Reasonableness and fairness in Administrative Action: Comparative jurisprudence from India, UK and USA
Main Article Content
Abstract
Reasonableness and fairness are fundamental principles that regulate the exercise of administrative power in modern democratic states. With the expansion of welfare governance, administrative authorities enjoy wide discretionary powers that directly affect individual rights and liberties. To prevent arbitrariness and misuse of such powers, courts across jurisdictions have evolved doctrines ensuring that administrative actions are rational, just and procedurally fair. This paper examines the comparative jurisprudence on reasonableness and fairness in administrative action as developed in India, United Kingdom and the United States. While the United Kingdom laid the foundation through the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness, the United States emphasized due process and the “arbitrary and capricious” standard under administrative law. India, drawing from both these traditions, constitutionalized reasonableness and fairness under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The study highlights how these principles act as essential safeguards against arbitrary administrative action and reflects a growing convergence towards proportionality, transparency and accountability in public administration.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Craig, P. (2018). Administrative law (8th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
Wade, H. W. R., & Forsyth, C. F. (2014). Administrative law (11th ed.). Oxford University Press.
De Smith, S. A., Woolf, H., Jowell, J., & Le Sueur, A. (2018). De Smith’s judicial review (8th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
Elliott, M., & Thomas, R. (2020). Public law (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Dicey, A. V. (1959). Introduction to the study of the law of the Constitution (10th ed.). Macmillan.
Jain, M. P., & Jain, S. N. (2022). Principles of administrative law (9th ed.). LexisNexis.
Sathe, S. P. (2010). Judicial activism in India (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, B. (1991). Administrative law (3rd ed.). Little, Brown and Company.
Tribe, L. H. (2000). American constitutional law (3rd ed.). Foundation Press.
Garner, B. A. (Ed.). (2019). Black’s law dictionary (11th ed.). Thomson Reuters.
Craig, P. (1999). Unreasonableness and proportionality in UK law. Public Law, 205–230.
Jowell, J. (2000). Beyond the rule of law: Towards constitutional judicial review. Public Law, 671–683.
Markesinis, B. S. (1986). Reasonableness and administrative discretion. Cambridge Law Journal, 45(2), 263–290.
Mashaw, J. L. (1985). Proportionality and administrative justice. Yale Law Journal, 94(6), 1143–1185.
Baxi, U. (2008). The role of the judiciary in human rights protection. Indian Journal of Constitutional Law, 2(1), 1–22.
Constitution of India. (1950).
Human Rights Act. (1998). United Kingdom.
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559 (1946).
European Convention on Human Rights. (1950).
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1948) 1 KB 223 (UK).
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, [1985] AC 374 (UK).
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 (India).
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India).