Headline
The Supreme Court of India ruled that Functus Officio is not applicable to rule-making authorities.
Summary
The Supreme Court of India stated that the principle of functus officio is applicable only to judicial or quasi-judicial authorities and not to rule-making bodies. It stresses that the power of the State legislative cannot be reduced by this doctrine, as by doing this would cripple governance and policy implementation.
Key Facts
- Case Name: P. Rammohan Rao vs. K. Srinivas
- Judge Name: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Issue: The High Court stated that the State was functus officio after issuing an initial memorandum and could not issue a revised one.
- SC Ruling: The reasoning of the High Court was defective. The doctrine is not applicable to rule-making authorities, and needing prior hearings for every policy decision would paralyze governance.
Legal Insights
The Supreme Court of India restated that administrative rule-making is separate from judicial functions and is not bound by functus officio. Judicial review is permitted , but prior hearings for all affected parties are not compulsory .
Impact
The decision of the Supreme Court strengthens the ability of the government to amend policies and issue administrative orders without undue procedural restrictions.
Why It Matters
This ruling of the Supreme Court upholds the efficiency of governance, ensuring that administrative rule-making stays flexible and effective.
Source
Read Also– JUDICIAL REVIEW OF SELECTION PROCESS AND NATURAL JUSTICE
