LLM Group 1 Constitutional and Administrative Law Administrative Process Nature and Scope Solved Question Papers with Answers 2015 to 2026 - Mumbai University | munotes

Administrative Process: Nature and Scope is Paper IV of LLM Group I, subject code 26919, and the first thing to establish is how many papers this folder holds. Five files hold eight distinct printed papers, because three of the scans carry two complete and different papers each: the 2015 file holds Q.P. Codes 12282 and 27191, the 2016 file holds QP Codes 11846 and 60990, the second marked Set I on its face, and the three page 2019 file holds form 72190 on page one and form 77770 on pages two and three, the third page being form 77770's Marathi translation and not a separate paper. Only 2018 and 2025-26 are single papers.

Six topics carry this subject, and prepared properly they will answer more questions than you are allowed to write. The rule of law is set in all eight papers and the separation of powers in all eight. Delegated legislation is in seven, the exception being form 72190. Administrative discretion is in seven, the exception being form 77770. A comparative question is in seven, and the eighth asks the same comparison in another shape, on how the methods of legal redress differ in India, the United Kingdom and France. The civil services are in seven. Those six cover at least five of the seven questions on every paper in the folder and six of the seven on five of them, against the four you actually have to answer.

The shape has never moved in eleven years: seven questions, attempt any four, all questions carry equal marks, one hundred marks in three hours. So every question is worth twenty five and each answer has about forty five minutes. No paper here prints twenty five against a question, which unsettles students who expect to see it, and the arithmetic is the paper's own: four answers to make one hundred. One paper says so on its face, form 77770 in the 2019 file, whose instruction reads that any four are to be answered at twenty five marks each. There is no compulsory question anywhere in the folder.

Most sittings let you spend one of your four answers on a short notes question, and the notes come from a small and repeating set. The doctrine of police power is set in six of the eight papers, the doctrine of eminent power in five, regulation and de-regulation policy in five, the role of administrative agencies in five, taxing power in four, the role of tribunals in adjudication in three, and responsibility and accountability of administrators, globalisation and liberalisation policy and the nature and scope of administrative processes in two or three each. A note is worth about twelve and a half marks inside a twenty five mark answer, which is more than a whole question on most undergraduate papers, so a list of headings will not do. Note also that two of the eight papers, Q.P. Code 22643 in 2018 and both 2019 papers, print their notes questions with no choice inside them, so both items have to be written.

The 2025-2026 paper is written in a different idiom from every other paper here and it is worth reading before you revise. Each of its first six questions begins with the word How and asks what has changed: how globalisation and liberalisation moved the administrative process from regulation to deregulation, how the changing dimensions of the rule of law have influenced its regulation, how separation of powers evolved from rigidity to flexibility, how delegated legislation meets the needs of modern administration, how technological development has influenced the structuring and limiting of discretion, and how four national systems differ. The older papers ask what a doctrine is; this one asks what has happened to it. An answer written as a definition will not fit the question, and an answer built as a movement, with a starting point, a cause and a present position, will.

Two things about this folder will save you from a mistake. Question 5 of form 72190 attributes a sentence about the review of discretionary power to a Justice Sripavan, and that attribution cannot be verified: the only judge of that name traceable is K. Sripavan, Chief Justice of Sri Lanka between 2015 and 2017, and no Indian judgment in that name could be found. The proposition itself is orthodox and is Lord Halsbury's in Sharp v. Wakefield, so answer the proposition and do not invent a citation. And the comparative question, which is in seven of the eight papers, is the one most easily answered out of date, because the United States overruled Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on 28 June 2024, so any account of American administrative law as a system of deference to the agency on questions of statutory meaning is now two years wrong.

These are model answers prepared by munotes. They are a study aid and not official University answer keys, which the University of Mumbai does not publish.