Administrative Laws

The decision exercised by administrative authorities are treated as abuse of discretion in the following circumstances:

1.Mala fides : If the discretionary power is exercised by the authority with bad faith or dishonest intention, the action is quashed by the court. Malafide exercise of discretionary power is always bad and taken as abuse of discretion.

2.Irrelevant considerations : If a statute confers power for one purpose, its use for a different purpose is not regarded as a valid exercise of power and is likely to be quashed by the courts. If the administrative authority takes into account factors, circumstances or events wholly irrelevant or extraneous to the purpose mentioned in the statute, then the administrative action is vitiated.

3.Leaving out relevant considerations : The administrative authority exercising the discretionary power is required to take into account all the relevant facts. If it leaves out relevant consideration, its action will be invalid.

4.Arbitrary orders : The order made should be based on facts and cogent reasoning and not on the whims and fancies of the adjudicatory authority.

5.Improper purpose : The discretionary power is required to be used for the purpose for which it has been given. If it is given for one purpose and used for another purpose it will amount to abuse of power.

6.Colourable exercise of power : Where the discretionary power is exercised by the authority on which it has been conferred ostensibly for the purpose for which it has been given but in reality for some other purpose, it is taken as colourable exercise of the discretionary power and it is declared invalid.

7.Non-compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice:

If the procedural requirement laid down in the statute is mandatory and it is not complied, the exercise of power will be bad. Whether the procedural requirement is mandatory or directory is decided by the court. Principles of natural justice are also required to be observed.

8.Exceeding jurisdiction : The authority is required to exercise the power within the limits or the statute. Consequently, if the authority exceeds this limit, its action will be held to be ultra vires and, therefore, void.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2019, Q. 6A(ii) (Syllabus 2017).

Administrative discretion means the freedom of an administrative authority to choose from amongst various alternatives but with reference to rules of reason and justice and not according to personal whims. The exercise of discretion should not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular.

No law can clothe administrative action with a complete finality even if the law says so, for the courts always examine the ambit and even the mode of its exercise to check its conformity with fundamental rights. The conditions where the authority has not exercised its discretion properly or is charged with abuse of discretion and judicial review may be exercised which are as follows:

(a)Mala fides: If the discretionary power is exercised by the authority with bad faith or dishonest intention, the action is quashed by the court. Malafide exercise of discretionary power is always bad and taken as abuse of discretion. Malafide (bad faith) may be taken to mean dishonest intention or corrupt motive. In relation to the exercise of statutory powers, it may be said to comprise dishonesty (or fraud) and malice.

A power is exercised fraudulently if its repository intends to achieve an object other than that for which he believes the power to have been conferred. The intention may be to promote another public interest or private interest.

(b)Irrelevant considerations: If a statute confers power for one purpose, its use for a different purpose is not regarded as a valid exercise of power and is likely to be quashed by the courts.

If the administrative authority takes into account factors, circumstances or events wholly irrelevant or extraneous to the purpose mentioned in the statute, then the administrative action is vitiated.

(c)Leaving out relevant considerations: The administrative authority exercising the discretionary power is required to take into account all the relevant facts. If it leaves out relevant consideration, its action will be invalid.

(d)Arbitrary orders: The order made should be based on facts and cogent reasoning and not on the whims and fancies of the adjudicatory authority.

(e)Improper purpose: The discretionary power is required to be used for the purpose for which it has been given. If it is given for one purpose and used for another purpose, it will amount to abuse of power.

(f)Colourable exercise of power: Where the discretionary power is exercised by the authority on which it has been conferred ostensibly for the purpose for which it has been given but in reality for some other purpose, it is taken as colourable exercise of the discretionary power and it is declared invalid.

(g)Non-compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice: If the procedural requirement laid down in the statute is mandatory and it is not complied, the exercise of power will be bad. Whether the procedural requirement is mandatory or directory is decided by the court. Principles of natural justice are also required to be observed.

(h)Exceeding jurisdiction: The authority is required to exercise the power within the limits of the statute. Consequently, if the authority exceeds this limit, its action will be held to be ultra vires and, therefore, void.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2024, Q. 2A(iv) (Syllabus 2017).

The courts in India control the exercise of administrative discretion, which can be grouped under two broad heads:

1.Authority has not exercised its discretion properly- ‘abuse of discretion’.

2.Authority is deemed not to have exercised its discretion at all- ‘non-application of mind’.

Abuse of Discretion

(i)Mala fides: it means dishonest intention or corrupt motive. If the discretionary power exercised by authority with bad faith or dishonest intention, the action is quashed by the court. The intention may be to promote another public interest or private interest.

(ii)Irrelevant considerations: if the administrative authority takes into account factors, circumstances or events wholly irrelevant or extraneous to the purpose mentioned in the statute, then administrative action is vitiated / likely to be quashed by the courts.

(iii)Leaving out relevant considerations: The administrative authority who is required to take into account all the relevant facts, if leaves relevant consideration, its action will be invalid.

(iv)Arbitrary orders: The order made should be based on facts and cogent reasoning and not on the whims and fancies of the adjudicatory authority.

(v)Improper purpose: The discretionary power is required to be used for the purpose for which it has been given. If it is given for one purpose and used for another purpose it will amount to abuse of power.

(vi)Colourable exercise of power: Where the discretionary power is exercised by the authority on which it has been conferred ostensibly for the purpose for which it has been given but in reality for some other purpose, it is taken as colourable exercise of the discretionary power and it is declared invalid.

(vii)Non-compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice: If the procedural requirement laid down in the statute is mandatory and it is not complied, the exercise of power will be bad. Whether the procedural requirement is mandatory or directory is decided by the court.

Principles of natural justice are also required to be observed.

(viii)Exceeding jurisdiction: The authority is required to exercise the power within the limits of the statute. Consequently, if the authority exceeds this limit, its action will be held to be ultra vires and, therefore, void.

Non-application of mind

(i)Acting under dictation: Where the authority exercises its discretionary power under the instructions/dictation from superior authority, in such condition in substance the power is not exercised by it but by the other authority. Such decision or action is bad.

(ii)Self-restriction: The authority entrusted with discretionary power is required to exercise it after considering the individual cases and should not impose fetters on it discretion by adopting fixed rule of policy to be applied rigidly to all cases coming before it. Such decision or action will be bad.

(iii)Acting mechanically and without due care: It will render the decision bad in law.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2023, Q. 6A(ii) (Syllabus 2022).

The government cannot function without the exercise of some discretion by its officials. It is necessary because it is humanly impossible to lay down a rule for every conceivable eventuality that may arise in day-to-day affairs of the government. It is, however, equally true that discretion is prone to abuse. The exercise of discretion should not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular. Therefore there needs to be a system in place to ensure that administrative discretion is exercised in the right manner.

Administration has become a highly complicated job needing a good deal of flexibility apart from technical knowledge, expertise and know-how. Freedom to choose from various alternatives allows the administration to fashion its best response to various situations.

If a certain rule is found to be unsuitable in practice, the administration can change, amend or abrogate it without much delay.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2022, Q. 6(b) (Syllabus 2017).

Administrative law is the by-product of ever increasing functions of the Governments.

States are no longer police states, limited to maintaining internal order and protecting from external threats. These, no doubt continue to be the basic functions but a state that is limited to this traditional role will de-legitimize itself.

With the rise of political consciousness, the citizens of a state are no longer satisfied with the state's provisioning of traditional services. The modern state is, therefore, striving to be a welfare state.

It has taken the task to improve social and economic conditions of its people. It involves undertaking a large number of complex tasks. Development produces economic and social changes and creates challenges in the field of health, education, pollution, inequality etc. These complex problems cannot be solved except with the growth of administration. States have also taken over a number of functions, which were previously left to private enterprise. All this has led to the origin and the growth of administrative law.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2021, Q. 6(a) (Syllabus 2017).

The rule of audi alteram partem is the rule of fair hearing . The principle of natural justice is audi alteram partem (hear the other side) i.e. no one should be condemned unheard. It requires that both sides should be heard before passing the order. This rule implies that a person against whom an order to his prejudice is passed should be given information as to the charges against him and should be given an opportunity to submit his explanation thereto.

Following are the ingredients of the rule of fair hearing:

(a)Right to notice : Hearing starts with the notice by the authority concerned to the affected person.

(b)Right to present case and evidence

(c)Right to rebut adverse evidence

(d)Disclosure of evidence

(e)Reasoned decision: When the adjudicatory bodies give reasons in support of their decisions, the decisions are treated as reasoned decision.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2018, Q. 6A(iii) (Syllabus 2017).

It is the task of administrative law to ensure that the governmental functions are exercised according to law and legal principles and rules of reason and justice. The goal of administrative law is to ensure that the individual is not at receiving end of state's administrative power and in cases where the individual is aggrieved by any action of the administration, he or she can get it redressed. There is no antithesis between an effective government and controlling the exercise of administrative powers. Administrative powers are exercised by thousands of officials and affect millions of people. Administrative efficiency cannot be the end-all of administrative powers and the interests of people must be at the centre of any conferment of administrative power. If exercised properly, the vast powers of the administration may lead to the welfare state; but, if abused, they may lead to administrative despotism and a totalitarian state.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2022, Q. 4(d) (Syllabus 2017).

Though the normal rule is that a person who is affected by administrative action is entitled to claim natural justice, that requirement may be excluded under certain exceptional circumstances as mentioned below:

1.Statutory Exclusion : The principle of natural justice may be excluded by the statutory provision. Where the statute expressly provides for the observance of the principles of natural justice, the provision is treated as mandatory and the authority is bound by it. Where the statute is silent as to the observance of the principle of natural justice, such silence is taken to imply the observance thereto.

2.Emergency : In exceptional cases of urgency or emergency where prompt and preventive action is required the principles of natural justice need not be observed.

However, the determination of the situation requiring the exclusion of the rules of natural justice by the administrative authorities is not final and the court may review such determination.

3.Interim disciplinary action : The rules of natural justice are not attracted in the case of interim disciplinary action.

4.Academic evaluation : Where a student is removed from an educational institution on the grounds of unsatisfactory academic performance, the requirement of pre-decisional hearing is excluded.

5.Impracticability : Where the authority deals with a large number of person it is not practicable to give all of them opportunity of being heard and therefore in such condition the court does not insist on the observance of the rules of natural justice.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2019, Q. 2A(ii) (Syllabus 2017).

Exceptions to the principle of Natural Justice Though the normal rule is that a person who is affected by administrative action is entitled to claim natural justice, that requirement may be excluded under certain exceptional circumstances. These circumstances inter alia include:

1.Statutory Exclusion: The principle of natural justice may be excluded by the statutory provision. Where the statute expressly provides for the observance of the principles of natural justice, the provision is treated as mandatory and the authority is bound by it. Where the statute is silent as to the observance of the principle of natural justice, such silence is taken to imply the observance thereto. However, the principles of natural justice are not incapable of exclusion. The statute may exclude them. When the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes the application of the principles of natural justice the courts do not ignore the statutory mandate. But one thing may be noted that in India, Parliament is not supreme and therefore statutory exclusion is not final. The statute must stand the test of constitutional provision. Even if there is no provision under the statute for observance of the principle of natural justice, courts may read the requirement of natural justice for sustaining the law as constitutional.

2.Emergency: In exceptional cases of urgency or emergency where prompt and preventive action is required the principles of natural justice need not be observed. Thus, the pre-decisional hearing may be excluded where the prompt action is required to be taken in the interest of the public safety or public morality and any delay in administrative order because of pre-decisional hearing before the action may cause injury to the public interest and public safety. However, the determination of the situation requiring the exclusion of the rules of natural justice by the administrative authorities is not final and the court may review such determination.

3.Interim disciplinary action: The rules of natural justice are not attracted in the case of interim disciplinary action. For example, the order of suspension of an employee pending an inquiry against him is not final but interim order and the application of the rules of natural justice is not attracted in the case of such order.

4.Academic evaluation: Where a student is removed from an educational institution on the grounds of unsatisfactory academic performance, the requirement of pre-decisional hearing is excluded. The Supreme Court has made it clear that if the competent academic authority assesses the work of a student over the period of time and thereafter declare his work unsatisfactory the rule of natural justice may be excluded but this exclusion does not apply in the case of disciplinary matters.

5.Impracticability: Where the authority deals with a large number of persons it is not practicable to give all of them opportunity of being heard and therefore in such condition the court does not insist on the observance of the rules of natural justice.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2025, Q. 4A(i) (Syllabus 2022).

(i)Four principal sources of Administrative Law There are four principal sources of administrative law in India. They are as under:

1.Constitution of India: It is the primary source of administrative law. Article 73 of the Constitution provides that the executive power of the Union shall extend to matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws. Similar powers are provided to States under Article 62. Indian Constitution has not recognized the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity. The Constitution also envisages tribunals, public sector and government liability which are important aspects of administrative law.

2.Acts/ Statutes: Acts passed by the Central and State Governments for the maintenance of peace and order, tax collection, economic and social growth empower the administrative organs to carry on various tasks necessary for it. These Acts list the responsibilities of the administration, limit their power in certain respects and provide for grievance redressal mechanism for the people affected by the administrative action.

3.Ordinances, Administrative directions, Notifications Circulars: Ordinances are issued when there are unforeseen developments and the legislature is not in session and therefore cannot make laws. Ordinances allow the administration to take necessary steps to deal with such developments.Administrative directions, notifications and circulars are issued by the executive in the exercise of power granted under various Acts.

4.Judicial decisions: Judiciary is the final arbiter in case of any dispute between various wings of government or between the citizen and the administration. In India, we have the supremacy of Constitution and the Supreme Court is vested with the authority to interpret it. The courts through their various decisions on the exercise of power by the administration, the liability of the government in case of breach of contract or tortuous acts of Governments servants lay down administrative laws which guide their future conduct.

(ii)Rule of Law Rule of Law was developed by British Jurist A.V. Dicey. He derived this term from French Principle ‘La principle de legalite’ which means the principle of legality. It states that the government should be governed by Rule of Law instead of Rule of Individual. Any dictator, monarch or one particular person should not govern the functioning of any nation. Each country should follow legality of law.

Three major principles given by Dicey in his book “Rule of Law” are:

1.Supremacy of law: It means that ordinary or regular laws shall remain supreme.

Supremacy here means absolute and pre-dominance of regular laws as against arbitrary or wide discretionary powers.

2.Equality before the law: According to Dicey, all classes must be equally subject to the ordinary law of the land as administered by the ordinary law courts. He states that there should be equality between people. According to Dicey, all classes must be equally subject to the ordinary law of the land as administered by the ordinary law courts. It provides that all are equal before law and everyone will be subjected to the same law.

3.The predominance of a legal spirit: Legal Spirit refers to the judicial precedents upon any dispute raised by any individual. The judgment given in any case will be the legal spirit of that particular case. It basically refers to the law as set by the precedents that have evolved over time.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2024, Q. 5(a) (Syllabus 2022).

Judicial review is the authority of Courts to declare void the acts of the legislature and executive, if they are found in violation of provisions of the Constitution. Judicial Review is the power of the highest Court of a jurisdiction to invalidate on Constitutional grounds, the acts of other Government agency within that jurisdiction.

The doctrine of judicial review has been originated and developed by the American Supreme Court, although there is no express provision in the American Constitution for judicial review. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision has been made. It is concerned not with the decision but with the decision making process.

In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 3400, the Supreme Court held that while exercising the power of judicial review it does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made, particularly as the court lacks the expertise to correct the administrative decision and if a review of the administrative decision is permitted, it will be substituting its own decision which itself may be fallible. The court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be:

1)whether a decision making authority exceeding its power?

2)committed an error of law?

3)committed a breach of rules of natural justice?

4)reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached, or

5)abused its power?

Judicial review is exercised at two stages:

(i)at the stage of delegation of discretion, and

(ii)at the stage of exercise of administrative discretion.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2022, Q. 2(d) (Syllabus 2017).

The biggest check over administrative action is the power of judicial review. Judicial review is the authority of Courts to declare void the acts of the legislature and executive, if they are found in violation of provisions of the Constitution. Judicial Review is the power of the highest Court of a jurisdiction to invalidate on Constitutional grounds, the acts of other Government agency within that jurisdiction.

The power of judicial review controls not only the legislative but also the executive or administrative act. The Court scrutinizes the executive act for determining the issue as to whether it is within the scope of authority or power conferred on the authority exercising the power. Where the act of executive or administration is found ultra-virus the Constitution or the relevant Act, it is declared as such and, therefore, void. The Courts attitude appears to be stiffer in respect of discretionary powers of the executive or administrative authorities.

The Court is not against the vesting of discretionary power in the executive, but it expects that there would be proper guidelines for the exercise of power. The Court interferes when the uncontrolled and unguided discretion is vested in the executive or administrative authorities or the repository of the power abuses its discretion.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2019, Q. 3(d) (Syllabus 2017).

Natural justice is a concept of Common Law and represents procedural principles developed by judges. Though it enjoys no express constitutional status, it is one of the most important concepts that ensure that people retain their faith in the system of adjudication. According to rule against bias, no person should be made a judge in his own cause. Bias means an operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or issue. It is a presumption that a person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which he has an interest. The rule against bias has two main aspects- one, that the judge must not have any direct personal stake in the matter at hand and two, there must not be any real likelihood of bias.

There are number of situations which may create a personal bias in the Judge’s mind against one party in dispute before him. He may be a friend of the party, or related to him through family, professional or business ties. The judge might also be hostile to one of the parties to a case. All these situations create bias either in favour of or against the party and will operate as a disqualification for a person to act as a Judge.

In the given situation, the inquiry officer happens to be a close relative of the complainant and although the Inquiry officer might have conducted fair inquiry, but according to principle “justice must not only be done but also seen to be done”, principle of natural justice can be said to have been violated.

Therefore, the High Court may set aside the proceedings and order a fresh inquiry conducted by an impartial officer.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2026, Q. 6(a) (Syllabus 2022).

Generally, principles of natural justice are applicable to administrative decisions that adversely affect a person’s rights. However, the Supreme Court of India has recognized certain exceptions, one of which relates to academic evaluation. Where a student is removed from an educational institution on the ground of unsatisfactory academic performance, the requirement of pre-decisional hearing is excluded. The Supreme Court has made it clear that if the competent academic authority assesses the work of a student over a period of time and thereafter declare his work unsatisfactory, the rule of natural justice may be excluded but this exclusion does not apply in the case of disciplinary matters. In J.N. University v. B.S. Narwal, the Supreme Court held that where a student’s performance is continuously assessed and found to be unsatisfactory by a competent academic body, no hearing is required, as the action is not punitive but academic in nature.

In the given situation, Ravi’s removal was based on regular unsatisfactory academic performance assessed over three semesters. This decision appears to be academic in nature and not disciplinary.

Therefore, the principles of natural justice with the requirement of a pre-decisional hearing do not apply in this case.

Alternate Answer

Natural justice is a foundational principle of administrative law and includes Nemo judex in causa sua – no one should be a judge in his own cause and Audi alteram partem – the right of a person to be heard before an adverse decision is taken. These principles apply whenever an administrative or quasi-judicial decision affects the civil rights or prospects of an individual.

It is well settled that educational institutions, particularly government or government-aided institutions, are “State” or “instrumentalities of the State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, and their actions are subject to judicial review under Article 226. Moreover, the removal of a student from an educational institution affects the student’s right to education, career prospects, and reputation. Hence, such action goes beyond a mere academic assessment.

In the present case, Ravi was removed from the medical college for “unsatisfactory” academic performance. The removal was not automatic but was the result of a decision taken by the college authorities. No show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was given to him before passing the order. Even if the regulations permit removal for poor academic performance, the authority must inform the student of the deficiencies and give an opportunity to explain or improve, then pass a reasoned order.

On the basis of the above, it can be said that the removal of Ravi from the medical college without giving him prior notice or an opportunity of being heard may be arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem. Although academic standards are within the domain of educational authorities, procedural fairness should not be dispensed with.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2025, Q. 2(b) (Syllabus 2022).

While the general principle is that a person impacted by administrative action has the right to request natural justice, there are certain exceptional circumstances where this requirement can be waived. These are as under:

1.Statutory Exclusion The principle of natural justice may be excluded by the statutory provision. The statute may exclude them. When the statute expressly or by necessary implication excludes the application of the principles of natural justice the courts do not ignore the statutory mandate. But one thing may be noted that in India, Parliament is not supreme and therefore statutory exclusion is not final. The statute must stand the test of constitutional provision. Even if there is no provision under the statute for observance of the principle of natural justice, courts may read the requirement of natural justice for sustaining the law as constitutional.

2.Emergency In exceptional cases of urgency or emergency where prompt and preventive action is required the principles of natural justice need not be observed. Thus, the pre-decisional hearing may be excluded where the prompt action is required to be taken in the interest of the public safety or public morality and any delay in administrative order because of pre-decisional hearing before the action may cause injury to the public interest and public safety.

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 the Supreme Court observed that a passport may be impounded in public interest without compliance with the principles of natural justice but as soon as the order impounding the passport has been made, an opportunity of post decisional hearing, remedial in aim, should be given to the person concerned. In the case, it has also been held that “public interest” is a justiciable issue and the determination of administrative authority on it is not final.

3.Interim disciplinary action The rules of natural justice are not attracted in the case of interim disciplinary action.

For example, the order of suspension of an employee pending an inquiry against him is not final but interim order and the application of the rules of natural justice is not attracted in the case of such order.

In Abhay Kumar v. K. Srinivasan AIR 1981 Delhi 381 an order was passed by the college authority debarring the student from entering the premises of the college and attending the class till the pendency of a criminal case against him for stabbing a student. The Court held that the order was interim and not final. It was preventive in nature. It was passed with the object to maintain peace in the campus. The rules of natural justice were not applicable in such case.

4.Academic evaluation Where a student is removed from an educational institution on the grounds of unsatisfactory academic performance, the requirement of pre-decisional hearing is excluded. The Supreme Court has made it clear that if the competent academic authority assesses the work of a student over the period of time and thereafter declare his work unsatisfactory the rule of natural justice may be excluded but this exclusion does not apply in the case of disciplinary matters.

5.Impracticability Where the authority deals with a large number of persons it is not practicable to give all of them opportunity of being heard and therefore in such condition the court does not insist on the observance of the rules of natural justice.

In P. Radhakrishna v. Osmania University, AIR 1974 AP 283, the entire M.B.A.

entrance examination was cancelled on the ground of mass copying. The court held that it was not possible to give all the examinees the opportunity of being heard before the cancellation of the examination.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2023, Q. 1(a) (Syllabus 2017).

Rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua): According to this rule no person should be made a judge in his own cause. Bias means an operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or issue. It is a presumption that a person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which he has an interest. The rule against bias has two main aspects- one, that the judge must not have any direct personal stake in the matter at hand and two, there must not be any real likelihood of bias.

Bias can be the following types:

(a)Pecuniary Bias

(b)Personal Bias

(c)Subject matter Bias

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2020, Q. 6A(iv) (Syllabus 2017).

Nemo Judex in Causa Sua is Rule against bias. According to this rule no person should be made a judge in his own cause. Bias means an operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or issue. It is a presumption that a person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which he has an interest. The rule against bias has two main aspects- one, that the judge must not have any direct personal stake in the matter at hand and two, there must not be any real likelihood of bias.

Bias can be of the following three types:

(1)Pecuniary bias : The judicial approach is unanimous on the point that any financial interest of the adjudicatory authority in the matter, howsoever small, would vitiate the adjudication. Thus a pecuniary interest, howsoever insufficient, will disqualify a person from acting as a Judge.

(2)Personal bias : There are number of situations which may create a personal bias in the Judge’s mind against one party in dispute before him. He may be friend of the party, or related to him through family, professional or business ties. The judge might also be hostile to one of the parties to a case. All these situations create bias either in favour of or against the party and will operate as a disqualification for a person to act as a Judge.

(3)Subject matter bias : A judge may have a bias in the subject matter, which means that he himself is a party, or has some direct connection with the litigation. To disqualify on the ground of bias there must be intimate and direct connection between adjudicator and the issues in dispute. To vitiate the decision on the ground of bias as for the subject matter there must be real likelihood of bias.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2019, Q. 6(a) (Syllabus 2017).

According to the rule against bias, no person should be made a judge in his own cause. Bias means an operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or issue. It is a presumption that a person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which he has an interest. The rule against bias has following two main aspects:

(i)that the judge must not have any direct personal stake in the matter at hand.

(ii)there must not be any real likelihood of bias.

Bias can be of the following three types:

(a)Pecuniary bias : The judicial approach is unanimous on the point that any financial interest of the adjudicatory authority in the matter, howsoever small, would vitiate the adjudication. Thus, a pecuniary interest, howsoever insufficient, will disqualify a person from acting as a Judge.

(b)Personal bias : There are number of situations which may create a personal bias in the Judge's mind against one party in dispute before him. He may be friend of the party, or related to him through family, professional or business ties. The judge might also be hostile to one of the parties to a case. All these situations create bias either in favour of or against the party and will operate as a disqualification for a person to act as a judge.

(c)Subject matter bias : A judge may have a bias in the subject matter, which means that he himself is a party, or has some direct connection with the litigation.

To disqualify on the ground of bias there must be intimate and direct connection between adjudicator and the issues in dispute. To vitiate the decision on the ground of bias as for the subject matter there must be real likelihood of bias.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2021, Q. 2(c) (Syllabus 2017).

This situation attracts the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua). According to this rule no person should be made a judge in his own cause. Bias means an operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or issue. It is a presumption that a person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which he has an interest. The rule against bias has two main aspects- one, that the judge must not have any direct personal stake in the matter at hand and two, there must not be any real likelihood of bias.

Bias can be of the following three types:

(a)Pecuniary bias: The judicial approach is unanimous on the point that any financial interest of the adjudicatory authority in the matter, howsoever small, would vitiate the adjudication.

Thus a pecuniary interest, howsoever insufficient, will disqualify a person from acting as a Judge.

(b)Personal bias: There are number of situations which may create a personal bias in the Judge’s mind against one party in dispute before him. He may be friend of the party, or related to him through family, professional or business ties. The judge might also be hostile to one of the parties to a case. All these situations create bias either in favour of or against the party and will operate as a disqualification for a person to act as a Judge.

(c)Subject matter bias: A judge may have a bias in the subject matter, which means that he himself is a party, or has some direct connection with the litigation. To disqualify on the ground of bias there must be intimate and direct connection between adjudicator and the issues in dispute.

The facts of the given situation are similar to the case Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 SC 468. In this case, the petitioner company was a lessee for 99 years of 3026 villages, situated in Bihar, for purposes of exploiting mica from them. The minister of revenue acting under Bihar Mica Act cancelled his license. The owner of the company had opposed the minister in general election of 1952 and the minister had filed a criminal case under section 500, Indian Penal Code, against him. The act of cancellation by the Minister was held to be a quasi-judicial act. Since the personal rivalry between the owner of the petitioner’s company and the minister concerned was established, the cancellation order became vitiated in law.

In view of the above discussion, it can be said that the cancellation order can become vitiated in law.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2024, Q. 1(b) (Syllabus 2017).

Rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua)

According to this rule no person should be made a judge in his own cause. Bias means an operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or issue. It is a presumption that a person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which he has an interest. The rule against bias has two main aspects- one, that the judge must not have any direct personal stake in the matter at hand and two, there must not be any real likelihood of bias.

Bias can be of the following three types:

(1)Pecuniary bias: The judicial approach is unanimous on the point that any financial interest of the adjudicatory authority in the matter. Howsoever small, would vitiate the adjudication.

Thus, a pecuniary interest, howsoever insufficient, will disqualify a person from acting as a Judge.

(2)Personal bias: There are number of situations which may create a personal bias in the Judge’s mind against one party in dispute before him. He may be friend of the party, or related to him through family, professional or business ties. The judge might also be hostile to one of the parties to a case. All these situations create bias either in favour of or against the party and will operate as a disqualification for a person to act as a Judge.

(3)Subject matter bias: A judge may have a bias in the subject matter, which means that he himself is a party, or has some direct connection with the litigation. To disqualify on the ground of bias there must be intimate and direct connection between adjudicator and the issues in dispute.

The judicial approach is unanimous on the point that any financial interest of the adjudicatory authority in the matter, however small, would vitiate the adjudication. Thus, a pecuniary interest, however insignificant, will disqualify a person from acting as a judge.

Judge M’s significant financial interest in Moon Pharma Ltd. creates a clear conflict of interest, violating the principle of nemo judex in causa sua and compromising judicial impartiality. Therefore, Judge M should have abstained himself from the case on the basis of the principle of Natural Justice.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2024, Q. 6A(ii) (Syllabus 2022).

A judge is supposed to be indifferent to the parties to the controversy. He cannot act as a judge of a case in which he himself has some interest either pecuniary or otherwise as it affords the strongest proof against neutrality. This is because of the importance of one of the most important principles in the administration of justice, i.e. justice must not only be done but also seen to be done. This is necessary to inspire confidence in the people in the judicial system. The given statement is related to Rule against bias which is also one of the important principle of Natural Justice. The rule is discussed as under:

According to rule “Rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua)” no person should be made a judge in his own cause. Bias means an operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or issue. It is a presumption that a person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which he has an interest. The rule against bias has two main aspects- one, that the judge must not have any direct personal stake in the matter at hand and two, there must not be any real likelihood of bias.

Bias can be of the following three types:

(a)Pecuniary bias: The judicial approach is unanimous on the point that any financial interest of the adjudicatory authority in the matter, howsoever small, would vitiate the adjudication. Thus, a pecuniary interest, howsoever insufficient, will disqualify a person from acting as a Judge.

(b)Personal bias: There are number of situations which may create a personal bias in the Judge’s mind against one party in dispute before him. He may be friend of the party, or related to him through family, professional or business ties. The judge might also be hostile to one of the parties to a case. All these situations create bias either in favour of or against the party and will operate as a disqualification for a person to act as a Judge.

(c)Subject matter bias: A judge may have a bias in the subject matter, which means that he himself is a party, or has some direct connection with the litigation. To disqualify on the ground of bias there must be intimate and direct connection between adjudicator and the issues in dispute.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2023, Q. 2A(i) (Syllabus 2017).

There are four principal sources of administrative law in India:

1.Constitution of India : It is the primary source of administrative law. Article 73 of the Constitution provides that the executive power of the Union shall extend to matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws. Similar powers are provided to States under Article 162. Indian Constitution has not recognized the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity.

2.Acts/ Statutes : Acts passed by the central and state governments for the maintenance of peace and order, tax collection, economic and social growth empower the administrative organs to carry on various tasks necessary for it.

These Acts list the responsibilities of the administration, limit their power in certain respects and provide for grievance redressal mechanism for the people affected by the administrative action.

3.Ordinances, Administrative directions, Notifications and Circulars : Ordinances are issued when there are unforeseen developments and the legislature is not in session and therefore cannot make laws. Ordinances allow the administration to take necessary steps to deal with such developments. Administrative directions, notifications and circulars are issued by the executive in the exercise of power granted under various Acts.

4.Judicial decisions : Judiciary is the final arbiter in case of any dispute between various wings of government or between the citizen and the administration. In India, we have the supremacy of Constitution and the Supreme Court is vested with the authority to interpret it. The courts through their various decisions on the exercise of power by the administration, the liability of the government in case of breach of contract or tortious acts of Governments servants lay down administrative laws which guide their future conduct.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2020, Q. 4(c) (Syllabus 2017).

The main features of Statutory Corporations are as under:

•It is incorporated under a Special Act of Parliament or State Legislative Assembly.

•It is an autonomous body and is free from government control in respect of its internal management. However, it is accountable to the Parliament or the state legislature.

•It has a separate legal existence.

•It is managed by the Board of Directors, which is composed of individuals who are trained and experienced in business management. The members of the Board of Directors are nominated by the Government.

•It is supposed to be self sustained in financial matters. However, in case of necessity it may obtain a loan and/or seek assistance from the government.

•The employees of these enterprises are recruited as per their own requirements by following the terms and conditions of recruitment decided by the Board.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2021, Q. 1(a) (Syllabus 2017).

The term ‘statutory corporation’ (or public corporation) refers to such organisations which are incorporated under the special acts of the Parliament/state legislative assemblies. Its management pattern, its powers and functions, the area of activity, rules and regulations for its employees and its relationship with government departments, etc. are specified in the concerned Act. It may be noted that more than one corporation can also be established under the same Act. State Electricity Boards and State Financial Corporation fall in this category.

The main features of statutory corporations are as follows:

(a)It is incorporated under a special act of Parliament or state legislative assembly.

(b)It has a separate legal existence.

(c)It is an autonomous body and is free from government control in respect of its internal management. However, it is accountable to the Parliament or the state legislature.

(d)It is managed by board of directors, which is composed of individuals who are trained and experienced in business management. The members of board of directors are nominated by the Government.

(e)It is supposed to be self-sufficient in financial matters. However, in case of necessity it may take loan and/or seek assistance from the government

(f)The employees of the enterprises are recruited as per their own requirements by following the terms and conditions of recruitment decided by the Board.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2024, Q. 6A(i) (Syllabus 2017).

A Tribunal, generally, is any person or institution having an authority to judge, adjudicate on, or to determine claims or disputes – whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title. Tribunal is an administrative body established for the purpose of discharging quasi-judicial duties. An Administrative Tribunal is neither a Court nor an executive body.

It stands somewhere midway between a Court and an administrative body. Tribunals are the quasi-judicial bodies established to adjudicate disputes related to specified matters which exercise the jurisdiction according to the Statute establishing them. The Tribunal has to exercise its powers in a judicious manner by observing the principles of natural justice or in accordance with the statutory provisions under which the Tribunal is established.

The main objective of establishing Tribunals as set out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 is as under:

•To reduce the mounting arrears in High Courts and

•To secure the speedy disposal of service matters, revenue matters and certain other matters of special importance in the context of the socio-economic development and progress.

The exigencies of the situation proclaiming the enforcement of new rights in the wake of escalating State activities and furtherance of the demands of justice have led to the establishment of Tribunals. Any person aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Tribunals basically deal with the cases under special laws and therefore they provide special adjudication, outside Courts. To overcome the situation that arose due to the pendency of cases in various Courts, domestic tribunals and other Tribunals have been established under different Statutes. Tribunals are the quasi-judicial bodies established to adjudicate disputes related to specified matters which exercise the jurisdiction according to the Statute establishing them.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2021, Q. 1(d) (Syllabus 2017).

Like all other employers the State should also be made vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of its servants. The Court in India are conscious about increasing cases of excesses and negligence on the part of the administration resulting in the negation of personal liberty. Hence, they are coming forward with pronouncement holding the Government liable for damages even in those cases where the plea of sovereign function could have negatived the governmental liability.

In view of the above, it can be said that state is also vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of its servants.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, June 2024, Q. 1(b)(iv) (Syllabus 2022).

The word ‘Mandamus’ literally means ‘we command’. The writ of mandamus is, a command issued to direct any person, corporation, inferior court, or Government requiring him or it do a particular thing specified therein which pertains to his or its office and is further in the nature of a public duty. This writ is used when the inferior tribunal has declined to exercise jurisdiction while resort to certiorari and prohibition arises when the tribunal has wrongly exercised jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction and are available only against judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. Mandamus can be issued against any public authority. It commands activity. The writ is used for securing judicial enforcement of public duties.

In a fit case, the Court can direct executives to carry out Directive Principles of the Constitution through this writ [State of Maharashtra v. MP Vashi, 1995 (4) SCALE]. The applicant must have a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the person against whom the writ is prayed for. It is not issued if the authority has a discretion.

The Constitution of India by Articles 226 and 32 enables mandamus to be issued by the HighCourts and the Supreme Court to all authorities.

Mandamus does not lie against the President or the Governor of a State for the exercise of their duties and power (Article 361). It does not lie also against a private individual or body except where the state is in collusion with such private party in the matter of contravention of any provision of the Constitution of a statute. It is a discretionary remedy and the High Court may refuse if alternative remedy exists except in case of infringement of fundamental rights.

In the given situation, it can be observed that the Municipal Corporation of Indore which is under legal obligation to provide clean drinking water to its residents as per the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. However, it does not address the repeated complaints by the residents of Ward 12 about lack of clean drinking water supply. By filing a writ petition for mandamus, Mr. Patel can seek judicial intervention to ensure that the Municipal Corporation of Indore fulfils its statutory obligation, thereby safeguarding the resident’s right to clean drinking water.

Source⁠​‌​‌‌​‌​⁠: ICSI Guideline Answers, December 2024, Q. 4(a) (Syllabus 2022).