisms
to address these barriers, ensuring that public authorities are held accountable for their
compliance with the RTI Act. Legal recourse is available for citizens who face denial of
information, further emphasizing the role of administrative law in protecting citizens’ rights.

Judicial Interpretations and the Evolution of the Right to Information in India

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 represents a significant milestone in the journey toward
transparency and accountability in governance in India. Rooted in the principles of democracy and
the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, the RTI Act empowers citizens to seek
information from public authorities, thereby enhancing the Participatory nature of governance.

Historical Context

The evolution of the RTI Act can be traced back to the social movements advocating for
transparency and accountability in government operations. Prior to its enactment, various states
had already initiated measures to promote information access through state-level RTI laws.
However, the national framework established by the 2005 Act marked a transformative shift in the
legal landscape.

Judicial Interpretations

The judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting the provisions of the RTI Act, thus shaping its
application and ensuring its effectiveness. Landmark judgments by the Supreme Court of India and
various High Courts have clarified the scope and limitations of the RTI Act.

39
1. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011): This pivotal case
established that educational institutions affiliated with the government fall under the purview of
the RTI Act. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for transparency in educational
institutions, recognizing that access to information is vital for the public interest.

2. CBSE v. Gopinath Ghosh (2012): In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of
the RTI Act in ensuring accountability among public authorities. The court ruled that information
must be disclosed unless it falls within specific exemptions, thereby reinforcing the principle of
maximum disclosure.

3. Secretary, Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal (2005): This judgment highlighted
that the right to information is fundamental to the right to free speech and expression under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that transparency is essential for
democracy and accountability.

Impact on Governance

Judicial interpretations have significantly impacted the effectiveness of the RTI Act. The courts have
consistently upheld the right to access information, interpreting the Act in a manner that
encourages public participation and accountability. This has led to increased awareness among
citizens regarding their rights and has empowered them to question government actions.

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite the positive impact of judicial interpretations, challenges remain. Issues such as
bureaucratic resistance, lack of awareness among citizens, and concerns over misuse of the RTI Act
for harassment are prevalent. The judiciary must continue to address these challenges through
progressive interpretations and by emphasizing the need for robust implementation of the Act.

• Right to Information Act, 2005, No. 22, Acts of Parliament, 2005 (India).
• Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 3 SCC 32.
• CBSE v. Gopinath Ghosh, (2012) 8 SCC 115.
• Secretary, Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 674.

The right to information and administrative law in a global context

The Right to Information Act (RTI) has become a vital tool to promote transparency and
accountability in governance around the world. Although many countries have implemented their
own versions of RTI legislation, the principles underlying these laws are often aligned with the
basic principles of administrative law. This article examines the interaction between RTI and
administrative law in a global context, highlighting key features, challenges and lessons learned
from different jurisdictions.

40
Global Perspective on RTI

The concept of the right to access information is rooted in the belief that citizens have the right to
know how their government works. Countries such as Sweden and the United States have been
pioneers in establishing access to information laws, with Sweden enacting its Freedom of the Press
Act in 1766 and the United States implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966.
These laws laid the foundations for subsequent RTI frameworks, emphasizing the public’s right to
access information held by the government.

In many countries, RTI laws have been integrated into broader administrative legal frameworks
governing the actions of public authorities. For example, the United Kingdom Freedom of
Information Act 2000 provides a legal mechanism for citizens to request information from public
bodies, ensuring that these bodies remain accountable for their actions5. This alignment between
the principles of RTI and administrative law reinforces the idea that transparency is essential for
good governance.

Salient features of RTI laws

RTI laws generally share common features, including:

Priority of public interest: Most RTI legislations allow disclosure of information if it serves public
interest, even if it falls under an exempt category.

Timely responses: Governments are generally required to respond to information requests within a
specific time frame, which promotes efficiency and accountability. Appeal mechanisms: Right to
information laws often include provisions for appealing decisions when requests for information
are denied, ensuring that citizens can seek redress.

Countries like India, with its Right to Information Act of 2005, illustrate how the right to
information can significantly improve transparency. The law allows citizens to request information
from public authorities, thus promoting greater public participation in governance.

Challenges in implementation

Despite the successes of right to information laws around the world, challenges remain. Problems
such as bureaucratic resistance, lack of citizen awareness and insufficient resources to implement
the provisions of the right to information often prevent effective access to information. In addition,
the rise of digital governance presents both opportunities and challenges. While online platforms
can facilitate access to information, they can also exacerbate the digital divide, limiting access for
marginalized populations.

Lessons learned from global practices

Experiences from different countries provide valuable insights to improve the right to information
frameworks. For example:

41
Public Awareness Campaigns: Countries such as Mexico have successfully implemented public
awareness campaigns to inform citizens of their rights under Right to Information laws, thereby
increasing usage and engagement.

How the RTI Act strengthens public participation

The RTI Act, 2005 plays a vital role in enhancing public participation in governance. By giving
citizens the legal right to access information held by public authorities, the RTI Act enables
individuals to be more informed and participate more in decision-making processes. This
transparency strengthens accountability and promotes a form of participatory governance.

1. Improve transparency
The RTI Act requires public authorities to disclose information about their operations,
including policies, procedures and decisionmaking processes. This ensures that government
activities are open to review, allowing citizens to understand how and why decisions are made.
In return, this transparency favors a more informed public debate about government actions.

2. Empowerment of citizens
One of the most significant impacts of the RTI Act is the empowerment it gives to ordinary
citizens. With access to government data, individuals can hold officials accountable for their
actions. This right to information allows citizens to seek answers to problems that directly
affect their lives, such as the distribution of resources, the implementation of social protection
programs and the provision of public services.

3. Promotion of public participation in decision making

The RTI Act promotes public participation by allowing citizens to gather information about
government projects and initiatives. Informed citizens are in a better position to provide
constructive feedback on government policies and suggest improvements. This participatory
approach helps to bridge the gap between the government and the governed, thereby
promoting a more democratic and inclusive environment.

4. The fight against corruption

By making government processes more transparent, the right to information law is a powerful
tool in the fight against corruption. When citizens can easily obtain information about the use
of public funds, it becomes more difficult for officials to engage in corrupt practices. This
transparency discourages misconduct and builds public trust in government institutions.

5. Facilitation of social audits

The RTI Act also allowed for the practice of social audit, where citizens could use the
information obtained under the Act to evaluate the performance of government projects.
These audits ensure that public funds are spent efficiently and that projects achieve their
intended goals. Such initiatives allow the public to actively monitor and evaluate government
performance.

42
 6. Strengthening democratic processes
In a democracy, public participation is essential for the legitimacy of government actions. The
RTI Act strengthens democratic processes. empowering citizens to question authorities,
demand transparency and influence decision making. This participatory governance model
helps to create a more responsive and accountable government.

Ensuring Government Accountability in India

Government accountability is a cornerstone of any democratic society and in India, the Right to
Information (RTI) Act, 2005 has become a powerful tool to ensure transparency in administration.
The RTI Act allows citizens to request information from public authorities, thereby fostering an
environment in which government actions are subject to public scrutiny. This right plays an
essential role in the fight against corruption, improving the provision of public services and
strengthening democracy by making the operation of the government more open and
accountable.

Role of the RTI Act in promoting transparency

The RTI Act allows citizens to access information about decisions and processes in public offices,
thus ensuring that the government is accountable to the people. By providing a mechanism to
seek information, it creates pressure on civil servants to adhere to the principles of transparency
and ethical governance. For example, an individual can submit a Freedom of Information request
to obtain make decisions, ensuring that these processes are fair, transparent and legal. Applying
the principles of natural justice, administrative law ensures that the government acts within its
authority and provides legal remedies when citizens are harmed by administrative decisions.
Indian courts have strengthened the link between administrative law and the RTI Act through
various decisions, ensuring that public authorities follow the spirit of the law. For example, in
Central Information Commission v. State of Manipur (2011), the courts emphasized the importance
of prompt and complete responses to RTI requests, ensuring greater accountability of public
servants.

Challenges and obstacles

Despite its success, the RTI Act faces many challenges in its implementation. Bureaucratic delays,
reluctance to provide information and lack of awareness among citizens represent significant
obstacles to the effective use of the law. In addition, the law faces obstacles in the digital age,
where large volumes of data and the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in governance
present new challenges to transparency.

On the other hand, some public authorities abuse the exceptions provided by the law, for example
invoking “national security” or “confidentiality” as reasons to deny access to information, which
undermines the objective of the law. Continued monitoring and legal reform is needed to address
these issues and ensure that the RTI Act remains an effective accountability tool.

43
The way forward

To strengthen the accountability of the government through the RTI Act, several steps should be
taken. First, public awareness campaigns are essential to ensure that more citizens understand
their right to access information. Next, administrative reforms are needed to reduce response
times to RTI requests and make officials accountable for non-compliance. Finally, with the advent
of digital governance, it is essential to develop legal guarantees that ensure that the use of AI and
other technologies in public administration does not impede the transparency guaranteed by the
RTI Act .

In conclusion, the Right to Information Act has proven to be a transformative law in promoting
government accountability in India. However, continuous efforts are needed to overcome the
challenges and obstacles for its effective implementation. By improving public access to
information and ensuring administrative transparency, the RTI Act can further strengthen
democratic governance in India.

CONCLUSION

The relationship between administrative law and the Right to Information (RTI) Act is essential to
foster transparency, accountability and good governance in India. The RTI Act gives power to
citizens, allowing access to information, as well as a tool to monitor administrative actions and
ensure that public officials are accountable. Administrative law provides the legal framework in
which these principles of transparency and accountability are respected, thus strengthening the
rule of law.

However, effective implementation of the RTI Act faces many challenges, including bureaucratic
resistance, procedural delays and technological barriers, especially in the era of rapid digitization.
As government increasingly adopts digital governance and artificial intelligence for administrative
processes, it is essential to reassess existing legal frameworks to ensure they remain strong in
promoting transparency. Addressing these challenges will require a collaborative approach
involving advocates, policy makers, technologists and civil society organizations. By doing so, the
RTI Act can continue to serve as an essential tool to promote democratic governance and protect
citizens’ right to access information. Ensuring that administrative law evolves along with
technological advances is essential to maintain accountability and public trust in government
institutions.

44