Meaning
Droit Administratif (French: “administrative law”) is the body of rules governing the French administration, developed through decisions of the Conseil d’État and enforced by a separate hierarchy of administrative courts (Tribunaux Administratifs and Cours Administratives d’Appel) distinct from the ordinary civil courts.
Origin
Instituted by Napoleon in 1799, the Conseil d’État was originally an advisory body to the executive; by the mid-19th century it developed independent adjudicatory jurisdiction over administrative matters. The French Revolution’s distrust of the parlements (ordinary courts) explains why administrative disputes were kept out of their hands.
Three Distinctive Features
- Separate system of administrative courts — disputes between citizen and the State decided by the Conseil d’État and tribunals administratifs, not ordinary courts.
- Distinct body of principles — the State and its agents are governed by principles different from the civil / commercial law.
- Juge-Administrateur system — many members have an administrative background and bring expertise to adjudication.
Dicey’s Criticism and its Refutation
Dicey in 1885 contended that Droit Administratif violated the Rule of Law because it placed State officials outside the ordinary courts and gave them special privileges. His criticism is now regarded as outdated and misconceived:
- The Conseil d’État is in fact a strong protector of individual rights, often more plaintiff-friendly than ordinary courts.
- It has developed advanced doctrines of recours pour excès de pouvoir (annulment for excess of power), détournement de pouvoir (misuse of power) and responsabilité sans faute (strict State liability).
- Many of these doctrines (Wednesbury, proportionality, legitimate expectation) have influenced the English common law via European jurisprudence.
- In Hooper v. Rogers, Dicey himself conceded that the French system “compares advantageously with ours”.
Comparison — India / UK vs France
| Point | Common Law (India/UK) | French (Droit Administratif) |
|---|---|---|
| Court system | Single hierarchy; ordinary courts try all matters. | Dual hierarchy; separate administrative courts. |
| Applicable law | Ordinary law of the land applies to State & citizen alike. | Separate body of administrative law. |
| Jurisdiction over tort of officials | Ordinary courts. | Administrative courts. |
| Standard of liability | Fault-based; sovereign immunity remnants. | Fault + strict liability (responsabilité sans faute). |
Relevance to India
India has not adopted Droit Administratif. However, specialised tribunals under Articles 323A/B (CAT, SAT, ITAT, etc.) represent a limited functional analogue. The Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI, (1997) 3 SCC 261 however held that these tribunals cannot be a complete substitute for the High Courts.