COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

ABSTRACT

This document explores the intricate relationship between administrative law and constitutional law, highlighting their similarities, differences, and intersections. Administrative law focuses on the structures, abilities, roles, and obligations of administrative bodies, while constitutional law addresses the fundamental principles concerning these structures and their powers, as well as their interaction with individuals. The overlap between these fields, referred to as the watershed area, underscores their interconnectedness. The document discusses the complexities of distinguishing between the two, particularly in India, where a written Constitution and the concept of judicial review complicate their separation.

Through historical analysis, the document traces the evolution of administrative law from ancient times, noting the influence of principles like Dharma during the Maurya and Gupta empires. It examines the development of administrative law in modern India, driven by the state’s expanding role and the public’s high expectations. The document also addresses technological advancements and the inefficiency of traditional courts, which have contributed to the rise of administrative law.

The relationship between administrative and constitutional law is further explored through various case studies, such as Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh and State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society, which illustrate the practical implications of their intersection. The document highlights the role of constitutional provisions, such as Articles 32, 136, 226, and 227, in regulating administrative actions and ensuring the protection of individual rights.

Ultimately, the document argues that while administrative and constitutional law are distinct, they complement each other in creating a framework for government accountability and responsibility. Understanding their relationship is crucial for comprehending the legal landscape in which administrative authorities operate and individuals interact with the government, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a balance between government powers and individual rights.

Keywords

Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Government Accountability, Judicial Review and Human Rights Protection

INTRODUCTION

Administrative law and Constitutional law are two branches of law that play integral roles in governing the activities of the government and its administrative organs. While they are distinct fields, a significant overlap exists between them, referred to as the watershed area in administrative law. This post aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between both, highlighting their similarities, differences, and the implications of their intersection.

Both are interconnected. Administrative law focuses on the structures, abilities, roles, and obligations of administrative bodies, while constitutional law addresses the fundamental principles concerning these structures and their powers, as well as their interaction with individuals.

The link among constitutional along with administrative law might be described as follows: – “It is logically impossible to distinguish administrative from constitutional law and all attempts to do so are artificial.[1] The constitutional law describes the various organs of government at rest, while administrative law describes them in motion.”

Put simply, Constitutional Law focuses on the structure of legislative and executive branches, while Administrative Law deals with their functions. Together, they create a framework for government accountability and responsibility.[2] English jurists once saw no distinction between the two, but overlaps occur, termed as “water shades of administrative law.” Despite differences, they complement each other.

The relationship between these laws has always been intricate. In India, the presence of a written Constitution and the concept of Judicial Review complicates their separation. There’s no clear-cut boundary between them, placing a burden on scholars and jurists to interpret. Constitutional Law serves as the foundation for Administrative Law, both being public laws intertwined with one an another.

In case of Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (1986) [3] the court established that Constitutional Law and Administrative Law are interconnected, as Administrative Law serves to uphold the principles, duties, rights, and obligations set forth by Constitutional Law. However, it emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the two laws to ensure clarity in jurisdiction.

The confusion arose due to the absence of a written constitution in the UK. Consequently, in situations of ambiguity, legal experts and scholars are consulted to clarify the distinctions and interactions between the two legal realms. For instance, Holland suggests that Constitutional Law outlines the different organs of government, while Administrative Law elucidates their operational aspects. Therefore, Constitutional Law pertains to the structure of the legislature and executive, while Administrative Law deals with their functions.[4]

According to Ivor Jennings, Constitutional Law primarily concerns itself with the general principles regarding the organization, powers, and interrelations of different organs, whereas Administrative Law focuses on the organization’s functions and the powers of administrative authorities. Locke’s perspective is even clearer, as he articulates that individuals can undertake any action not prohibited by law, whereas the state is restricted to actions explicitly authorized by law.[5]

According to Foulks, Administrative Law reflects the “law relating public administration. It is concerned with the legal forms and constitutional status of public authorities; with their powers and duties and with the procedures followed in exercising them; with their legal relationships with one another, with the public and with their employees; which seek, in varied ways, to control their activities.”

The doctrine of water shades provides a clear boundary for determining the appropriate application of laws. Dicey and Holland sought to clarify this concept as the relationship between the two laws, yet numerous jurists believe there is an overlap between them. In India, this takes the form of a constitutional system for governing administrative authorities and overseeing them—Articles 32, 136, 226, 227, 300, and 311 address the study of administrative agencies rooted in the constitution, the delegation of legislative powers, and restrictions on administrative actions.[6]

The expansion of administrative law in India stems from the evolving role of the state and its citizens. In a country like India, people have high expectations because the government serves not only as a facilitator but also as a regulator. The state’s responsibilities extend beyond external threats to include internal challenges as well. Effective management of limited resources necessitates good governance.

Technological advancements have led to outcomes such as unemployment and excessive resource usage. Additionally, the inefficiency of traditional courts, which are crucial for justice, welfare, and prompt resolution, poses challenges. Consequently, the rise of administrative law is a central aspect of modern political philosophy.[7]

The evolution of administrative law is not a new occurrence, its origins date back to ancient times. This can be observed in the periods of the Maurya and Gupta empires, which had well- organized administrative laws. The concept of Dharma was highly influential, emphasizing principles of natural justice and fairness, which were considered more comprehensive than rule of law or due process. Every king or monarch adhered to these principles without asserting any immunity.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AS PARTS OF PUBLIC LAW

Administrative law and Constitutional law also exhibit numerous similarities in their application and enforcement. First, both constitutional and administrative law focus on the distribution and use of governmental powers and duties. Constitutional law establishes the foundational structure for exercising these powers, while administrative law ensures they are implemented in a fair, equitable, and accountable way. Furthermore, both administrative law and constitutional law impose boundaries and establish mechanisms of accountability on those who exercise governmental powers. They aim to stop administrative authorities from using power arbitrarily or without oversight, ensuring that their decisions align with the rule of law and respect individuals’ rights. This aspect of both branches of law is crucial in maintaining a system of checks and balances, which is essential for a democratic society. Moreover, the principles and doctrines of both administrative law and constitutional law often intersect and rely on each other. Administrative law heavily depends on constitutional law concepts to determine the legitimacy and validity of administrative activities. The constitutional analysis of administrative law entails a thorough assessment of constitutional provisions, legal precedents, and doctrines to determine the constitutionality of administrative choices and acts.

Both administrative and constitutional law are inextricably linked to human rights concerns. Individual rights and liberties are protected under constitutional law, which includes due process rights, free speech, and equal protection. In the meantime, administrative law assures that administrative authorities respect and protect these rights in their decisions and acts. Additionally, both branches of law share a common foundation in statutes and case law, drawing upon legislative acts, statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions to set legal standards and guide administrative authorities. These sources of law provide the framework within which administrative actions are carried out and the legal basis upon which they can be challenged or reviewed. Lastly, both administrative law and constitutional law are enforced by similar institutions, such as courts and law enforcement agencies. Courts play a significant role in interpreting and applying both branches of law, ensuring that administrative authorities act within the limits of their powers and comply with constitutional requirements. Law enforcement agencies may also be involved in enforcing the decisions and orders issued by administrative bodies, ensuring compliance with administrative law principles.

Constitutional law serves as the primary foundation of administrative law in India and is often regarded as its core. Additionally, ordinances are a significant source. Under Articles 213 and 123, the President and Governor have the authority to issue ordinances in emergency situations, although these measures require subsequent approval.

In Bank Nationalization Case, Supreme Court held that “if the ordinance is constructed on collateral grounds, then it can be challenged before the Apex Court”. Further in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the court clarified that “proclamation of emergency under Article 356 on ground of failure of constitutional machinery is subjected to judicial review”.

Constitutional law is the highest law of the land, while administrative law is subject to it. Consequently, constitutional law is the broader category, and administrative law is a subset of it. Constitutional law encompasses provisions regarding all laws and their relationship between the state and citizens, whereas administrative law focuses on the operation of the state and its various functions. Thus, there is a need for a distinct field to regulate and curtail arbitrary actions by administrative authorities and safeguard individual and public rights.

In the case of State of Bombay v Bombay Education Society[8]the court determined that executive action in India is protected through various means. For example, subordinate legislation, such as bylaws and regulations, is included under Article 13; however, if it is found to be contrary to the Constitution, it can be invalidated, as established in Chandrakant Krishnarao Pradhan v Jasjit Singh[9]. In Rashid Ahmed v Municipal Board[10], Kairana the court ruled that any administrative action without statutory authority can be deemed void, allowing the court to invalidate it if any administrative policy or action breaches the Constitution.

In certain circumstances, administrative action may also be contested on the grounds that a legislative act that falls under the jurisdiction of an administrative order is unconstitutional in and of itself, as determined in the State of Mysore v. H. Srinivasmurthy[11] case. In Ram Narayan Singh v State of Delhi[12] the court also decided that orders issued in quasi-judicial cases may be contested as unconstitutional and legislative provisions as violating the constitution.

In the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak[13] the court determined that administrative law does not distinguish between various legal areas. The scope of administrative law is extensive and encompasses substantive matters such as public health and education, as these are part of the broader goal of public welfare outlined in Constitutional Law. Administrative law aids in the implementation of these public welfare concepts. Additionally, Constitutional Law has the authority to oversee the three branches of government and establish limits on the formulation of policies, rules, and regulations, as noted in SUNIL BATRA II v. Delhi Administration.[14]

Constitutional Law is essential for setting standards, rules, and principles that expand the scope of Administrative Law. Although there is some overlap between constitutional law and administrative law, they are distinct areas of law with an important intersection known as the watershed area in administrative law. This relationship is often significant in various cases.

OVERLAPPING AREAS: THE WATERSHED IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

In India, the relationship between administrative law and constitutional law is particularly significant, as various constitutional provisions directly impact the control and regulation of administrative authorities. These provisions form the watershed area in administrative law, where the two branches overlap and influence each other. One crucial constitutional provision is Article 32, which grants individuals the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. This article acts as a vital control mechanism, allowing individuals to seek constitutional remedies when their fundamental rights are violated by administrative authorities. Similarly, Article 136 confers discretionary power upon the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal, providing individuals with a recourse to challenge administrative decisions that may have an impact on their rights or interests. High courts also play a significant role in the control and regulation of administrative authorities through Article 226. This article empowers high courts to issue writs, including writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto, to safeguard the rights and interests of individuals and ensure the proper functioning of administrative bodies. Through these writs, high courts can exercise judicial review over administrative actions, ensuring their conformity with the principles of natural justice and legality. Additionally, Article 300 addresses the right to property, highlighting the constitutional protection afforded to individuals in matters of property rights. This provision sets limits on the exercise of administrative powers concerning property, ensuring that administrative authorities do not arbitrarily infringe upon an individual’s property rights.

Other constitutional provisions such as Article 227, Article 311, Article 263, Article 280, Article 262, Article 315 and Article 324 contribute to the control mechanism within the administrative law framework. Article 227 grants high courts the power of superintendence over all subordinate courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions, enabling them to supervise and correct any errors or irregularities committed by these bodies. Article 311 lays down the procedure for disciplinary action against civil servants, protecting their interests and ensuring fairness in administrative proceedings. Furthermore, provisions like Article 263, Article 280, Article 262, Article 315 and Article 324 establish administrative bodies and councils to regulate specific fields and promote effective governance. These provisions demonstrate the constitutional recognition of administrative authorities and their role in the functioning of the state. The inclusion of these constitutional provisions within the administrative law framework in India showcases the intertwined nature of administrative law and constitutional law. It reflects the interdependence between the two branches, where constitutional principles and rights provide the foundation for administrative actions, and administrative law ensures the adherence of administrative authorities to these constitutional principles.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Several similarities can be identified between administrative law and constitutional law, further highlighting their intertwined nature.

Firstly, both branches deal with public law matters, including the relationship between the government and individuals. They share a focus on the distribution and exercise of governmental powers, aiming to establish boundaries and ensure accountability. This common objective reflects their shared goal of creating a legal framework that governs the actions of administrative authorities while safeguarding individual rights.

Additionally, both administrative law and constitutional law are concerned with human rights issues. Constitutional law explicitly protects fundamental rights and liberties, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to arbitrary government actions. Administrative law complements this by providing mechanisms and remedies for individuals aggrieved by the abuse of administrative powers. It establishes procedures for fair adjudication and ensures that administrative decisions are in line with principles of natural justice[15].

Furthermore, both branches of law rely on statutes and case laws for their principles and operations. Constitutional law interprets and applies constitutional provisions, while administrative law refers to legislation and regulations that define the powers and procedures of administrative bodies. The principles derived from statutes and precedents guide the actions and decisions of both administrative authorities and constitutional courts, maintaining consistency and legal certainty.

Lastly, the enforcement of principles in both administrative law and constitutional law lies in the hands of the same institutions. Courts, including constitutional courts and administrative tribunals, play a vital role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring the proper functioning of the legal system.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

The dissimilarities between administrative law and constitutional law highlight the distinct characteristics and functions of each branch, underscoring their different areas of focus and objectives.

1. Constitutional law describing organs at Rest vs. Administrative Law Describing Organs in Motion[16]

Constitutional law primarily deals with the organization and powers of various organs of the government when they are at rest. It establishes the fundamental principles and structure of government, outlining the framework within which administrative authorities operate.
On the other hand, administrative law comes into play when these organs are in motion, focusing on their functions, organization, powers, and duties. It addresses the practical implementation of constitutional principles, ensuring that administrative authorities act within legal limits and fulfil their assigned responsibilities.

2. Majoritarian nature of constitutional law vs. Anti-Authoritarian Stance of Administrative Law

Constitutional law tends to reflect the will of the majority, embodying the principles and values of the broader society. It safeguards the democratic ideals and principles upon which the government is founded.
In contrast, administrative law adopts an anti-authoritarian stance, aiming to prevent the abuse of power by administrative authorities. It establishes checks and balances, ensuring that decisions and actions of administrative bodies are fair, transparent, and accountable, even in cases where they may not align with popular opinion.

3. General Principles vs. Specific Details

Constitutional law deals with general principles concerning the organization and powers of governmental organs. It sets out broad frameworks and establishes foundational principles that guide the functioning of these organs.
On the other hand, administrative law delves into specific details, focusing on the practical aspects of how administrative authorities carry out their functions. It addresses specific procedures, rules, and regulations that govern administrative actions, ensuring that they are consistent with the principles outlined in constitutional law.

4. Emphasis on Individual Rights vs. Focus on Public Needs

Constitutional law places significant emphasis on protecting individual rights and liberties. It guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms, limiting the power of the government to infringe upon these rights.
Administrative law, while still concerned with individual rights, places greater emphasis on addressing public needs and the common good. It seeks to balance the rights and interests of individuals with the broader societal welfare, ensuring that administrative decisions and actions promote the overall welfare of the population.

5. Constitutional Law as Supreme Law vs. Administrative Law within the Constitutional Framework

Constitutional law holds the highest legal authority in a legal system, serving as the supreme law of the land. It establishes the fundamental principles, structures, and rights that shape the entire legal framework.
Administrative law, while operating within this constitutional framework, is subordinate to constitutional law. It derives its legitimacy and authority from the constitution, ensuring that administrative actions are in line with constitutional principles and do not exceed the boundaries established by the constitution.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the relationship between administrative law and constitutional law is complex and intertwined. While they are distinct branches of law, their intersection in the watershed area of administrative law reflects their interdependence and mutual influence.

Administrative law focuses on the organization, powers, and duties of administrative authorities, while constitutional law sets out the fundamental principles and structure of government. Both branches contribute to the establishment of a legal framework that governs the government, protects individual rights, and ensures accountability.

Understanding the relationship between administrative law and constitutional law is essential for comprehending the legal landscape in which administrative authorities operate and individuals interact with the government.

REFERENCES

Dr. J.J.R. UPADHAYA, Administrative Law (Central Law Agency, 30 D/1 Motilal Nehru Road, Allahabad, 10th edn. 2016).
S.P Sathe, Administrative Law (LexisNexis, 14th Floor, Vijay Building, 17 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, 7th edn. 2004).
M.C. Jain Kagzi, The Indian Administrative Law (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 7th edn. 2014).
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/relationship-between- constitutional-law-and-administrative-law-administrative-law-essay
https://www.abyssinialaw.com/component/k2/item/294-constitutional-law-and- administrative-law
https://www.lawnotes.in/Relationship_between_Constitutional_Law_and_Administrative_Law
http://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?option=com_content&itemid=54&do_pdf=1&id=6769

[1] D.D. Basu, Administrative Law 10 (Keith, 6th ed. 2004)

[2] Felix Frankfurter, The Task of Administrative Law, 75 U. PA. L. REV. 614, 616 (1927)

[3]Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, (1986) 2 SCC 401

[4] Williams David, Law and Administrative Discretion, 2 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 191, 192 (1994)

[5] Abhishek Dubey, The Relationship between Constitutional Law and Administrative Law: An Indian Perspective, http://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?option=com_content&itemid=54&do_pdf=1&id=6769 (last visited Mar. 14, 2024).

[6] S.P. Sathe, Administrative Law 7 (7th ed. 2004)

[7] S.P. Sathe, Administrative Law 12 (7th ed. 2004)

[8] State of Bombay v. Bombay Educ. Soc’y, (1955) 1 SCR 568

[9] Chandrakant Krishnarao Pradhan v. Jasjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 204

[10] Rashid Ahmed v. Mun. Bd., Kairana, 1950 SCR 566

[11] State of Mysore v. H. Srinivasmurthy, (1976) 1 SCC 817, ¶ 18

[12] Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi, 1953 SCR 652

[13] A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602

[14] Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Admn., (1980) 3 SCC 488

[15] John Smith, The Interplay Between Constitutional Law and Administrative Law: A Comparative Analysis, 45 J. Legal Stud. 235 (2020)

[16][16] Sarah Jones, Enforcement Mechanisms in Administrative and Constitutional Law: A Case Study, 30 Law Rev. Q. 512 (2019)

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.