A

Project Report on
Doctrine of Rule of Law & Separation of Powers as
ethical obligation of Administrative Authorities

SUBMITTED TO:
Ms. Aditi Singh
(Faculty of Administrative
Law)

SUBMITTED BY:
DevendraDhruw
ROLL NO. 59
SEMESTER-VI C

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR (C.G.)

th
DATE OF SUBMISSION: 15 November, 2018
 Declaration

1
I, Pranav Vaidya, hereby declare that, the project work entitled, ‘Doctrine of Rule of
Law
& Separation of Powers as ethical obligation of the Administrative Authorities’
submitted to H.N.L.U., Raipur is record of an original work done by me.

Pranav Vaidya

Roll No. 117

Section C

Batch XIII

2
 Certificate

I, Devendra Dhruw, hereby declare that, the project work entitled, ‘Doctrine of Rule of Law
& Separation of Powers as ethical obligation of the Administrative Authorities’ submitted
to H.N.L.U., Raipur is made under the guidance of Ms. Aditi Singh, Faculty Member,
H.N.L.U., Raipur.

Devendra Dhruw

Roll No. 59
Section C

Batch XIII

3
 Acknowledgement

First and Foremost, I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep
regards to my teacher Ms. Aditi Singh for her exemplary guidance and
encouragement throughout the course of this project. The blessing help and guidance
given by her time to time shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I
am about to embark.

I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to IT lab staff and
library staff for their cordial support, valuable information and guidance which helped
me in completing this task efficiently.

Lastly, I thank almighty, my family and friends for their constant encouragement and
help without which this assignment would not be possible.

Devendra Dhruw

Roll No. 59
Section C

Batch XIII

4
 Contents

Serial Topic Page

No. No.

1. Declaration ii

2. Certificate iii

3. Acknowledgment iv

4. Chapter-1: Introduction 1

5. Research Methodology 3

6. Review of Literature 4

7. Chapter-2: Doctrine of Rule of Law & Separation

6 of Power; An introduction & adoption by the
Indian Judiciary

8. Chapter-3: Duty of the Administrative 12

5
 Authorities

9. Conclusion 15

10. Bibliography 16

Chapter-1: Introduction

6
The doctrines of Rule of Law & Separation of powers are considered to be one of the basic and
fundamental rules when it comes to imparting justice in the society. While the former states the
superiority of law shall be held irrespective of the person sitting in the control of power, the latter
states that there shall be a proper division of power within various organs of the government. In
India, the Constitution is regarded as Supreme law of the land. No one is above the
Constitution. It provides for three organs of the Government, viz., the Legislature,
Executive and the Judiciary, each to function independently so that the rule of law in the state
could be upheld in the State. But, due to ineffective legislature and also because of the powers of
the executive being in the hands of one person, there has been a series of inaction by the
legislature. Henceforth, the Judiciary has involved itself to bridge the gap in the law which the
state is lacking by means of establishing new doctrines, expanding the horizons of the law by
giving wide interpretations and also by declaring new principles.

The doctrine of Separation of Powers is based on the principle of trias politica. The Doctrine of
Separation of Power is the forerunner to all the constitutions of the world, which came into
existence since the days of the “Magna Carta”. Though Montesquieu was under the erroneous
impression that the foundations of the British constitution lay in the principle of Separation of
Power, it found its genesis in the American Constitution. Montesquieu had a feeling that it would
be a panacea to good governance but it had its own drawbacks. A complete Separation of
power without adequate checks and balances would have nullified any constitution. It was
only with this in mind the founding fathers of various constitutions have accepted this theory
with modifications to make it relevant to the changing times.

The Doctrine of “Separation of Powers”, a vintage product of scientific political

philosophy is closely connected with the concept of “judicial activism”. “Separation of Powers”
is embedded in the Indian Constitutional set up as one of its basic features. In India the fountain-
head of power is the Constitution. The sovereign power has been distributed among the three-
wings:

-Legislature.
7
-Executive.

- Judiciary

The doctrine of separation of powers envisages a tripartite system. Powers are delegated
by the Constitution to the three organs, and delineating the jurisdiction of each.
The position in India is that the doctrine of separation of powers has not been accorded a
constitutional status.

So the existence of such powers lying in the hands of Administrative authorities makes them a
very powerful body in itself. However, in India, the government is elected for the people, by the
people following the concept of welfare state. So there arises a duty on the part of the authorities
not to misuse such powers rested in them and at the same time impart justice to the society.
Through this paper I would like to throw some light upon the Doctrine of Rule of Law &
Separation of powers and how with the course of time it became an ethical obligation to the
administrative authorities.

8
 Research Methodology

Problem- The Rule of Law in its course of time has went through various changes
whereby the Judiciary has increased its powers for its enforcement. But there has been various
instances where the State/Government has tried to engulf such powers. In the similar way,
various administrative bodies or judicial or quasi-judicial bodies’ haven also tried to encroach
beyond the powers they possess which are not properly laid down in the constitution.

Rationale- The doctrine of rule of law is considered to be a basic feature of the

constitution of India where though it hasn’t been incorporated in the constitution per se, but the
judiciary being the guard of the laws, through various cases has tried and also evolved it to a way
that it has become a part of our constitution.

India is considered to have a federal constitution where, the powers of administration and
adjudication have been divided through various levels and organs of the government which
has been laid down through various statutes and laws. So it is the duty of such administrating and
adjudicating bodies to act within the powers adhered to them.

Objectives-

To study about the concept of Rule of law & Separation of Powers.

To study about how these doctrines have become an obligation to follow for the
administrative authorities..

Nature of Study- the nature of study of the present project is Doctrinal, as it is based on the
earlier judgments and Legal Maxims of Law.

Sources of Data- Mostly Primary Sources of data were used in making this project. Primary
Sources so used include judicial decisions. Some Secondary Sources are also used in making this
project, which includes Books.
9
Limitations- The project is focused only on the doctrines of Rule of Law & Separation of power
with regard to India in particular.

Contribution- The Study of the present paper helps us to know more about the doctrines of Rule
of Law & Separation of Powers, how they have evolved with time, how they are implemented in
India and the presence of any flaws with regard to its applicability in India .

Review of Literature

Literature Review is the documentation of a comprehensive review of the published and

unpublished work from secondary sources of data in the areas of specific interest to the researcher.
It is an extensive survey of all available past studies relevant to the field of investigation. It gives us
knowledge about what others have found out in the related field of study and how they have done
so.

After an extensive survey of available past studies relevant to the field of investigation, it has been
tried to accumulate the knowledge about what others have found out in the related field of study
and how they have done so. They have helped immensely in gaining background knowledge of the
research topic, in identifying the concepts relating to it, potential relationships between them and
identifying appropriate methodology, research design, methods of measuring concepts and
techniques of analysis, and also in identifying data sources used by other researchers.

The following literature has helped me in preparing of this research project-

I P Massey, Administrative Law, Eastern Book Company (8th ed. 2012) - The learned
authors work talks about the fundamental principles of Administrative Law and how they have
developed through judicial process. The book helped me to find out about the ambit of powers the
three bodies of the government through various case laws.

M. P. Jain and S. N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, LexisNexis (6th ed. 2007) –

10
The learned authors work gave me an insight about the meaning and definition of Rule of
Law & Separation of Power.

Hurwitz Huang, Civil war & Rule of Law (1st ed. 2009) – This Book helped me to develop a
greater understanding about the rule of law in practice and the extent to which it is
practiced in the society.

11
 Chapter-2: Doctrine of Rule of Law & Separation of Power; An introduction

Rule of Law

The concept of the Rule of Law is of old origin. Sir Edward Coke is said to be the
originator of this concept, when he said that “the King must be under God and Law” and thus

vindicated the supremacy of law over the pretentions of the executives 1. The concept of
Rule of Law has been developed by Dicey in the course of his lectures at the Oxford University
in his book “The Law of the Constitution” published in 1885.According to him, whenever there

discretion there is room for arbitrariness2.

Dicey’s Concept of Rule of Law

In his book, the law and the constitution, published in the year 1885, Dicey attributed three

meanings to the doctrine of rule of law3:

1. Supremacy of Law: It implies the absolute power of law, dominance and the
supremacy of it. It is opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and wide discretionary power.
In Dicey’s words, “wherever there is discretion, there is room for arbitrariness and that in a
republic no less than under a monarchy discretionary authority on the part of the government
must mean insecurity for legal freedom on the part of its subjects.

2. Equality before The Law: The law administered should be the ordinary rule of law applicable
to all the people equally irrespective of caste and creed or religion. This doctrine has been
also included in the Indian Constitution in the form of Article 14. The excerpts of which can
also be seen in Article 15. Dicey was of the view that, any encroachment on the
jurisdiction of the courts and any restrictions on the subject’s unimpeded access to them are
bound to jeopardize his rights.

1 . Judicial Activism’ and the enforcement of Socio-Economic Rights- The Indian Experience by
C.J.Balakrishnan
2 . Dicey: LAW 0F THE C0NSTITI0N, 8th Edn., p.198.
3 . ib id

12
3. Predominance of Legal Spirit: The Constitution is not the source but the consequence of the
rights of the individuals. Here, Dicey emphasized on the role of the courts. Without an
authority to protect and enforce the rights conferred upon citizen, their inclusion in a
document etc. is of little value. Mere inclusion is not authoritative and its provisions might be
abridged, trampled or overlooked.

Doctrine of Rule of Law speaks to what sovereign power and state conduct may not, after all, do.
It is now normatively well accepted that state actors may not as ways of governance practice
genocide, ethnic cleansing, institutionalized apartheid, slavery/slave-like practices, and
rape and other forms of abuse of women. Outside this, the Rule of Law constraint languages
stipulate/legislate the following general notions:

1. State powers ought to be differentiated; no single public authority ought to combine

the roles of the judge, jury, and executioner.

2. Governance via undeclared emergencies remains violative of Rule of Law values and
illegitimate.

3. The delegation of legislative powers to the executive ought always to respect some limits to
arbitrary sovereign discretion.

4. Governance powers may be exercised only within the ambit of legislatively defined intent
and purpose.

5. The State and law ought not to resist, or to repeal powers of judicial review or engage in
practices that adversely affect the independence of the legal profession.

Adoption of Rule of Law in India and Supreme Court Judgments:

Fundamental rights enshrined in part III of the constitution is a restriction on the law making
power of the Indian Parliament. It includes freedom of speech, expression, association,
movement, residence, property, profession and personal liberty. In its

13
broader sense the Constitution itself prescribes the basic legal system of the country. To
guarantee and promote fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens and the respect for the
principles of the democratic State based on rule of law. The popular habeas corpus case, ADM

Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla4 is one of the most important cases when it comes to rule of law.
In this case, the question before the court was
‘whether there was any rule of law in India apart from Article 21’. This was in context of
suspension of enforcement of Articles 14, 21 and 22 during the proclamation of an emergency.
The answer of the majority of the bench was in negative for the question of law. However Justice
H.R. Khanna dissented from the majority opinion and observed that “Even in absence of Article
21 in the Constitution, the state has got no power to deprive a person of his life and liberty
without the authority of law. Without such sanctity of life and liberty, the distinction between
a lawless society and one governed by laws would cease to have any meaning”.

Applied to the powers of the government, this requires that every government authority which
does some act which would otherwise be a wrong (such as taking a man’s land), or which
infringes a man’s liberty (as by refusing him planning permission), must be able to justify its
action as authorized by law and in nearly every case this will mean authorized directly or
indirectly by Act of Parliament.

The secondary meaning of rule of law is that the government should be conducted within a
framework of recognized rules and principles which restrict discretionary powers. The

Supreme Court observed in Som Raj v. State of Haryana5 that “the absence of arbitrary power
is the primary postulate of Rule of Law upon which the whole constitutional edifice is
defendant”. Discretion being exercised without any rule is a concept which is antithesis of
the concept.

The third meaning of rule of law highlights the independence of the judiciary and the supremacy
of courts. It is rightly reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case Union of India v. Raghubir
Singh6 that it is not a matter of doubt that a considerable degree that

4 . AIR 1976 SC 1207.

5 . AIR 1990 SC 1176.
6 . 1989 SCR (3) 316.

14
governs the lives of the people and regulates the State functions flows from the decision
of the superior courts.

Separation of Power:

It is widely accepted that for a political system to be stable, the holders of power need to be
balanced off against each other. The principle of separation of powers deals with the mutual
relations among the three organs of the government, namely legislature, executive and judiciary.
This doctrine tries to bring exclusiveness in the functioning of the three organs and hence a
strict demarcation of power is the aim sought to be achieved by this principle. This doctrine
signifies the fact that one person or body of persons should not exercise all the three powers of
the government.

Montesquieu, a French scholar, found that concentration of power in one person or a group of
persons results in tyranny. And therefore for decentralization of power to check
arbitrariness, he felt the need for vesting the governmental power in three different organs,
the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The principle implies that each organ should be
independent of the other and that no organ should perform functions that belong to the other.
Later Rousseau also supported the said theory propounded by Montesquieu. England follows
the parliamentary form of government where the crown is only a titular head. The mere
existence of the cabinet system negates the doctrine of separation of power in England as the
executive represented by the cabinet remains in power at the sweet will of the parliament.

In India under the Indian constitution there is an express provision under article 50 of the
constitution which clearly states that the state should take necessary steps to separate
judiciary from the executive i.e. independence of judiciary should be maintained.

Montesquieu’s Theory

According to this theory, powers are of three kinds: Legislative, executive and judicial
15
and that each of these powers should be vested in a separate and distinct organ, for if all these
powers, or any two of them, are united in the same organ or individual, there can be no liberty.
If, for instance, legislative and executive powers unite, there is apprehension that the organ
concerned may enact tyrannical laws and execute them in a tyrannical manner. Again, there can
be no liberty if the judicial power be not separated from the legislative and the executive. Where
it joined the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control,
for the judge would then be the legislator. Where it joined with the executive power, the
judge might behave with
violence and oppression7.The theory states that:

“There would be an end of everything, where the same man or the same body, whether of nobles
or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public

resolutions and of trying the causes of individuals8.”

The theory of separation of powers signifies three formulations of structural

classification of governmental powers:

1. The same person should not form part of more than one of the three organs of the
government. For example, ministers should not sit in the Parliament.

2. One organ of the government should not interfere with any other organ of the
government.

3. One organ of the government should not exercise the functions assigned to any other

organ9.

Adoption of Separation of Power in India and Supreme Court Judgments:

In India, the doctrine of separation of powers has not been accorded a constitutional status. Apart
from the directive principle laid down in Article 5010 which enjoins separation of
judiciary from the executive, the constitutional scheme does not embody

7 . Upadhyaya; Administrative Law (Central Law Agency; 8th edition), p.46.

8 , THE SPIRIT OF THE LAWS, p.151-152, quoted in Thakker, C.K Administrative Law
(Eastern Book
Company),
9 . Massey, p.31.
I.P ; Administrative Law, p.39-40
10 . Constitution of India Act 1950.
16
any formalistic and dogmatic division of powers11.

The Supreme Court in Ram JawayaKapur v. State of Punjab12, held:

“Indian Constitution has not indeed recognized the doctrine of separation of powers in its
absolute rigidity but the functions of the different parts or branches of the government
have been sufficiently differentiated and consequently it can be very well said that our
Constitution does not contemplate assumption by one organ or part of the State of functions that
essentially belong to another.”

In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain13, Ray C.J.also observed that in the Indian
Constitution there is separation of powers in a broad sense only. A rigid separation of powers as
under the American Constitution or under the Australian Constitution does not apply to India.
However, the Court held that though the constituent power is independent of the doctrine
of separation of powers to implant the story of basic structure as developed in the case of
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerela14 on the ordinary legislative powers will be an
encroachment on the theory of separation of powers. Nevertheless, Beg, J. added that
separation of powers is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. None of the three separate
organs of the Republic can take over the functions assigned to the other. This scheme of the
Constitution cannot be changed even by resorting to Article 368 of the Constitution.

In India, not only is there a functional overlapping but there is personnel overlapping also. The
Supreme Court has the power to declare void the laws passed by the legislature and the
actions taken by the executive if the violate any provision of the Constitution or the law passed
by the legislature in case of executive actions. Even the power to amend the Constitution by
Parliament is subject to the scrutiny of the Court. The Court can declare any amendment void
if it changes he basic structure of the Constitution15. The President of India in whom the
Executive Authority of India is vested

11 . UpendraBaxi: Developments in Indian Administrative Law, in PUBLIC LAW INDIA

12 . AIR 1955 SC 549.
13 . 1975 SCC 1, 61
14 . AIR 1973 SC 1461.
15 . AIR 1973 SC 1461.

17
exercises law making power in the shape of ordinance making power and also the
judicial powers under Article 103(1) and Article 217(3) to mention only a few. The
Council of Ministers is selected from the Legislature and is responsible to the Legislature.
The Legislature besides exercising law making powers exercises judicial powers in cases of
breach of its privilege, impeachment of the President and the removal of the judges. The
Executive may further affect the functioning of the judiciary
by making appointments to the office of the Chief Justice and other Judges16.

Chapter-3: Duty of the Administrative authorities

Although, complete absence of discretionary powers, or absence of inequality are not possible in
this administrative age, yet the concept of rule of law has been developed and is prevalent in
common law countries such as India. The rule of law has provided a sort of touchstone to judge
and test the administrative law prevailing in the country at a given time. Rule of law, traditionally
denotes the absence of arbitrary powers, and hence one can denounce the increase of
arbitrary or discretionary powers of the administration and advocate controlling it through
procedures and other means. Rule of law for that matter is also associated with
supremacy of courts. Therefore, in the ultimate analysis, courts should have the
power to control the administrative action and any overt diminution of that power is
to be criticized. The principle implicit in the rule of law that the executive must act
under the law and not by its own fiat is still a cardinal principle of the common law
system, which is being followed by India.

In the common law system the executive is regarded as not having any inherent
powers of its own, but all its powers flow and emanate from the law. It is one of
the vital principles playing an important role in democratic countries like India. There
is a thin line between judicial review and judicial activism. Rule of law serves as the
basis of judicial review of administrative action. The judiciary sees to it that the
executive keeps itself within the limits of law and does not overstep the same. Thus,
judicial activism is kept into check. However there are instances in India where
judiciary has tried to
16
. Massey. I.P Administrative Law.

18
infringe upon the territory of the executive and the legislature. A recent example of this would be
the present reservation scenario for the other backward classes. The judiciary propagated that
the creamy layer should be excluded from the benefits of the reservation policy, whereas
the legislature and the executive were against it.

Through various cases from the passage of time, the Indian Judiciary has accepted rule of law as
a part of our constitution to such extent that by virtue of being a welfare state, it becomes the duty
or rather an ethical obligation of the executives and the legislature to adhere to the principle of
Rule of law. In Chief settlement Commr; Punjab v. Om Prakash17, it was observed by the
supreme court that, “In our constitutional system, the central and most characteristic feature is the
concept of rule of law which means, in the present context, the authority of law courts to test
all administrative action by the standard of legality. The administrative or executive action
that does not meet the standard will be set aside if the aggrieved person brings the matter into
notice.”

In the case of Sukhdev v. Bhagatram18 Mathew J. declared that “Whatever be the

concept of the rule of law, whether it be the meaning given by Dicey in his "The Law of the
Constitution" or the definition given by Hayek in his "Road to Serfdom" and
"Constitution of liberty" or the exposition set-forth by Harry Jones in his "The Rule of Law and
the Welfare State", there is, as pointed out by Mathew, J., in his article on "The Welfare State,
Rule of Law and Natural Justice" in "Democracy, Equality and Freedom," "substantial agreement
is in juristic thought that the great purpose of the rule of law notion is the protection of the
individual against arbitrary exercise of power, wherever it is found". It is indeed unthinkable that
in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers
should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive
Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very
essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the application of this
principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affection of some
right or denial of some privilege.

17 . 1968 SCR (3) 65.

18 . AIR 1975 SC 1331.

19
Similarly, the doctrine of Separation of powers has grown up with the intervention of judiciary
who being the protector of constitution has changed the stance of the administrative
authorities in different matters. The doctrine puts less and less emphasis on organizational

pattern, and seeks to effect increasingly functional division. In re Delhi Laws Act19 case,
Hon’ble Kania, CJ., observed that:

“Although in the Constitution of India, there is no express separation of power, it is clear that a
legislature is created by the Constitution and detailed provisions are made for making that
legislature pass laws. Is it then too much to say that under the Constitution the duty to make laws,
the duty to exercise its own wisdom, judgment and patriotism in making law is primarily cast on
Legislature? Does it not imply that unless it can be gathered from other provisions of the
Constitution, other bodies executive or judicial are not intended to discharge legislative
functions”.

Therefore, the functions of different organs are clearly earmarked so that one organ does not
usurp the functions of another. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain [AIR 1975
SC 2299], Ray CJ., also observed that in the Indian Constitution there is separation of powers in
broad sense only. Beg, J., has observed that basic structure also embodies the separation of
powers doctrine and none of the pillars of the Indian Republic can take over the other functions,
even under Article 368. Chandrachud, J., reiterated this view and held that this doctrine is useful
as a means of checks and balances in a political setup. For examples the judiciary should shy
away from the politics of the Parliament and the latter should revere the opinion of the
Courts.[xii]

In Bandhuva Mukti Morcha v. Union of India20, Pathak J., said:

“The Constitution envisages a broad division of the power of state between the
legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Although the division is not precisely
demarcated, there is general acknowledgment of its limits. The limits can be gathered from the
written text of the Constitution, from conventions and constitutional practice, and from an entire
array of judicial decisions.”[xiii]

19 . AIR 1951 SC 332.

20 . AIR 1984 SC 802.

20
Essential functions were also defined in Mallikarjuna v. State of Andhra Pradesh21, when the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed the State Government “to evolve proper and
rational method of determination of seniority among the veterinary surgeons in the matters of
promotions to next higher rank of Assistant Director of Veterinary Surgeons”. The Supreme
Court quashed the aforesaid direction and observed that the power under Article 309 of the
Constitution to frame rules is the legislative power which has to be exercised by the President or
the Governor of the State as the case may be. The High Court or Administrative Tribunals
cannot issue a mandate to the State Government to legislate on any matter. In this way the
principle of restraint prevents any organ of the State from becoming superior to another or others
in action.

Conclusion

It has been well said by Lord Acton, “Power corrupts and absolute Power tends to
corrupt absolutely”. Conferment of power in a single body leads to absolutism. But, even after
distinguishing the functions, when an authority wields public power, then providing absolute and
sole discretion to the body in the matters regarding its sphere of influence may also cause abuse
of such power. Therefore, the doctrine of separation of powers is a theoretical concept and is very
difficult to follow practically.

The status of modern state is a lot more different than what it used to be. It has evolved a great
deal from a minimal, non-interventionist state to an welfare state, wherein it has multifarious
roles to play, like that of a protector, arbiter, controller, provider. This omnipresence of the
state has rendered its functions becoming diverse and problems, interdependent and any serious
attempt to define and separate those functions would cause inefficiency in government. Hence, a
distinction is made between ‘essential’ and

21 . AIR 1990 SC 1251.

21
‘incidental’ powers of an organ. According to this differentiation one organ can’t claim the
powers essentially belonging to other organ because that would be a violation of the principle of
separation of powers. But, it can claim the exercise of the incidental functions of another
organ. This distinction prevents encroachment of an organ into the essential scope of activity of
the other.

It is the exercise of incidental powers only which has made executive grow everywhere in this
social welfare state. It has assumed a vital role but, it has not usurped any role from any other
wing. It just happened that the other two organs, namely, judiciary and legislature, became
unsuitable for undertaking the functions of this welfare state and as a consequence the functions
of the executive increased. As controller and provider, the judicial processes were very time
consuming and the legislature was overburdened with work. Therefore, it was in natural scheme
of things which made the administrators end up performing a variety of roles in the modern state
including those of legislature and judiciary too, to an extent.

Suggestions

Parliament should enact an expressive law to decipher the limit or extent of power
the 3 bodies of government i.e. Legislative, Executive & Judiciary.
Judiciary should come up with the limits to which different bodies(administrative,
or executive) can widen their scope of powers.
Parliament should expressly make a list of the Essential Legislative Functions, which
should be open to amendment with changing times.
 Bibliography

22
 Massey I P; Administrative Law, Eastern Book Company (8th ed. 2012).

M. P. Jain and S. N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, LexisNexis (6th ed. 2007)

Hurwitz Huang, Civil war & Rule of law (1nd ed. 2009)

Bakshi, P.M., ‘The Constitution of India’, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2005.

Upadhyaya; Administrative Law (Central Law Agency; 8th edition).

23