KSLU Solved Question Papers
Administrative Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
2011 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Administrative Law 2011 Jun Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2011 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2011 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2011 Jun examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all five Questions. (2) Figures to the right indicate marks. (3) Answers should be written completely either in English or Kannada.
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
Unit I
(a)"Administrative Law is an Instrument to combat administrative authoritarianism through the instrumentality of courts". Explain.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what the statement means (administrative authoritarianism: power used without law, without limits, without fairness or without accountability; the courts as the main instrument of control); the constitutional basis of that instrument (Articles 32 and 226; judicial review as basic structure: L. Chandra Kumar); eight authoritarian tendencies and the judicial tool that answers each, with a case: acting without law (Thakur Bharat Singh), unguided discretion (Jaisinghani; Royappa), unfair procedure (Maneka Gandhi), excess and abuse of power (Purtabpore; S. Pratap Singh), disproportionate action (Om Kumar), injury with impunity (Nilabati Behera), shutting out the weak (S.P. Gupta: public interest litigation), ousting the courts (L. Chandra Kumar); the lesson of ADM Jabalpur and its overruling in Puttaswamy; a critical view of the statement (courts are one instrument among several; judicial restraint: Asif Hameed; delay); a conclusion.
What the statement means
Modern government holds vast power over people's lives: licences, land, jobs, liberty and livelihood. Administrative authoritarianism means the use of that power without law, without limits, without fairness or without accountability. The statement says that administrative law exists to combat this tendency, and that it does so mainly through the courts.
The statement is largely true. Most of the principles of administrative law were built by judges, case by case, to answer particular abuses of power. Its weakness, discussed at the end, is that courts are not the only instrument, and they cannot be the whole answer.
The constitutional basis of the instrument
Article 32 lets any person move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Article 226 lets the High Courts issue writs for fundamental rights and "for any other purpose". In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125, the Supreme Court held that this power of judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Even a constitutional amendment cannot take it away. The courts' instrument is therefore permanent.
Eight authoritarian tendencies, and the courts' answers
1. Acting without law. An authoritarian administration acts on its own will. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Thakur Bharat Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1170, the State ordered a man to leave his district and live in a named town. The Supreme Court held that every act of the Government that operates to the prejudice of any person must be supported by legislative authority. Executive power alone is not enough.
2. Unguided discretion. In S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1427, the Government departed from a quota fixed by rules for promotions in the Income Tax Service. The Court said "the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law". In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555, Bhagwati J. held that arbitrariness violates Article 14, because "equality is antithetic to arbitrariness".
3. Unfair procedure. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, a passport was impounded without reasons or a hearing. The Court held that any procedure affecting liberty must be right, just and fair. A hearing could be implied even where the statute was silent.
4. Excess and abuse of power. In Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1896, a Cane Commissioner acted on the Chief Minister's directions in a matter the statute left to him alone. His orders were set aside. In S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72, a surgeon's leave was revoked and he was suspended, allegedly from personal hostility. The majority held that where an irrelevant purpose dominates, the exercise of power is bad.
5. Disproportionate action. In Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689, the Court held that administrative action restricting fundamental freedoms is reviewed for proportionality. The authority must choose the least restrictive means to its end.
6. Injury with impunity. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960, a young man died in police custody. The Court awarded compensation to his mother under Article 32. It held that sovereign immunity is no defence to a public law claim for breach of fundamental rights.
7. Shutting out the weak. Authoritarian power falls hardest on those who cannot reach the courts. In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149, Bhagwati J. dealt with persons who, by poverty or disability, cannot approach the court. Where a legal wrong is done to them, any member of the public may apply on their behalf. This opened the door to public interest litigation.
8. Ousting the courts. An authoritarian State tries to shut the courts out. L. Chandra Kumar struck down clauses that excluded the High Courts' jurisdiction over tribunals.
The tendencies and the answers at a glance
| Authoritarian tendency | The courts' answer | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Acting without law | Legal authority needed for prejudicial action | Thakur Bharat Singh |
| Unguided discretion | Arbitrariness offends Article 14 | Jaisinghani; Royappa |
| Unfair procedure | Fair hearing implied | Maneka Gandhi |
| Acting under dictation or for a bad purpose | Order quashed | Purtabpore; S. Pratap Singh |
| Authoritarian tendency | The courts' answer | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Excessive restriction | Proportionality | Om Kumar |
| Injury without remedy | Public law compensation | Nilabati Behera |
| Shutting out the weak | Wider standing; public interest litigation | S.P. Gupta |
| Ousting the courts | Review is basic structure | L. Chandra Kumar |
How the instrument has grown
The courts have also sharpened the instrument itself. Three developments stand out.
- Wider standing. The old rule let only the person aggrieved sue. Public interest litigation lets public-spirited citizens raise the grievances of those who cannot.
- Continuing supervision. Where an agency failed to investigate powerful persons, the Supreme Court kept the case pending and monitored the investigation. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889, it also gave directions to insulate the CBI from executive control.
- Reasons and records. Courts insist that authorities record reasons and act on relevant material. An order that cannot be explained cannot easily hide an abuse of power.
The lesson of the Emergency
The courts' instrument can fail. In Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207, during the Emergency, the majority held that detenus could not move the High Courts even on grounds of mala fides. For that period, administrative power over personal liberty was effectively unchecked. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161, the Supreme Court expressly overruled that decision. The episode shows both the danger the statement describes and the importance of the instrument it names.
A critical view
- Courts are one instrument among several. Parliament's scrutiny, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas, the Central Vigilance Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Right to Information Act also check administrative power. Many grievances are too small or too frequent for the courts.
- Judicial restraint. Courts do not review the wisdom of policy. In Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1989 SC 1899, the Supreme Court warned that while courts restrain the other organs, the only check on the courts is their own restraint.
- Delay and cost. Litigation is slow and expensive. Relief often comes too late for the person harmed.
Conclusion. The statement is largely true. Administrative law combats administrative authoritarianism mainly through the courts, whose power of review is part of the basic structure (L. Chandra Kumar). The courts require legal authority for prejudicial action (Thakur Bharat Singh) and confine discretion and strike down arbitrariness (Jaisinghani; Royappa). They enforce fair procedure (Maneka Gandhi), check excess and bad faith (Purtabpore; S. Pratap Singh) and demand proportionality (Om Kumar). They compensate victims (Nilabati Behera) and open their doors to the weak (S.P. Gupta). The failure in ADM Jabalpur, later overruled, shows why the instrument matters. But courts work best alongside Parliament, ombudsmen and openness laws, and within the limits of their own restraint.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 5 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.