Public functionary

Every citizen of the country has an inalienable right to be treated in accordance with law as envisaged by Art. 4 of the Constitution

Hence, it is duty and obligation of every public functionary to act within four corners of mandate of the Constitution and pass a speaking order.

Public functionaries are supposed to execute and perform their duty in good faith, honestly and within the precincts of their legally recognized powers so that the person concerned may be treated in accordance with law.

Public functionaries are supposed to execute and perform their duty in good faith, honestly and within the precincts of their legally recognized powers so that the person concerned may be treated in accordance with law.

Where a statute prescribes the manner in which power has to be exercised, the power must be exercised in that manner alone

Statutory authority is bound to proceed in accordance with law and exercise its jurisdiction within four corners of the statute

Where a statute confers a special affirmative power, the use of any general power relating to the subject matter is negative

Where a power is conferred to achieve a certain purpose, the power can be exercised only for achieving that purpose, and it must be exercised reasonably and in good faith to effectuate that purpose.

Corresponding obligation is placed on civil servants/public functionaries to make requirements of law well known to politicians, more so when compliance with a direction issued by a Prime Minister would entail violation of the law.

Corresponding obligation is placed on civil servants/public functionaries to make requirements of law well known to politicians, more so when compliance with a direction issued by a Prime Minister would entail violation of the law.

Mala fide cannot be attributed to the Executive/Government functionary, performing functions in furtherance of a legal mandate

In absence of any cogent and convincing material in support of plea of mala fide, it shall be presumed that the action taken by the Executive/Government functionary in pursuance to a lawful mandate is not tainted with mala fide.

Public functionaries owe a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and discharge their duties with honesty and in accordance with law

If a public functionary does not exercise such power in good faith and with honesty, the principle of merit gets compromised which damages the superstructure of merit, competence and good governance.

State authority is a sacred trust; it vests in its functionaries (the authority) to accomplish purposes designated by law and no doubt while exercising such authority within remit thereof, the functionaries must act in a manner most benign with a degree of restraint, expedient to avoid transgression

At the same time, a reasonable freedom for the functionaries is most essential to effectively perform the duties they are tasked with

Any obstruction with the performance of State business is interference with the writ thereof and cannot be countenanced without grievously undermining its authority.

Public functionaries owe a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and discharge their duties with honesty and in accordance with law

If a public functionary does not exercise such power in good faith and with honesty, the principle of merit gets compromised which damages the superstructure of merit, competence and good governance.

Any act by a public functionary against the dictates of justice might frustrate public confidence qua public functionaries which might be detrimental to uphold the public order which was paramount to keep the society peaceful.

State authority in every sphere of life was a sacred trust to be exercised fairly and justly by the functionaries to accomplish the purposes assigned to them by law; it was their bounden duty to do right to all manner of people, without any distinction.

All public functionaries must exercise public authority, especially while dealing with the public property, public funds or assets in a fair, just, transparent and reasonable manner, untainted by mala fide, without discrimination and in accordance with law, keeping in view the constitutional rights of the citizens.

State authority in every sphere of life was a sacred trust to be exercised fairly and justly by the functionaries to accomplish the purposes assigned to them by law; it was their bounden duty to do right to all manner of people, without any distinction.

Omissions and actions of public functionary while in authority, shall not be limited to himself but sure to prejudice rights and obligations of others, if he fails to do 'justice' with his assigned duties.

Discretionary powers conferred on Government should be exercised reasonably subject to existence of essential conditions required for exercise of such powers within the scope of law

All judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities must exercise powers in reasonable manner and also must ensure justice as per spirit of law.

While performing their duties the public functionaries were bound to ensure protection/sanctity of a dwelling place but the said restriction could not be used to enable an accused person to wash away the evidence qua his involvement in illegal/unlawful activities.

Exercise of discretionary power had to be guided by objective and workable standards with some level-headedness and must not be based on short-sightedness or carelessness

Statutory discretion had to be always exercised in a judicious manner and keeping in mind the attending circumstances thereto

While exercising discretion, an authority should not act arbitrarily, unreasonably

Law recognized no such thing as unfettered discretion and all discretionary powers, especially those conferred by statute, must be exercised in terms of well-established principles of administrative law

Discretionary statutory power could only be exercised to achieve an object or purpose that was lawfully within contemplation of the statute

Discretion, where the law did not put any fetters on it, was not unbridled and without any limit or restriction

Exercise of discretion had to be reasonable and within certain restrictions or limits.

Principles.

Public authority, if interested by Legislation with certain powers and duties, expressly or impliedly, for sole purpose of public, cannot divest themselves of such powers and duties

Public authority are not even allowed to take any action incompatible or in violation of their basic duties.

Public functionaries were required to perform their duties and discharge their functions within the limits prescribed by law and respect and obey the Constitution and law in letter and spirit.

Law did not permit an authority to exercise its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

Decisions/actions of public functionaries to be transparent, reasonable and free from abuse of public office and from personal advantage

Conflict of interest arising from private interests of public officials

Fairness in the decision-making process of public functionaries

Scope

Public officers were trustees of public funds and public property and were expected to take decisions based on public interest

Transparent and reasonable decision must be free from abuse of public office and from personal advantage

Where there existed a conflict of interest between private interest and public duty; the same must be clearly identified, appropriately managed and effectively resolved in order to ensure public confidence in public institutions

Conflict of interest would arise where an official decision will impact a personal interest, financially or otherwise such that a public official was seen to have gained from that decision or was perceived to have gained from such a decision

Where there existed a conflict between a public official's interest as a private citizen and his duty as a public official, there was potential for a conflict of interest to arise

Jurisprudence on conflict of interest aimed to ensure that private interest would not prosper from decisions taken in public office, while carrying out official duties and responsibilities

Mandate of any elected government was based on trust and public confidence and both such elements found its tools in transparency, good governance and fairness in the decision making process

Any conflict of interest, in fact or perceived, would destroy public trust and malign the decisions making process.

No one can be condemned or penalized on account of act of a public functionary.

Nobody should be penalized for the acts of public functionaries.

Office of government functionaries were not person specific and their acts could not in its entirety be undone by their successors in interest in this manner

If an officer had done any illegal act then recourse would be to proceed against him and his successor in no circumstances could be allowed to undo such acts at his own whim and desire

Government functionaries could not be allowed to wriggle out from the stance taken by the concerned department before the court merely because of change and or transfer of an officer.

Whenever a person was appointed, who was not a public representative, and in particular when such person's remuneration and allied expenses were paid from the public exchequer, it was important that the authority which was handpicking such an individual had to ensure that such individual's selection fit every bit of the purpose and intent of such appointment being made, in order to ensure that the rule of "right person for the right job" became evident in every nook and corner of such an appointment

Said appointments were not a matter of public money only, but also of public perception as rule of law and respect for merit should not be seemed to have been slaughtered at the hands of the authority making such an appointment

In cases where the law did not provide any criteria or qualification for the appointment to a position and left such appointment on the absolute discretion of an authority, then there existed a taxing responsibility to justify the said appointment on the touchstone of prudence, good governance, fair play and such freedom could not be misused to accommodate people of one's choice

Such appointments should withstand the tests of fairness, fitness, judiciousness as well as impartiality; and arbitrary and capricious actions should be avoided.

Public functionary was bound to protect and preserve transparency and to ensure the maximum gain for public exchequer whenever a right belonging to the public/State was going to be alienated.

All public functionaries were under constitutional and legal obligation to adhere to letter and spirit of law, resisting temptation of acting to the contrary, in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Public official must also have regard to the 'desirability' of something.

Public functionary/decision-maker committed an illegality if he misinterpreted a legal instrument relevant to the function being performed; or, he had no legal authority to make the decision; or, he failed to fulfil a legal duty; or, exercised discretionary power for an extraneous purpose; or, took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take account of relevant considerations; or improperly delegated decision-making power.

Role of the public official in a democracy, like the role of the State itself, was to serve the interest of the public and its members

Government in itself had no "private" interest of its own and existed for the sake of individuals

Representatives of the Government had no "self" interest that must be protected; and they must act to achieve the collective interest

Duty of the loyalty sought to prevent the serious concern that representatives of the Government would develop their own interests and use the tremendous power granted them for purposes that did not reflect the collective good

Said duty of loyalty sought to guarantee that the government took care of the public and not itself

Duty of trusteeship imposed derivative duties upon the state and trusteeship required fairness, and fairness required integrity, relevance, equality, and reasonableness

List of principles derived from the position of trusteeship was not closed, and list of values derived from the duty of fairness was not fixed

Values and principles, by nature, were on the one hand stable and on the other hand evolving and were sown in the soul of the nation and were not subject to passing trends and as such were full of vitality, and they evolve to provide fitting solutions to new problems.

Role of the public official in a democracy, like the role of the State itself, was to serve the interest of the public and its members

Government in itself had no "private" interest of its own and existed for the sake of individuals

Representatives of the Government had no "self" interest that must be protected; and they must act to achieve the collective interest

Duty of the loyalty sought to prevent the serious concern that representatives of the Government would develop their own interests and use the tremendous power granted them for purposes that did not reflect the collective good

Said duty of loyalty sought to guarantee that the government took care of the public and not itself

Duty of trusteeship imposed derivative duties upon the state and trusteeship required fairness, and fairness required integrity, relevance, equality, and reasonableness

List of principles derived from the position of trusteeship was not closed, and list of values derived from the duty of fairness was not fixed

Values and principles, by nature, were on the one hand stable and on the other hand evolving and were sown in the soul of the nation and were not subject to passing trends and as such were full of vitality, and they evolve to provide fitting solutions to new problems.

Any undue and harsh action by state functionaries against a taxpayer spoke volume of mala fide on their part as a flagrant violation of law and procedure.

Any public functionary, how high so ever it may be, was subservient to the Constitution and law and had to act within the boundaries assigned by the Constitution and law framed thereunder.

Public functionaries had to reinforce good governance, observe rules strictly and adhere to rule of law in public service

Public functionaries were not obliged to follow illegal orders of higher authorities.

When the law vested a discretion in a public functionary, there was always a corresponding obligation to exercise the same fairly, and justly, and where an Authority did not find it appropriate to exercise its discretion, it still had to provide reasons for inaction on its part

Discretion must be exercised to advance the cause of justice in a fair and reasonable manner

Failure to exercise discretionary power under a statute without legal justification was not acceptable.

Where public functionaries were empowered to create a liability against a citizen only within the prescribed time, the said time became mandatory which is all the more so, when the prescribed time limit was beneficial to the citizen and restricted the power of the executive/revenue.

State functionaries were required to act justly, fairly and transparently.

Nobody should be penalized for the acts of public functionaries.

All the statutory functionaries in a democratic set-up were bound to act in public matters justly, fairly and in accordance with rules and instructions on the subject and individual distinction for extraneous reasons was not permissible.

Basis of discretionary power of State functionaries is the delegation of authority by the principal, the people of the country

State's legal authority is derived from such fiduciary relationship and if the State or its instrumentalities deviate from their fiduciary obligations, the underlying authority of the State to administer and enforce the law is thereby eroded and if this happens, the citizens, as legal subjects of the State, can no longer be expected to obey the law since the State itself has reneged on its public fiduciary duties

Violations of public fiduciary duties, cannot be condoned because doing so will lead to an erosion of the basis of the State's legal authority and the rule of law.

Bureaucrat, if he/she permitted the flouting of the law and did not record his/her objection in writing on the applicable file or department's summary, he/she becomes responsible for the transgression

Bureaucrats were not required to follow illegal orders of Minsters, in fact were mandated by the Rules of Business to stop such orders

Bureaucracy was duty bound to point out if any law, rule or regulation was being violated and not to move a summary, which was in clear contravention thereof

Bureaucrats were under a bounden duty to say no when the provisions of the Constitution, any law or rule were sought to be violated; and if they do not, then they must suffer the consequences.

Constitution did not permit exploitation of any kind or form, therefore, it casted a duty upon the High Court to protect any person from being exploited and to shield the socio-economic fibre of the country from being disrupted at the hands of executive functionaries

Consumers/citizens could not be left at the mercy of bodies, which were in an advantageous position

Arbitrary exercise of authority, mala fide actions and illegal demands were always checked by Superior Courts

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Public functionaries were duty bound to act in accordance with the rules and law on the subject and could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate.

Duty of public functionaries to adhere to principle of transparency in performance of their duties and not to implement illegal orders of their superiors

Principles.

Functionary of the State being custodian of rights of people would be responsible to safeguard and afford protection to persons and properties of citizens.

Existence of exceptional circumstances do not vest any power or authority on a public functionary, knowingly to pass an illegal and unauthorized order.