Administrative Law

This case examines "Judicial Review of Welfare Legislation and Fundamental Rights". The Supreme Court upheld the Payment of Bonus Act, stating it served a legitimate welfare purpose and did not violate fundamental rights. This reinforces the principle that welfare legislation aimed at social objectives is generally upheld unless proven arbitrary.

Focusing on "Delegated Legislation and Excessive Delegation," the Supreme Court found the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act unconstitutional for granting unguided powers to the executive. This case highlights that delegated legislation must have clear limitations to prevent misuse of power.

This case addresses "Natural Justice and Administrative Bias". The Supreme Court ruled that administrative decisions involving the same officer proposing and adjudicating a policy violate fairness and natural justice.

On "Legitimate Expectation and Fairness," the court recognized Schmidt's legitimate expectation to remain in the UK. It ruled that administrative bodies must respect fairness even in the absence of a legal right.

This case highlights the "Principle of Proportionality in Administrative Actions". The Supreme Court held that punishment for a minor infraction must be proportionate, rejecting excessive penalties.

Related to "Transparency and Fairness in Administrative Procedures," this case reinforced the need for due process and fairness in selection processes conducted by administrative bodies like UPSC.

This case pertains to "Abolition of Tribunals and Access to Justice". The Supreme Court upheld the government's power to abolish tribunals while emphasizing the need for alternative forums to ensure access to justice.

Involving "Tribunals, Judicial Independence, and Constitutional Safeguards," this case underlined that tribunals must operate independently and adhere to judicial standards to maintain constitutional integrity.

This case addresses "Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development," affirming that environmental laws must balance development needs with sustainability, aligning with Article 21 of the Constitution.

This case focuses on the "Doctrine of Proportionality in Administrative Actions". The Supreme Court ruled against arbitrary actions, emphasizing that decisions must be fair, balanced, and aligned with the facts.

On "Arbitrariness and Article 14," the Court ruled that arbitrariness in administrative actions violates the right to equality. Fairness and objectivity are essential to avoid unconstitutional actions.

Topic: Accountability and Corruption of Public Officials

Facts: Allegations of corruption were made against A.R. Antulay, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, for misuse of public office.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that public officials are accountable for their actions and can face prosecution for corrupt practices. This case reinforces that no one in power is above the law.

Facts: Undertrial prisoners in Bihar were detained beyond the maximum punishment for their offenses due to lack of legal representation.

Held: The Supreme Court emphasized that free legal aid is an essential part of fair procedure under Article 39A, mandating the state's duty to provide legal assistance for justice regardless of economic status.

Facts: M.H. Hoskot, an undertrial prisoner, was denied legal representation.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that free legal aid is a fundamental right under Article 39A, integral to a fair trial and the right to life and personal liberty.

Facts: The constitutionality of the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments was challenged, focusing on the limits of Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.

Held: The Supreme Court introduced the basic structure doctrine, ruling that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. This case emphasized the supremacy of constitutional principles and limited arbitrary amendments.