Som Raj v. State of Haryana
Rule established
Rule of Law demands every State action conform to fair, just, and reasonable procedure; administrative order without statutory procedure is void
Facts
- Administrative order affecting Som Raj's rights was passed without following the procedure prescribed by the governing statute
- Authorities argued substantive compliance was sufficient; technical procedural defects should be overlooked
- Challenge on ground that Rule of Law requires strict adherence to prescribed procedure
Issue
- Whether administrative authority can bypass prescribed statutory procedure on grounds of urgency or substantial compliance?
Held
- Every State action must conform to fair, just, and reasonable procedure
- Rule of Law demands that where statute prescribes a procedure, it must be followed
- Administrative order passed without following statutory procedure is void, not merely irregular
- "The Rule of Law is the antithesis of arbitrariness": cannot be diluted by administrative convenience
Ratio Decidendi
The Rule of Law requires that administrative action not only has legal authority (substantive legality) but also follows prescribed procedure (procedural legality). An order made without following mandatory statutory steps is arbitrary: the very evil that the Rule of Law exists to prevent. Administrative convenience cannot justify procedural shortcuts.
How to use it in an exam
- Deploy in questions on Rule of Law, procedural requirements, mandatory vs. directory provisions.
- Key line: "In our constitutional system, the central and most characteristic feature is the concept of Rule of Law, which means the authority of law courts to test all administrative action by the standard of legality."
Source
Source: Massey, Administrative Law
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
Administrative LawRule of Law Diceys Principle and Modern TrendsRule of Law as antithesis of arbitrariness