KSLU Solved Question Papers
Administrative Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
2016 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Administrative Law 2016 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 2016 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2016 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 2016 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 · 13 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.
Q1What is "Rule of Law" and discuss its position in India.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the concept (government by law, not by will; Dicey's three ideas and their modern form); its basis in the Constitution (supremacy of the Constitution; Articles 13, 14, 21, 32, 226); its application in India through decided cases, under six heads: (1) executive action needs law (Ram Jawaya Kapur), (2) no one is above the law (Vineet Narain; Indira Nehru Gandhi), (3) no arbitrary power (E.P. Royappa; Maneka Gandhi), (4) liberty and custody (Rudul Sah; D.K. Basu; ADM Jabalpur and its overruling), (5) independent courts and review (Second Judges case; L. Chandra Kumar), (6) the State answerable in damages (Nagendra Rao); an assessment; a table; a conclusion.
The concept
The rule of law means that a country is governed by settled law rather than by the will of those in power. A.V. Dicey gave it three ideas in 1885. Regular law is supreme over arbitrary power. Everyone, officials included, is equal before the ordinary law and the ordinary courts. And rights are secured by the courts. In its modern form, the doctrine also requires that laws be clear and public, and that power be used fairly and for its purpose. Fundamental rights must be respected, and independent courts must be open to all.
Dicey's version needs adjusting for India. The Constitution itself permits wide discretion, delegated legislation and special tribunals, which Dicey distrusted. So the rule of law in India does not forbid administrative power. It requires that such power rest on law, be confined by standards, be exercised fairly, and remain open to review by independent courts.
Its basis in the Constitution
In India the rule of law does not rest on custom alone. The Constitution is supreme, and every organ of the State works under it. Article 13 makes laws void if they violate fundamental rights. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, and Article 21 protects life and liberty except by procedure established by law. Articles 32 and 226 give every person access to the courts to enforce these rights. The courts have applied these provisions in the cases below.
1. Executive action needs law
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549. Publishers of school textbooks complained that the Punjab Government, by executive notifications, had nationalised the textbook trade and practically pushed them out of it. The Supreme Court held that executive power is the residue left after legislative and judicial functions are taken away. The executive may act in many matters without a specific law. But it cannot infringe the rights of citizens without the authority of law. The petitions were dismissed on their facts. The principle stated, however, is the first rule of law in India: power over the citizen must rest on law.
2. No one is above the law
Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889. The CBI had failed to investigate the "Jain diaries" payments said to have been made to politicians and senior officials. The Supreme Court monitored the investigation itself. It struck down a directive that shielded senior officers from investigation without prior sanction, and gave the Central Vigilance Commission superintendence over the CBI. It said that the basic postulate of equality, "Be you ever so high, the law is above you", governed every step it took.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299, applied the same idea to the highest office. While the Prime Minister's election appeal was pending, the Thirty-ninth Amendment declared her election valid and beyond challenge. The Supreme Court struck down that clause. Even Parliament, amending the Constitution, cannot decide an individual dispute and place it beyond the courts.
3. No arbitrary power
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555. The acting Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu challenged his transfer to newly created posts as arbitrary. His petition failed on the facts. But Bhagwati J said that "equality is antithetic to arbitrariness", so arbitrary action violates Article 14. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, built on this. A passport impounded without a hearing or reasons failed because procedure under Article 21 must be right, just and fair.
4. Liberty and custody
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 1086. A man was kept in jail for over fourteen years after his acquittal. The Supreme Court ordered compensation, saying Article 21 would be "denuded of its significant content" if it could only order release. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610, laid down safeguards for every arrest and detention, such as an arrest memo and informing a relative. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579, extended the rule of law inside the prison. A prisoner's letter alleging that a warder had tortured another inmate was treated as a habeas corpus petition. The Court found the torture proved, and gave directions to protect prisoners, such as access to lawyers and grievance boxes.
The low point came during the Emergency. Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207, held by majority that, with Article 21 suspended, no detenu could seek habeas corpus, even against an illegal detention. Khanna J dissented. The Forty-fourth Amendment (1978) then provided that Articles 20 and 21 cannot be suspended. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161, nine judges expressly overruled ADM Jabalpur.
5. Independent courts and review
The rule of law needs judges who are independent of the executive. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268, the Second Judges case, held that in appointing judges the opinion of the judiciary, "symbolised by the view of the Chief Justice of India", has primacy. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125, held that the High Courts' power under Articles 226 and 227, and the Supreme Court's under Article 32, are part of the basic structure. Tribunals cannot wholly replace them.
6. The State answerable in damages
N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 2663. A dealer's fertiliser and food grains, seized under control orders, rotted in official custody. The Supreme Court held the State liable. Sovereign immunity survives only for primary functions such as defence. Equality before the law includes the State's own liability for its officers' wrongs.
An assessment
The Indian courts have given the rule of law real content. It requires legal authority for executive action and equality even for the most powerful. It forbids arbitrariness, protects liberty in custody, keeps the courts independent and makes the State pay for its wrongs. But the doctrine is only as strong as its enforcement, and enforcement depends on courts that are accessible as well as independent. ADM Jabalpur shows it can fail under pressure. Delay in courts and custodial violence still test it daily. Each generation has to defend it again.
| Head | Case | Rule applied |
|---|---|---|
| Executive needs law | Ram Jawaya Kapur | No infringement of rights without law |
| No one above law | Vineet Narain; Indira Nehru Gandhi | "Be you ever so high, the law is above you" |
| No arbitrary power | E.P. Royappa; Maneka Gandhi | Arbitrariness violates Articles 14 and 21 |
| Liberty | Rudul Sah; D.K. Basu; Puttaswamy | Compensation, arrest safeguards, ADM Jabalpur overruled |
| Independent courts | Second Judges case; L. Chandra Kumar | Judicial primacy; review in the basic structure |
| State liability | Nagendra Rao | Immunity confined to primary functions |
Conclusion. The rule of law means government according to law, equality before it and protection against arbitrary power, guaranteed by independent courts. In India the Constitution makes it binding, and the Supreme Court has applied it in practice. Executive action must rest on law (Ram Jawaya Kapur), and no one is above the law (Vineet Narain, Indira Nehru Gandhi). Arbitrariness is forbidden (Royappa, Maneka Gandhi), and liberty in custody is protected (Rudul Sah, D.K. Basu). ADM Jabalpur has been overruled (Puttaswamy). The courts' independence and their power of review stand protected (Second Judges case, L. Chandra Kumar), and the State answers for its wrongs (Nagendra Rao).
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.