Administrative directions

Administrative Directions are instructions or regulations issued

by the higher authorities to the lower authorities in the absence of
a rule or enactment pertaining to a specific issue or to
compensate or fill the lacunas in the existing laws and thereby
constructing better standards or platforms to tackle issues.
Administrative directions is otherwise designated as
‘Administrative quasi-law’ or ‘ Administrative quasi-
legislations’.
These directions can be specific, that is formulated and applied to
a particular purpose, or a particular case ; or it may be general
nature, laying down general principles, policies, practices, or
procedures to be followed in similar cases.
These direction are issued in the form of letters, circulars, orders,
public notices, pamphlets, press notes, etc, it is even published in
Government Gazette.
In modern times, the government enjoys indefinite
or boundless administrative powers, and therefore
the areas of issuing administrative directions is
quite ample.
The concept of Administrative directions has its
roots in Article 73 and Article 162 of the
constitution, they serves as the bedrock. These
Articles deals with administrative powers of
Government and such directions are generally
issued under it.
 According to Article 73, the executive power of the
Union extends to the matters with respect to which
Parliament has power to make laws.
According to Article 162, the executive power of the
State extends to the matters with respect to which
State Legislative has power to make laws.
These provisions exclusively deals with the
executive power of government and do not
confer any kind of legislative power.
Statutory powers are granted to issue directions.
A direction issued under statutory power prevails
over a direction issued under general
administrative power.
In the case of Secretary to the Government of
Haryana v Vidya Sagar, where two circulars are
issued on the same subject and the former was
general and later was specific, it was held that
the latter one will prevail.
A direction does not confer any enforceable rights on an
individual, or impose an obligation on the Administration or
individual. Even if a direction is misapplied or ignored by the
Administration, the affected individual can hardly claim a
remedy through a court of law.
But, this doesn’t mean that, administrative authorities may
disregard them with impunity. The authorities are expected to
follow the directions and their breach by them may lead to
disciplinary or other appropriate actions against them.
 Need For Administrative Direction

Administrative directions has become an integral part of Indian

Administrative system though not comprehensively. These
directions often serves as the best means to inform the people
regarding the dynamic policy decisions of government.
 Directions are issued in order to fill the lacunas in administrative
arena and to meet the exigencies. Supreme Court in Union of
India v Rakesh Sharma observed that, if the rules are silent on
any point the Government can fill up the gaps and supplement
the rules by issuing instructions not inconsistent with the rules.
It is often used to lay down procedure for various purposes to be
followed by the Administration or the public.
Directions are a part of the internal administrative procedure of
government procedure of a Government department. When a
number of officials are engaged in executing in a law and
taking decisions there under, directions may serve the purpose
of providing some criteria which may be followed by these
officials in discharging their functions so that there will be a
uniformity of approach in disposing similar cases.
Here arises a question as to why Administrative Direction, when
there is are provisions to make rules or delegated legislation
which is more powerful?
This trend of resorting to administrative directions can be
attributed to the flexibility or easiness in formulating and
implementing administrative directions.
On the other hand, certain formalities or procedures such as
laying before parliament, consultation of affected interest,
republication, publication in gazette etc are to be met for
formulating or promulgating a rule, issuing a direction is devoid
of all kind burdening procedural catenae and therefore
administrative directions are preferred over rules.
Further, Government may change a direction at any time without
much formality, a direction can be amended by issuing another
direction. While, amending a rule is not that smooth and it
involves a catenae of procedures.
In V.T Khanzode v Reserve Bank of India, directions were
preferred over rules because of the flexibility in issuing
directions. According to section 58 of Reserve Bank of India Act,
1934, RBI was entitled to issue regulations, however to be made
with the previous sanction of the Central Government, and they
are required to be laid before each houses of Parliament. But,
Bank opted to make direction in accordance with section 7(2) of
the Act.
Government frequently resort to administrative direction in
formulating a general norm in administrative arena if it lacks
required legislative power to do so.
There are several other situations where the Administration
may prefer directions rather than rules such as, when the
principle is not ripe for precise articulation, when the
department wishes to confer benefits on public without making
it a legal right, when the benefits to be conferred exceeds the
statutory provision, as any such rule which confers excess
benefits will be categorised as ultra vires.
Besides, there are situation where Rules are treated as Directions.
When rules made under statutory power are not given effect due
to the lacuna in rule making process, the courts can treat them as
directions. Instances of such judicial approach are-

1. When the rule are made without adhering to the procedural

safeguards imposed under relevant statutory provisions, then it
can be treated as a direction. Thus, if the statute under which rules
are made contains a condition that the rules should be subjected
to previous publication and if the authority makes rules without
observing such a procedure, then the court can treat the rules as
directions.

2. Similarly, where the statutory provision has conferred power to

make rules ‘ to carry out the purpose of the Act’ and if the rules
so made are not related to the purpose of the Act, then such a rule
can be treated as direction.
Unenforceability of Administrative Directions

The principle of non-enforceability of administrative directions is
illustrated in the case of J R Raghupathy v State of Andhra Pradesh, here
the state government had the statutory power to decide locations of
mandal headquarters. Subsequently, the government asked the Collectors
to send proposals for this purpose for consideration of the Government.
The Government issued certain guidelines to the Collectors to keep in
view while making proposals. Subsequently, there arose a question as to
the nature and enforceability of the guidelines issued by Government.
Supreme Court held that, guidelines were not enforceable as these are
merely departmental instructions meant for the Collectors to regulate the
manner in which they should formulate their proposal and had no
statutory force.
In the case of Prabhakar Reddy v State of Karnataka, it was
laid down that, a direction is unenforceable in the Court
against either a person or the Administration. A direction
neither confers any enforceable right on a person, nor imposes
an obligation or duty on the Administration. Misconstruction
or Misapplication of a direction by the Administration does
not amount to an error of law.
In Suresh Chandra Singh v Fertilizers Corporation of India, it
was held that administrative instructions are only advisory and
no writ can be issued to enforce them. The principle was upheld
in the case of Abdulla Rowther v STA Tribunal, it was held that
the validity of an administrative action taken in breach of an
administrative direction is not challengeable and the court will
refuse to issue any writ even when there is a patent breach of an
administrative direction.
The legal or enforceability status remains the same for a direction
issued under statutory provision also, it remains unenforceable.
The Supreme Court in the case of Raman and Raman v State of
Madras, held that the directions issued under Section 43-
A( authorises state government to issue orders and directions) of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 do not have the status of rule or law
and therefore are unenforceable at the instance of affected party.
An individual cannot thrust upon the administration to enforce
any direction, similarly, an individual can neither ask the
authorities to refrain from enforcing direction, this principle was
well settled in the case of State of Assam v Ajit Kumar Sharma.
In this case it was held that, a teacher cannot ask the college to
refrain from giving effect to the provisions of the grant-in-aid
Code which effects him prejudicially.
Exception to the rule of unenforceability

The rule of non – enforceability of administrative directions is not

an absolute principle and have certain exception, but not have any
fixed standard or criteria as to what renders a direction binding or
enforceable.
It is primarily based on facts and circumstances of a case. The
judicial approach on the question is pragmatic and ad hoc in nature.
A direction may be held liable on the Administration to the extend it
confers a benefit on individual.
In the case of Khet Singh v Union of India, the Narcotic Control
Bureau issued certain instructions for carrying out search and
seizure under the Act, Supreme Court held those instruction to be
binding or enforceable.
In B S Minhas v Indian Statistical Institute, the Supreme Court
held that instructions issued by the authority for procedural fairness
are binding even if they do not have statutory force.
In state of Uttar Pradesh v Chandra Mohan, a rule in the All
India Services Rules, authorised the government to compulsorily
retire a members of the service in public interest on reaching the
age of 50. This rule contained no guidelines as to premature
retirement, and whereby government issued certain directions for
this purpose. Supreme Court ruled that these directions are
binding and retirement orders which are not in congruity with the
said directions were held void.
In Baleshwar Dass v State of Uttar Pradesh, an office
memorandum was held binding as the Government had been
following the same for nearly two decades. In some situations, a
direction may be held binding on the Administration on the
principle of Promissory Estoppel.
 Circumstances That Render Administrative Directions Invalid

This so called privilege granted to administrative bodies to formulate

quintessential or circumstantially relevant notions or instructions is not
absolute.
It is a well established privilege to be used in the right way at circumstances
for a right cause, should be compatible and in accord with the said
limitations.
Let us now consider the situations under which a direction can be rendered
invalid or void. Like any other rule or law or principle, an administrative
direction will be held void if it is against this principle of Natural Justice,
the said principle being the heart and soul or bedrock of administrative law,
no direction can survive it tries override the principle of natural justice.
That is a direction should be in accordance with accordance with the
established principles and laws, and should be reasonable and relevant, a
direction should not be the fruit of unreasonable, ulterior discretion of
concerned authorities, if so, such a direction will be held invalid.
As discussed previously, a direction should not be inconsistent
with other existing rules or laws. In legal hierarchy, directions
occupy a place subordinate to other statues, or rules, and it is
settled in the case of State of Sikkim v Dorjee Tshering Bhutia,
that any order, instruction, direction, or notification issued in
exercise of the executive power of the state which is contrary to
any statutory provisions, is without jurisdiction and is a nullity.
A direction should not encroach into or adversely affect
individual rights. Any restriction prejudicial to individual interest
can be placed only by law, cannot be done through administrative
directions. In the case of District Collector, Chittoor v Chittoor
Groundnut Traders Association, the State Government issued a
circular to its officer not to permit transport of groundnut seeds
and oil outside the state by millers and traders unless they agreed
to supply certain quantities of these products to the state at the
price fixed by it. The circular thus placed restrictions on the right
of traders. Supreme Court quashed the circular as illegal and void
as the state government had no power to impose such restriction.
Similarly, a direction can stand only if it in congruence with
Article 14 of the constitution. Equality is one of the imperative
element of a democracy, any kind of divergence from this
principle will result in arbitrariness and definitely steer down the
essence of democracy. Therefore, administrative directions will
be held invalid if it violated Article 14.
In the case of S.L Sachdev v Union of India, an administrative
direction regarding the promotion of the upper division clerks to
higher grades was quashed as it was unreasonable, arbitrary,
illogical and violative of Article 14.
Difference between Delegated Legislation and Administrative Directions

Delegated Legislation Administrative Direction

1. Rule is a law, and has binding 1. Administrative direction is not
force. law. It has not binding force.

2. Rule has been recognized as 2. It has no such type of force.

law, as per Article 13 clause (3)
sub-clause (a) of Constitution.

3. Rules are the supplement to the 3. Administrative directions may

Acts. supplement the rule, but they
cannot supplant them.

4. These are issued by the 4. These are issued by higher

supreme legislation or subordinate authority to lower authority or to
legislation. public.