- The policy formulation process will involve a series of consultations with experts, stakeholders, and sometimes members of the public, to come up with comprehensive and workable policies.

2. Preliminary Policy Making Process

-Information Gathering

• Surveys, research reports analysis, and expert opinions provide systematic collection of data and information to back the decision-making process.

• The proposed decision, in some cases may involve an inquiry or investigation of facts and their implications.

-Consultations

• Decision-making institutions make consultations within the departments or with other government institutions in the course of their decision-making process.

• The more complex problems require consultations with external entities, experts, or the public to ensure consideration of all opinions.

3. Decision-Making Process

-Preparation of Recommendations

• The information that has been compiled and the consultations are utilized to arrive at recommendations, typically by officials or committees within the administrative body.

• The recommendations are vetted and, often, revised before being presented to the final decision authority.

-Final Decision

• The competent authority – minister, senior official or a board depending on the nature and scope of choice selects the final choice

• Certain decisions may require additional approval by superior authorities or the Cabinet

4. Procedural Aspects

-Legality

• The decisions must accord with relevant laws, regulations and rules applicable to the specific administrative function.

• All procedures must operate within the principles of natural justice, specifically guaranteeing the proper opportunity to be heard to the parties concerned and the independence of the decision-makers.

-Record Keeping

• A full record of the decision-making process must be kept, with details of any prior consultation/ consultation process/ inquiry and reasons for arriving at the decision.

5. Communication

-Decisions are communicated to the concerned parties in the form of official notifications, letters, or public notifications.

-The Appellate authority takes appropriate measures such as passing orders, making regulations or doing any other act.

6. Review and Redressal

-Judicial Review

• Administrative decisions can be challenged in courts on grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety

• The High Courts under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, issue writs, like certiorari, mandamus to either review or compel any action involving an administrative decision

- Administrative Tribunals

• Apparatus, primarily involving government servants or specific areas, are subject to revision by particular tribunals like CAT or State Government Tribunals.

7. Accountability and Transparency

-The Right to Information Act makes administrative decisions and procedures transparent and subjects them to scrutiny by making all information available to the public.

-Administrative bodies are accountable to the public and are liable to provide information regardin g their decisions to the public, especially when challenged.

8. Revision and Reforms

-The decisions can be reconsidered in case of some new information is available, or when the first decision proves not to be effective or not quite fair.

-Circumstances or feedback from the functioning of policies and decisions lead to change or upgrading of the same.

Administrative Accountability:

Administrative Accountability in important for decision-making processes under Indian administrative law It is of great importance for maintaining public trust in administrative institutions, seeing that administrative procedures properly serve the public interest. The accountability primarily consists of the certain elements and mechanisms: In other words, the accountability of administrative decisions is upheld through an amalgamation of legal principles, procedural requirements, transparency measures, judicial review, and both internal and external oversight mechanisms.

These elements are as follows:

1. Legality and Lawfulness

- Administrative decisions should be carried out in accordance with the power and provisions established by law.

-All such decisions which are made either in excess of or contrary to these powers will be subject to judicial review and hence liable to be quashed by courts.

- Decision-makers are required to follow procedural provisions contained in legislation. A failure to follow these procedural requirements can result in the decisions being quashed.

2. Principles of Natural Justice

- Right to a Fair Hearing, also known as 'audi alteram partem' which means "hear the other side," provides that without hearing the party or parties likely to be affected by the administrative decision, no adverse decision can be made against him, her, or them.

-In view of nemo judex in causa sua, which means, "no one should be a judge in his own cause," what is demanded is that the decision-making authority must be impartial and not subject to any bias or conflict of interest, so as to be fair in its decision-making.

3. Transparency and Openness

- All administrative decisions must be accompanied by a document clearly mentioning the reasons behind such a decision. It allows for transparency and the concerned parties to understand as to why such decisions have been taken.

-Under the Right to Information Act, every citizen has access to information that is related to any administrative decisions and procedures, hence making it more transparent and increasing accountability.

4. Judicial Review

-Courts can review the administrative decisions for legality, reasonableness, and principles of natural justice. The review incorporates:

- Whether the decision was made beyond or in violation of the legal power.

- Whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have arrived at it.

- Ensuring that the process of decision-making conformed to procedure and principles of natural justice.

- Articles 226 and 32 of the Indian Constitution empower High Courts and Supreme Court respectively to issue writs like mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus to correct administrative excesses or failures.

5. Administrative Mechanisms

- Most administrative bodies have machinery for redressing complaints or grievance arising out of an administrative decision. Such internal machinery is in place to exhaust the remedy before the judiciary.

- Organisations such as Lokpal and Lokayuktas set up to receive and look into complaints concerning administrative decisions, especially those on corruption and mal-administration.

6. Ethical and Professional Standards

-The administrative officials have to follow ethical codes of conduct that should inculcate in them the principles of fairness, integrity, and accountability in decision-making.

-Officials who engage in violating ethical standards or improper decision-making are liable for appropriate disciplinary action, in order to uphold accountability.

7. Public Participation

- There are cases of administrative decision-making procedures that go with public consultations and mechanisms for obtaining feedback. This helps to ensure that decisions arrived at respond to the views, interests, and needs of the affected communities, and enhances accountability.

- PIL is the mechanism through which the administrative decisions, sometimes adverse to public interest, is questioned by associating individuals or groups to ensure the decisions cohere with wider societal values and legal stipulations.

8. Administrative Reforms

- Committees and commissions are responsible to revie the administrative practices and recommended reforms for bringing in more accountability and efficiency in decision-making. Such reforms would address or improve the deficiencies of the administrative processes in the overall governance.

Judicial Review

Meaning:

It is the process by which courts examine the legality and constitutionality of actions and decisions taken by executive authorities. It is a mechanism aimed at ensuring that public authorities to act within their legal powers and show regard for principles of fairness and justice.

It gives the courts, the executive power to review and strike down administrative actions or decisions which are illegal, unconstitutional, or contrary to fundamental rights. It is an integral part of the doctrine of separation of powers, which mandates that executive actions must conform to legal and constitutional standards.

Grounds for Judicial Review:

1. Illegal:

If the question of illegality would arise if the decision is made outside the legal authority or jurisdiction of the decision-maker. This includes any action taken without legal authority or in excess of powers under the law.

2. Irrationality:

It involves the reviewing of a decision that is such that no reasonable person in the position of the decision-maker would have made. Decisions like these are considered irrational or absurd to the point where they lack any logical reason or justification.

3. Improper:

This ground, deals with deviations from set procedures or the processes provided by the law. An example of a successful challenge to a decision would involve an administrative body that did not give a hearing to concerned parties before making any decision, thus failing to observe procedures related to natural justice.

4. Bias:

Judicial review may be obtained to prove that the decision-maker was affected by personal bias or that there was a conflict of interest, either of which may have undermined his or her impartiality. This will ensure no unfairness or undue influence in the making of decisions.

5. Error of Law:

Courts may interfere with the administrative decision to test whether it is based on the correct interpretation of the law. Such decisions which are premised upon an error of law, whether relating either to an erroneous understanding or application of the law, may be impugned on the ground of an error of law.

6. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

Any administrative action or decision that infringes upon the fundamental rights laid down under the Indian Constitution, such as rights to equality, free speech, or protection from arbitrary detention, can be reviewed and the decision vacated.

7. Proportionality:

This ground evaluates whether the administrative action is proportionate to the proposed objective. An action can be disproportionate in the sense that the measure taken may be excessive or too harsh for its purpose.

1. Habeas Corpus

-The word "Habeas Corpus" literally means "You shall have the body".

-This writ is availed for the liberty of those persons who have been illegally confined or detained. It is a guarantee against arbitrary detention and ensures that no single person is detained without legal cause.

-A petition for Habeas Corpus can be filed by the detained person or on their behalf by someone. The court will then issue an order to the detaining authority to produce the individual before the court, along with reasons for detention. In case the court decides that the detention is legally invalid, it will order the release of the individual.

-It can be issued against both public and private entities if they are unlawfully detaining a person. For instance, it can challenge unlawful detentions by the police or even by private persons or bodies.

Case: ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976),

During the Emergency, the court controversially held that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 could be suspended, marking this as a significant low point in judicial history.

2. Certiorari

-Certiorari is a Latin term which means "To be informed of" or "To make certain."

-This writ is availed against the orders or decisions of a lower court or tribunal that are made beyond its jurisdiction or in contravention to the principles of law. It corrects errors in jurisdiction or procedural errors.

-A Certiorari petition is filed challenging the legality of a lower court or a tribunal's decision. The higher court reviews the record of proceedings and, in case of finding errors or irregularity, quashes the decision.

-It can be issued to both judicial and quasi-judicial bodies to enforce legal standards and proper procedures.

Case: Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, 1955

It was made clear when the SC gave judgment that certiorari was not a coated appeal but a jurisdictional remedy.

3. Mandamus

-The term "Mandamus" means "We command."

-This writ compels a public authority or official to do something that it is legally bound or empowered to do. It enforces the performance of public duties that the law requires.

-A Mandamus petition may be filed when one feels an authority in public life has not done something which, under the law, they are duty-bound to do. The Court issues the writ to the concerned authority, thereby compelling it to perform that duty.

-Mandamus can be issued to public authorities, including government officials and statutory bodies, but not to private individuals or entities unless they are performing a public function.

Case: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1982)

The transfer of judges expanded the ambit of judicial review. The judgment established, inter alia, that mandamus may issue to enforce public duties.

4. Prohibition

-"Prohibition" involves restraining or forbidding action.

-This writ is issued to prevent a lower court or tribunal from proceeding with a case that it is not empowered to adjudicate. It ensures that limits of jurisdiction are maintained and not overstepped by any authority.

-A petition for Prohibition is filed to halt proceedings by a lower court or tribunal that is acting beyond its jurisdiction. The higher court reviews whether the lower authority is acting outside its legal bounds and issues the writ to restrain further action.

-Prohibition is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial bodies but cannot be issued against administrative authorities.

Case: S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India (1967)

The Court held that a prohibition could be issued to prevent the lower courts from acting beyond their powers.

5. Quo Warranto

-"Quo Warranto" means "By what authority."

-This writ is used to question the legality of an individual's holding of a public office. The authority by which he claims to perform his functions and duties in that office is questioned, and if he is found to be holding that office unlawfully, he is removed from that office.

-A Quo Warranto petition shall be filed, challenging the legal entitlement of a person to hold a public office. It sees to it that the subject's qualification for such office is perused correctly. Otherwise, he may order the removal of the latter.

-It extends to public offices only and can be applied in challenging appointments or elections to public offices.

Case: The University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, 1965

SC held that the writ would lie only against substantive public offices. This again reiterates the requirement of appointments to be as per the rule of law.

Ombudsman and Administrative Tribunals

Ombudsman

Meaning:

Under the Indian administrative law, the Ombudsman plays a very significant role in the investigation and redressal of grievances against public authorities, improving administrative accountability and governance. He is called the Lokpal at the national level and Lokayukta at the state level. These institutions have taken the leading role in bringing transparency and accountability into public administration.

Role of the Ombudsman:

1. Complaints Redressal

-It's primary function is to look into and redress grievances of maladministration, corruption, and other such actions of misuses of authority by public servants.

-It includes investigating grievances against public services and administrative actions to make sure that they are appropriately dealt with.

2. Ensuring Accountability

-It investigates complaints and issues reports to ensure that those in public life are accountable for their actions.

-It is an important to maintain transparency and integrity in the mechanism of governance.

3. Fair Administration:

-It works as an independent apparatus to ensure that administrative decisions are based upon the principles of equity, validity, and justice.

-It may consider cases of alleged unfair treatment or maladministration.

4. Recommendations:

-It has the right to recommend remedial measures to be taken up by public authorities.

-These suggestions, in effect, seek to redress administrative lapses and improve the quality of public services.

5. Anti-Corruption:

It contributes much toward curbing corrupt practices in public administration by attending to grievances relating to corruption and misbehaviour.

Functions:

1. Investigation: t investigates on complaints in relation to administrative decisions and actions. This consists of gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and going through relevant documents.

2. Dispute Resolution: It resolves disputes between the public and administrative authorities through the techniques of negotiation, mediation, and sometimes, adjudication to arrive at fair and just decisions.

3. Issuance of Reports: Investigations are followed up with reports containing the findings and recommendations therein, along with the action taken. All such reports are published for transparency and to apprise the public of failures in governance.

4. Recommendations of Corrective Measures: Depending upon the outcome of investigations, the Ombudsman might recommend remedial measures to the public authorities. This could relate to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, policy reforms, or structural changes in procedures for addressing systemic flaws.

5. Monitoring Implementation: It oversees the implementation of recommended actions with follow-ups, whether the concerned authorities have enacted the necessary changes.

6. Public Awareness and Advocacy: It is further authorized to conduct public awareness about administrative justice to encourage citizens to report grievances and foster best practices in public administrations.

Comparison with Courts

Administrative Tribunals

Meaning:

Administrative tribunals in India are ad hoc adjudicatory bodies specially set up to adjudicate upon disputes resulting from administrative decisions and action. They provide a specialized forum for redress of grievances related to public service, employment, and matters relating to the regulation of various professions. In the following sections, an attempt is made to delve deeper into their role and functions:

Role:

1. Specialised Adjudication:

-It is established to adjudicate upon disputes relating to administrative decisions, particularly those affecting individual rights in public service and regulatory matters.

-It addresses conflicts between public servants and administrative authorities, ensuring that administrative decisions adhere to legal and procedural norms.

2. Quick and Inexpensive Adjudication:

-It is faster and less formal compared to going through court; thus, it should dispense justice quickly and inexpensively to lighten regular courts' burden.

-Procedures are simplified, and the setting is relatively informal; thus, making them quicker compared to regular courts.

3. Fairness and Justice

-They secure the fairness of administrative actions by examining decisions made by administrative bodies or officials. They work as a check against the abuse of administrative discretion and see that the rules of natural justice are properly followed.

Functions:

1. Adjudication of Disputes:

-It decides on service matters like promotion, dismissal, etc., and other disputes relating to conditions of employment of public servants. They also consider, besides the service matters, the grievances arising against the regulatory and administrative decisions.

-It hears and take evidence and then make determinations under statute and principles of natural justice.

2. Review of Administrative Action:

-These courts are also called upon to scrutinize administrative actions to ascertain that they conform to legal standards and procedure. They examine if the decisions remain within the competence or power of the authority and whether principles of good faith have been adhered to.

-The tribunals consider appeals or applications directly, examine the legality and propriety of the administrative acts, and pass the necessary orders or directions.

3. Orders and Directions:

-They have the power to enforce its directions for rectification or modification of administrative decisions. These activities are taken under its grievances redressal process to maintain compliance with legal norms.

-In the event of any defect being found in an administrative action, the tribunals are empowered to direct that the competent authority take such corrective steps or remake the decision as may be legally mandated.

4. Promotion of Administrative Accountability:

-Through the system of adjudication of grievances, and by their role in enforcing conformity with legal and procedural standards, tribunals increase the accountability of administrative bodies. Their decisions increase transparency and responsibility in public administration.

-Tribunals are an available forum for challenging the decisions of administrative bodies, hence for increasing accountability among public officials/authorities.

Comparison with Courts: