Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
A.V. Dicey, in his seminal work ‘Law of the Constitution’ (1885), propounded three pillars of the Rule of Law: supremacy of law, equality before the law, and the primacy of judge-made law. These principles, while foundational, were formulated in a context largely devoid of the expansive administrative state that characterizes modern governance. The 20th and 21st centuries have witnessed a proliferation of administrative agencies wielding quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers, necessitating a re-evaluation and expansion of traditional legal frameworks. Consequently, the journey of administrative law has demonstrably moved much beyond Dicey’s original formulation, incorporating principles of fairness, accountability, and proportionality.
The Diceyan Framework: A Historical Context
Dicey’s Rule of Law emphasized the absence of arbitrary power and the importance of clear, predictable laws applied equally to all. He was critical of administrative discretion and preferred the rigidity of common law principles. His view was that law should be made by Parliament, not by administrative bodies. This perspective reflected a time when the state’s role was primarily limited to maintaining law and order and providing essential public services.
The Rise of the Administrative State and its Challenges
The Industrial Revolution and subsequent socio-economic changes led to an expansion of state intervention. This resulted in the creation of administrative agencies to regulate complex areas like public utilities, transportation, and social welfare. This expansion presented challenges to Dicey’s principles:
- Delegated Legislation: Parliament began delegating legislative power to administrative bodies, challenging the supremacy of law as traditionally understood.
- Administrative Discretion: Agencies were granted discretionary powers to implement policies, potentially leading to arbitrariness.
- Judicial Review Limitations: Traditional courts were initially reluctant to review administrative actions, fearing interference with executive functions.
Evolution of Administrative Law Beyond Dicey
Administrative law evolved to address these challenges, moving beyond Dicey’s framework in several key ways:
1. Judicial Review and its Expansion
The concept of judicial review of administrative action gained prominence. Landmark cases like Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1984) (UK) established principles like illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety as grounds for judicial review. In India, Article 226 of the Constitution provides for writs to challenge administrative actions. The development of specialized tribunals like the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 1985 further facilitated judicial oversight.
2. Principles of Natural Justice
The principles of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause) were incorporated into administrative decision-making, ensuring fairness and impartiality. These principles, while having roots in common law, were actively applied to administrative proceedings, mitigating the risk of arbitrary action.
3. Legitimate Expectation and Proportionality
Modern administrative law recognizes the doctrine of legitimate expectation, where individuals have a right to be heard when administrative decisions affect their established rights or interests. The principle of proportionality, borrowed from European administrative law, requires that administrative actions be proportionate to the objective being achieved, preventing excessive or unreasonable interference with individual rights.
4. Transparency and Accountability Mechanisms
The Right to Information Act, 2005, in India, exemplifies the growing emphasis on transparency and accountability in administrative processes. Administrative Procedure Acts (like the US Administrative Procedure Act, 1946) mandate public notice and comment periods for proposed regulations, fostering public participation and scrutiny.
Comparative Perspective
| Feature | Diceyan Rule of Law | Modern Administrative Law |
|---|---|---|
| Role of State | Minimal intervention | Extensive regulatory role |
| Law-making | Parliamentary supremacy | Delegated legislation by agencies |
| Judicial Review | Limited scope | Expanded scope, including review of administrative discretion |
| Fairness | Emphasis on formal equality | Emphasis on procedural fairness and substantive justice |
Conclusion
In conclusion, while Dicey’s principles remain relevant as foundational tenets of the Rule of Law, administrative law has evolved significantly to address the complexities of the modern administrative state. The incorporation of principles like judicial review, natural justice, legitimate expectation, proportionality, and transparency mechanisms demonstrates a clear departure from Dicey’s original formulation. The journey of administrative law is ongoing, continually adapting to new challenges and striving to balance efficiency, fairness, and accountability in governance.
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.