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 common law over arbitrary power. However, the 20th and 21st centuries witnessed a significant expansion of state functions, leading to the rise of administrative agencies and a corresponding growth in administrative law. This evolution has demonstrably moved beyond Dicey’s original formulation, incorporating principles of fairness, proportionality, and accountability that were largely absent in his classical liberal framework. The journey reflects a shift from a purely legalistic approach to a more pragmatic and justice-oriented system.
The Diceyan Framework: A Recap
Dicey’s Rule of Law emphasized a system where law was supreme, applied equally to all, and derived from judicial precedents established by the ordinary courts. He was skeptical of administrative discretion and preferred a system governed by rigid legal rules. He believed that any deviation from this would lead to arbitrariness and potential tyranny. This perspective was rooted in the context of 19th-century England, where the administrative state was relatively limited.
The Rise of the Administrative State and its Challenges
The 20th century saw a dramatic increase in the scope of government intervention in economic and social life. This led to the creation of numerous administrative agencies – regulatory bodies, tribunals, and departments – tasked with implementing complex legislation. This expansion presented challenges to Dicey’s principles:
- Delegated Legislation: Parliament increasingly delegated law-making power to administrative agencies, challenging the supremacy of law as traditionally understood.
- Discretionary Powers: Administrative agencies were granted broad discretionary powers, potentially leading to arbitrariness, a concern central to Dicey’s critique.
- Specialized Tribunals: The establishment of specialized tribunals to handle administrative disputes deviated from the principle of equality before the law, as they operated outside the traditional court system.
Evolution of Administrative Law Beyond Dicey
Administrative law responded to these challenges by developing principles and mechanisms to control administrative power and ensure fairness:
- Judicial Review: Courts began to actively review administrative actions to ensure they were lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair. Landmark cases like Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1984) (UK), established principles of judicial review. In India, Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution provide for judicial review of administrative actions.
- 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.
- Legitimate Expectation: Courts recognized the principle of legitimate expectation, holding that administrative bodies should not frustrate reasonable expectations created by their past practices or assurances.
- Proportionality: A more recent development, proportionality requires that administrative actions be proportionate to the objective they seek to achieve, avoiding excessive or unreasonable interference with individual rights.
- Transparency and Accountability: The Right to Information Act, 2005 (India) exemplifies the growing emphasis on transparency and accountability in administrative processes.
Comparative Perspective: Administrative Law in Different Jurisdictions
The evolution of administrative law has varied across jurisdictions, but the trend has been towards greater control of administrative power.
| Jurisdiction | Key Features |
|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Developed through common law; strong emphasis on judicial review; procedural fairness. |
| United States | Administrative Procedure Act (1946) provides a statutory framework for administrative rulemaking and adjudication; emphasis on public participation. |
| France | Conseil d'État (Council of State) plays a central role in judicial review of administrative action; emphasis on legality and public interest. |
| India | Constitutional framework (Articles 32 & 226); Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; increasing emphasis on proportionality and accountability. |
Conclusion
The journey of administrative law has undeniably moved beyond A.V. Dicey’s original formulation. While Dicey’s principles remain relevant as foundational tenets of the Rule of Law, modern administrative law has adapted to the complexities of the administrative state by incorporating principles of fairness, proportionality, and accountability. This evolution reflects a pragmatic response to the challenges of governing in a modern society, ensuring that administrative power is exercised lawfully, reasonably, and in the public interest. The continued refinement of administrative law is crucial for maintaining a balance between effective governance and the protection of individual rights.
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.