top of page
Question Bank
Question
In administrative law, a fundamental principle prevents a statutory authority from justifying its order with new reasons at a later stage. Explain this principle and its underlying rationale?
Solution
This principle establishes that the validity of an administrative or statutory order must be judged exclusively by the reasons mentioned in the order itself at the time it is made. The rationale is that a public order is meant to have an immediate and public effect, and those affected by it must be able to understand the grounds for the decision from the order's language. This doctrine prevents an authority from validating an initially flawed order by supplementing it with fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or other explanations during legal proceedings. The objective is to ensure transparency and fairness, ensuring that citizens can challenge an order based on its stated grounds without the goalposts being shifted later.
Question
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Beyond classified discrimination, how does this article protect citizens from state actions that are not discriminatory but are otherwise unfair?
Solution
The protection under Article 14 of the Constitution has been expansively interpreted by the judiciary to protect citizens from patent arbitrariness and illegality in state action. This means that any action by the State that is manifestly arbitrary, irrational, or without any legal basis violates the right to equality. It is not necessary for an action to be discriminatory to fall foul of Article 14; an action that is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have ever arrived at it is equally violative. This principle ensures that state power is exercised in a just, fair, and reasonable manner, and any action lacking these qualities is deemed unconstitutional.
Question
What is the conceptual difference between 'compensation' awarded by courts in writ petitions under public law and 'damages' claimed in a civil suit under private law for a wrongful act?
Solution
The key difference lies in the nature and purpose of the remedy. Compensation in public law is not meant to be a precise calculation of actual loss, as in a civil suit. Instead, it is awarded in proceedings like writ petitions under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution as a form of monetary amends for the breach of a public duty by the state. Its purpose is to penalize the wrongdoer for the public wrong and to provide relief for the violation of fundamental rights or legal rights. It is akin to exemplary damages and serves as a deterrent, ensuring public bodies act lawfully. In contrast, damages under private law in a tort suit are calculated to compensate the individual for the specific, quantifiable loss suffered and are based on established principles of civil liability.
Question
Explain the principle of vicarious liability of the State in the context of losses suffered by a citizen due to the negligent or patently illegal actions of a government officer?
Solution
The principle of vicarious liability of the State holds the government financially responsible for the actions of its employees performed in the course of their official duties. When a government officer acts with negligence or passes a patently wrongful order that causes a citizen to suffer a loss, the State can be held liable to provide compensation. This liability is linked directly to the officer's deliquency. The objective is to ensure that the citizen is not left remediless and that the State, as the master, is accountable for the deeds of its servants. Furthermore, the courts have upheld that it is open for the State to subsequently recover the amount of damages from the delinquent officers personally who were responsible for the unsustainable action.
Question
Apart from issuing prerogative writs like certiorari or mandamus, what is the extent of the power of the Supreme Court and High Courts to grant monetary compensation in constitutional petitions?
Solution
The Supreme Court and High Courts possess wide powers under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, respectively, to enforce fundamental rights and for any other purpose. This power includes the authority to mold the relief appropriately to ensure complete justice. Consequently, these courts can grant compensation in writ jurisdiction even when it is not specifically claimed, provided the facts of the case warrant it. This is not a power exercised routinely but is reserved for cases involving patent illegality or violation of fundamental rights where the executive action is grossly arbitrary. Awarding compensation in such scenarios is a tool to uphold the rule of law and assure citizens that the legal system protects their interests against state excesses.
bottom of page