Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/administrative-immunity-from-statute-operation-constitutional-law-essay.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:57:12+00:00

Document:
A matter in dispute has four feet: law, transaction, custom and the royal edict; (among them) the later one supersedes the earlier one.
Serving Justice- The Objective: After man became civilized, not only to serve justice in disputes has been the greatest concern but also it became necessary to ensure that justice is not only done but is deemed to have been done, as Lord Denning rightly said that when there is a good man in the saddle, the unruly horse can be controlled…it can be made to jump over obstacles and come to the other end, that of justice.
Administrative law and dispensation of justice: The Administrative Law deals with the structure, power and functions of the various organs of administration; the methods and procedures followed by them in expressing their powers and functions; the methods by which they are controlled and the remedies which are available to a person against them when his rights are infringed by their operation  . Therefore, given the importance and complexity of administrative functions it is explicitly clear that the privileges available to Government in legal proceedings before the ordinary courts of law, in which the interests of common people are involved is a thoroughly thought out path to let the administrative functions be carried out with smoothness, and such privileges have now become an inseparable and indispensable part of Administrative Law  .
Suits between the administration (Government) and private individuals: It could be understood that today government has larger interaction with common people than in past times. Due to the change in the concept of police state to welfare state there is larger interaction of Government with common people which is also the need and demand of welfare state as well as democratic set up of government. This leads to more and more litigation in ordinary courts between the government and common people.
Sovereign immunity: Sovereign immunity as per Lord Denning is largely an outdated concept, and if the government will not acknowledge this the courts must try to contain it. In India, it is the Constitution through which the Government draws and exercises its powers and gets them legitimatized. The Constitution is the reservoir of all the powers of the government. However, equality clause  of the Constitution envisages absence of any special privileges to anyone including government, but since government is a supreme in the functions it performs so it is essential to distinguish it legally on the basis of law from private individual. Law allows certain privileges to the government while it is in litigation with private individuals before ordinary courts.
Scheme of discussion: The scope of this research is to find out the several legally recognized immunities that the administrative authorities enjoy in law suits between such authorities and private parties. The researcher will first set out to answer the question as to is the state bound by a statute applicable to common people? This aspect would be discussed in some detail and the question of government privilege not to produce documents will be dealt with wherein the position in India with the help of decided cases. The position in England will not be taken up by the researcher due to paucity of space and time. Then, the privilege of the administrative authorities with respect to ‘notice’ and ‘limitation’ will be briefly elaborated on. Finally, some conclusions will be drawn. In this research the researcher will defend her argument that the administration must be entitled to certain privileges and immunities against operation of statutes for the smooth functioning of the administration in a country like India which has scores of different statutes operating in different parts of the country at a single point of time, which compels the administration to face several challenges in its everyday functioning. If the many hindrances and obstacles come in the way of the administration, there will be a complete breakdown of the administrative machinery of the State. The researcher has used the doctrinal method of research, and referred to certain primary sources such as statutes, for example the Constitution of India, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, The Civil Procedure code 1908, The Evidence Act, 1872, The Limitation Act,1963 etc. She has used certain books such as Administrative Law, by C. K. Thakkar, Administrative Law by S. P. Sathe, Principles of Administrative Law by M. P. Jain and S. N. Jain edited by Justice Guru Prasanna Singh and Alok Aradhe and several internet resources listed in the bibliography.
The researcher will seek to find answers to the question whether administrative immunity from statute operation is legally valid in India, if such immunity is justified, and how far is a state legally bound to a statute.
To what extent is the State bound by a statute? In England the Crown s not bound by a statute unless it is explicitly named therein or is bound by necessary implication  . In India this tenet was embraced in the ancient privy council decision in the case of Province of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay  . This took place just before India’s independence in the year 1947  . after India became independent, a majority decision supporting the tenet was delivered in support of the tenet in the case of Director of Rationing v. Corporation of Calcutta  where the West Bengal Government was sought to be prosecuted by the Corporation for storing supplies without a license. The court held by majority that the state was not bound by the statute unless it is expressly mentioned in the statute or it arose by necessary implication. However in two most important cases Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Corporation of Calcutta  and India v. Jubbi  the opposite view was upheld that a state was bound by a statute unless it is expressly exempted from it in so many words in the statute. The above cases compel one to conceive the view that the court of law from time to time has taken different positions based on the facts and circumstances of the different cases.
Government privilege not to produce documents: All courts of law requires the document on the basis of which it has to deliver the judgment. It is the need of individual that justice should be done by evaluating evidence produced by both the litigating parties. In India, the privilege of the government to withhold documents from production in the courts is claimed on the basis of Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the IEA).
In the modern era of welfare state, the administration has come to enjoy wide powers to interfere with the person and property of the individual  . It is certain that power of administration has to grow further in future. So with the increase in government activities, state undertaking several functions which were so far performed by the individuals. Thus, the interactions of individual increases with the government, causing sometimes people get aggrieved by government’s action and in order to satisfy their grievances they resort to the courts. The courts adopt different procedures in the litigation where the government is one of the parties against the common man in comparison to the suits between common people  . Whenever the matter comes before the courts in India, it decides the claim of privilege to withhold the documents on the basis of three distinct issues. One is the ‘public interest’ the other is ‘openness in government’ as part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (freedom of speech and expression) and the third is within the purview of Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) as interpreted by the Supreme Court  .
In such cases privilege can be claimed regarding those documents. By saying so the court meant that when by suppressing certain documents, the extent to which public interest is catered to is more than when disclosed, then this privilege of non-disclosure can be claimed  .
However, in certain cases the courts of law did inspect documents before giving its decision. For example in the case of State of Kerela v. The Midland Rubber & Produce Co  . the court ruled after going through the documents that the documents had nothing to do with public interest as such and they were only instrumental in defending the contentions of the State.
Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC) has laid down in Section 80 of it that no suit shall be instituted against the government, or against a public officer in respect of any act done by him in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been given in the manner provided in the section. Section 80 now, comes to embrace injunctions, declarations and contracts in its ambit.  In the case of Babulal v. Madhya Bharat  it was held that Section 80 covers both past actions as well as the future acts of the Government which are in the stage of contemplation. Further in the case of B. L. Shukla v. Fatmabai Ismail  that Secton 80 completely debars the court from entertaining any suit against the government instituted without complying to the mandates of the section  . In the case of Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar  the court held that suits filed before the expiration of two months must be rejected.
Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Section 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Section 82 of the CPC provides that when a decree is passed against the Union of India, or a state or a public service officer, a time must be specified in the decree within which it must be satisfied. If the same does not happen then the court will have liberty to report the case for orders of the government. Issuance of execution shall not take place unless the decree remains unsatisfied for a period of three months from the date of the decree  . Under s. 112 of the Limitation Act, the government is granted 30 years of limitation for institution of suits by it on its behalf.
d) by notification issued or made by the appropriate Government.
No public authority is completely excluded from the coverage of the RTI Act. All three armed forces, the Ministry of Defence, the Coast Guard, the Department of Atomic Energy, nuclear power plants and aeronautics and space research organisations (except the Aviation Research Centre) and state civilian and armed police organisations are covered by the RTI Act. Therefore in conclusion it must be said that privileges with checks could serve both ends of the issue: smooth functioning of the complicated affairs of the administrative bodies and serving justice in a just and fair manner.
"Administrative Immunity from Statute Operation." LawTeacher.net. 11 2013. All Answers Ltd. 04 2019 <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/administrative-immunity-from-statute-operation-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
"Administrative Immunity from Statute Operation." LawTeacher. LawTeacher.net, November 2013. Web. 22 April 2019. <https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/administrative-immunity-from-statute-operation-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
LawTeacher. November 2013. Administrative Immunity from Statute Operation. [online]. Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/administrative-immunity-from-statute-operation-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1 [Accessed 22 April 2019].
LawTeacher. Administrative Immunity from Statute Operation [Internet]. November 2013. [Accessed 22 April 2019]; Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/administrative-immunity-from-statute-operation-constitutional-law-essay.php?vref=1.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.