Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The ‘rule of law’ is a foundational principle of governance, signifying that all individuals and institutions are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated. It’s not merely the absence of arbitrary rule but a system that guarantees fairness, predictability, and protection of rights. Often, administrative actions – the decisions and actions of government bodies – are perceived as potential threats to this principle due to their discretionary nature. However, a closer examination reveals that administrative powers can operate within the framework of the rule of law, contributing to its strengthening, rather than undermining it. This response will explore this interplay with relevant examples.
Understanding the Rule of Law
The rule of law, as articulated by Dicey, comprises the principles of equality before the law, absence of arbitrary power, and the supremacy of the law. It encompasses procedural fairness, accountability, and transparency in governance. The Indian Constitution, particularly Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22, embodies these principles. However, the exercise of administrative power often involves discretionary decisions, creating a potential conflict with the rule of law.
Administrative Actions and the Rule of Law: A Symbiotic Relationship
Administrative actions, while wielding considerable power, are not inherently antithetical to the rule of law. Several mechanisms ensure their alignment with legal principles:
- Statutory Frameworks: Most administrative actions are authorized and constrained by legislation. For example, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governs licensing and traffic regulations, limiting the discretion of transport authorities.
- Judicial Review: Article 226 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs to restrain administrative action that is arbitrary, malafide, or violates constitutional principles. This acts as a crucial check.
- Principles of Natural Justice: Administrative bodies are expected to follow the principles of natural justice – audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause) – ensuring fairness in decision-making.
- Transparency and Accountability: The Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, promotes transparency in administrative processes, making them more accountable.
Illustrative Examples
Example 1: Land Acquisition
Historically, land acquisition by the government faced criticism for being arbitrary. However, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (RFCT Act) significantly altered the landscape. It mandates public consultations, fair compensation, and rehabilitation plans, aligning land acquisition with the rule of law by ensuring due process and citizen participation.
Example 2: Regulatory Bodies
Regulatory bodies like the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) exercise administrative powers to regulate their respective sectors. Their decisions, while discretionary, are subject to judicial review and must be consistent with their statutory mandates and principles of fairness. For instance, TRAI’s decisions on spectrum allocation are often challenged in courts, ensuring adherence to legal principles.
Example 3: Disaster Management
During natural disasters, administrative actions like evacuation orders and price controls are necessary. These actions, while restrictive, are justifiable if they are proportionate, reasonable, and aimed at protecting public safety and welfare – embodying the rule of law’s objective of promoting the common good.
Potential Conflicts and Mitigation
Despite the mechanisms mentioned above, conflicts can arise. Overreach of administrative power, lack of transparency, and biases can undermine the rule of law. To mitigate these, strengthening judicial review, enhancing administrative training on constitutional values, and promoting citizen engagement are crucial. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) has repeatedly emphasized the importance of these aspects.
| Aspect | Potential Conflict | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Discretionary Power | Arbitrary decisions, bias | Clear guidelines, judicial review |
| Lack of Transparency | Opacity, corruption | RTI Act implementation, e-governance |
| Natural Justice | Unfair decisions, denial of hearing | Mandatory adherence to principles, training |
Conclusion
In conclusion, administrative actions are not inherently in conflict with the rule of law. While possessing significant power, they operate within a framework of statutory authority, judicial oversight, and constitutional principles. The examples of land acquisition reforms and regulatory body functions demonstrate how administrative powers can be aligned with the rule of law. Continuous efforts towards transparency, accountability, and adherence to natural justice are essential to ensure that administrative actions strengthen, rather than undermine, the rule of law, ultimately contributing to a just and equitable society.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.