KSLU Solved Question Papers
Administrative Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
2016 Dec (50 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Administrative Law 2016 Dec (50 marks) 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 2016 Dec (50 marks) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2016 Dec (50 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2016 Dec (50 marks) 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 2 hours · Total marks 50 · 10 questions answered
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.
Q1Do you consider 'Rule of law' and 'separation of powers' are the conceptual objections against the growth of administrative law ? Elucide.[12]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the claim in the question (that the rule of law and the separation of powers stood in the way of administrative law); the objection from the rule of law: Dicey (1885), his contrast with French droit administratif, Hewart's The New Despotism (1929); why the objection was overstated and how the Donoughmore Committee (1932) answered it; the objection from separation of powers: Montesquieu's fear of united powers, and why administrative agencies seemed to offend it; why it, too, does not defeat administrative law (no rigid separation in India: Ram Jawaya Kapur, Asif Hameed; judicial power protected: Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain; writ jurisdiction as basic structure: L. Chandra Kumar); how both doctrines now shape administrative law instead of opposing it (Bingham; Davis); a conclusion.
The question
Administrative law grew late in common law countries. One reason often given is that two great constitutional ideas seemed to forbid it. The rule of law seemed to require that all disputes go to the ordinary courts and that officials have no wide discretion. The separation of powers seemed to forbid one body from making rules, enforcing them and deciding disputes about them. Modern administration does all three. The question is whether these doctrines are really objections to administrative law, or whether they have instead become its foundations.
The objection from the rule of law
Dicey's version. A.V. Dicey, in his Law of the Constitution (1885), gave the rule of law three meanings. First, no one may be punished except for a clear breach of law proved before the ordinary courts. So there is no room for wide, arbitrary or discretionary power. Second, every person, whatever his rank, is subject to the ordinary law administered by the ordinary courts. Officials have no special status. Third, the rights of individuals in England flow from judicial decisions in particular cases, not from a written constitution.
From the second meaning Dicey drew a contrast with France. There, disputes between citizens and officials went to separate administrative courts under a special body of law, the droit administratif. Dicey thought such a separate law for officials was alien to English principles. A system that gave officials their own law and their own judges seemed to him to place them above the ordinary law.
Hewart's alarm. The same fear was voiced more sharply by Lord Hewart, Lord Chief Justice, in The New Despotism (1929). He argued that the executive, by taking rule-making and adjudicating powers, was undermining the rule of law at the expense of Parliament and the courts.
Why the objection was overstated.
- Dicey's contrast with France misread it. The French administrative courts became a strong check on officials, not a shield for them.
- Even in Dicey's time, English officials held many statutory powers that the ordinary courts did not control in detail.
- The welfare State, with its factory laws, public health, housing and social insurance, needed officials with discretion and specialised tribunals. The ordinary courts were too slow and too costly for millions of small disputes.
- The Committee on Ministers' Powers (the Donoughmore Committee), appointed in 1929, reported in 1932. It did not share Hewart's alarm. It accepted that delegated powers were necessary and asked instead for safeguards.
So the rule of law did not prevent administrative power. It required that such power be confined by law and checked by courts.
The objection from separation of powers
The doctrine. Montesquieu wrote The Spirit of the Laws in 1748. He argued that liberty is lost when three powers are combined in the same hands. They are the power to make laws, the power to execute them and the power to judge. Each power should be held by a separate body, so that power checks power.
Why administration seemed to offend it. A modern regulatory agency often does all three things. It frames rules (a legislative function), enforces them (an executive function), and decides disputes about them (a judicial function). A rigid separation would condemn such agencies, and with them much of administrative law.
Why this objection, too, fails.
- No rigid separation anywhere. No working constitution separates powers absolutely. Even in the United States, which adopted the doctrine most fully, the branches share and check each other's powers.
- India's position. Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549, held that the Indian Constitution has not recognised the doctrine "in its absolute rigidity". But the functions of the branches "have been sufficiently differentiated", so one organ should not assume the essential functions of another. The executive may exercise delegated legislative power and limited judicial functions when the law confers them. But it "can never go against the Constitution or any law".
- A limit, not a bar. Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1989 SC 1899, said each organ must act within its own sphere, and courts must not take over executive functions. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299, struck down a constitutional amendment that itself decided a disputed election. Deciding a particular dispute is judicial power, which even the amending body could not take over. So the doctrine operates in India as a guard against concentration of power, not as a ban on administrative bodies.
How both doctrines now support administrative law
The modern view turns the old objection around. Administrative law exists precisely to keep administrative power within the rule of law and within its proper sphere.
- Rule of law as the measure. Lord Bingham, in The Rule of Law (2010), stated its core principle. All persons and authorities, public or private, should be bound by publicly made laws, publicly administered in the courts. Among his sub-rules, questions of right should be decided by law, not discretion. Officials must also use their powers in good faith and for the purpose given. Judicial review of administrative action is the means of enforcing these rules.
- Controlling discretion. K.C. Davis, in Discretionary Justice (1969), accepted that discretion cannot be abolished. He argued that it should be confined, structured and checked. That is the modern programme of administrative law.
- Separation as checks. Separation of powers now works through checks: legislative control over delegated legislation, judicial review of administrative action, and independent tribunals. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125, held the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to be part of the basic structure. Administrative power can therefore never be put beyond the courts.
| Doctrine | Old objection | Modern role |
|---|---|---|
| Rule of law | No discretion; no special law or courts for officials (Dicey, Hewart) | Discretion confined by law and reviewed by courts (Bingham, Davis) |
| Separation of powers | Agencies may not combine rule-making, enforcement and judging | No rigid separation; each organ checks the others (Ram Jawaya Kapur, Indira Nehru Gandhi) |
Conclusion. The rule of law and the separation of powers were once seen as objections to administrative law. Dicey denied that England needed a special law for officials, and Hewart warned of a "new despotism". A rigid separation of powers would also have condemned bodies that make rules and decide disputes. But neither objection survived the needs of the modern State. The Donoughmore Committee accepted delegated power with safeguards, and Indian courts have held that the Constitution does not adopt a rigid separation (Ram Jawaya Kapur). Today both doctrines are the justification for administrative law. It exists to keep administrative power under law (Bingham) and to keep each organ within its sphere (Indira Nehru Gandhi, L. Chandra Kumar).
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.