Comparative Public Administration • SUBJECT CODE : 18MPA25E • PREPARED BY : DR.P.MAGUDAPATHY Asst. Professor • DEPARTMENT : PG & Research Department Of Public Administration • CONTACT NO. : 9994672379 • E-MAIL : [email protected] The content is prepared according to the text book and reference book given in the syllabus. Year Subject Title Sem. Sub Code 2018 -19 Elective II:Comparative Public Administration II 18MPA25E Onwards Objective To increase the knowledge of the students about the Comparative Public Administrationand Administrative System which are prevailing in the various parts of the world namely U.S.A., U.K., France. UNIT I: INTRODUCTION Meaning, Nature and Scope of Comparative Public Administration - Evolution of the Study of Comparative Public Administration – Approaches to the Study of Comparative Public Administration – Traditional- Structural-Behavioral – Functional – System , Institutional, Ecological and Modern Approach. UNIT II: COMPARISON OF LAW AND POLICY MAKING PROCESS Comparative Study of Legislature and Policy Making Process in UK, USA and France UNIT III: FUNCTION OF EXECUTIVE BRANCHES Comparative Study of Executive Branches in UK, USA and France UNIT IV: METHODS OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM: Comparative Study of Judicial System in UK, USA and France UNIT V: TYPES OF CIVIL SERVICE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: Comparative Study of Civil Services in UK,USA and France, Comparative Study of Local Government Institutions in UK, USA and France. Textbook 1. Arora R.K. Comparative Public Administration. Unique Publishers, New Delhi , 2007 Reference Books 1. S.S Pahlya, Ravindra Singh, New Delhi , Sterling Publishers Pvt,Ltd, New Delhi,2012 2. RathodP.B . Comparative Public Administration, Abd Publishers Jaipur -2007 3. Juditha Bara And Mark Pennigton Comparative Politics, Sage Publication New Delhi, 2009. 4. Chatorvedi . T.N. Comparative Public Administration Associated Publishing House, New Delhi 2002. UNIT IV METHODS OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM • United Kingdom The Doctrine of Judicial Review was prevalent in England. Dr. Bonham Case125 was decided in 1610 by Lord Coke was the foundation of judicial review in England. But in the case of City of London v. Wood126 Chief Justice Holt remarked that “An Act of Parliament can do no wrong, though it may do several things that look pretty odd.” This remark establishes the ‘Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty’ which means that the court has no power to determine the legality of Parliamentary enactments. In U.K. there is a system which is based on Legislative Supremacy and Parliamentary Sovereignty. Earlier, there was no scope of judicial review in U.K., but after the formation of European Convention of Human Rights, the scope of judicial review became wider. The enactment of Human Rights Act, 1998 also requires domestic Courts to protect the rights of individuals. In U.K., there is no written Constitution and Parliamentary Supremacy is the foundation. Principle of “Parliamentary Sovereignty” dominates the constitutional democracy in U.K. The two dimensions of legislation in U.K., are; I. Primary legislation, which are basically legislations enacted by Parliament. Primary legislation is outside the purview of judicial review except in few cases which encroaches the law of European Community law. After the formation of European Union and Human Rights Act 1998, Primary legislation is subject to judicial review in some cases. II. Secondary legislation, which provides rules, regulation, directives and act of Ministries. Secondary legislation is subject to judicial review. There is no exception to secondary legislation, all the executive and administrative functions, rules, regulations can be reviewed by Courts and any of the actions can be declared as unlawful which is ultra vires to the Constitution. In Les Verts v. European Parliament, 127 it was held that the “European Union is a community based on the Rule of law, inasmuch as neither its member states nor its institutions can. Current Position of Judicial Review in U.K In U.K., present scenario is much deviated to the judicial review. The Courts in U.K. strictly followed the principles of judicial review with regard to administrative actions and secondary legislations. So far as primary legislations are concerned, they are outside the purview of judicial review but with some exceptional cases. Judicial review of administrative actions which are executive in nature are mostly subject matter in the present scenario in U.K. In, R. (on the application of Drammeh) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,128 an immigration detainee who had failed to take his medication for schizo-affective disorder and had gone on hunger strike, but who did not lack mental capacity, failed to establish that his detention was unlawful by virtue of his pre-existing serious mental illness where the facts indicated that his actions were calculated to avoid deportation. The claimant applied for judicial review of the lawfulness of his immigration detention. It was held that there was no doubt that the effect of detention on a detainee's mental health was a very relevant factor in evaluating what constituted a "reasonable period" of detention. The secretary of state’s policy in Chapter 55.10 of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance in relation to the detention of the mentally ill imposed a duty to inquire into the relevant circumstances of a detainee to assess whether serious mental illness existed and whether it could be satisfactorily managed in detention. Further, it was held that, where a detainee had capacity, his refusal to consent to medical treatment put him outside the scope of the secretary of state’s policy statements. The United Kingdom has four legal systems, each of which derives from a particular geographical area for a variety of historical reasons: English law, Scots law, Northern Ireland law,[1] and, since 2007, purely Welsh law (as a result of the passage of the Government of Wales Act 2006 by Parliament). However, unlike the other three, Welsh law is not a separate legal system per se, merely the primary and secondary legislation generated by the Welsh Parliament, interpreted in accordance with the doctrines of English law and not impacting upon English common law (except where such Welsh legislation ousts a common law rule by virtue of being a superior form of law). There is a substantial overlap between these three legal systems and the three legal jurisdictions of the United Kingdom: England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Each legal system defaults to its jurisdiction, each of whose courts further that law through jurisprudence. Choice of which jurisdiction's law to use is possible in private law: for example a company in Edinburgh, Scotland and a company in Belfast, Northern Ireland are free to contract in English law. This is not so in public law (for example, criminal law), where there are set rules of procedure in each jurisdiction. Overarching these systems is the law of the United Kingdom, also known as United Kingdom law (often abbreviated UK law). UK law arises from laws applying to the United Kingdom and/or its citizens as a whole, most obviously constitutional law, but also other areas, for instance tax law. The United Kingdom does not have a single legal system because it was created by the political union of previously independent countries. Article 19 of the Treaty of Union, put into effect by the Acts of Union in 1707, created the Kingdom of Great Britain but guaranteed the continued existence of Scotland's and England's separate legal systems.[2] The Acts of Union of 1800, which joined Great Britain and Ireland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contained no equivalent provisions but preserved the principle of different courts to be held in Ireland, of which the part called Northern Ireland continues to follow as part of the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the highest court in the land for all criminal and civil cases in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and for all civil cases in Scots law.[3] The Supreme Court is also the final court (in the normal sense of the term) for interpreting United Kingdom law. Note, however, that, unlike in some other systems (for example, the United States), the Supreme Court cannot strike down statutes and its precedents can be expressly overridden by Parliament, by virtue of the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. The Supreme Court came into being in October 2009, replacing the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords.[4][5] In England and Wales, the court system is headed by the Senior Courts of England and Wales, consisting of the Court of Appeal, the High Court of Justice (for civil cases) and the Crown Court (for criminal cases). The Courts of Northern Ireland follow the same pattern. In Scotland the chief courts are the Court of Session, for civil cases, and the High Court of Justiciary, for criminal cases. Sheriff courts, as they deal with both criminal and civil caseloads, have no equivalent outside Scotland. Certain tribunals for administrative law cases have UK-wide jurisdiction, notably those dealing with immigration—the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Special Immigration Appeals Commission—military and national security, competition and intellectual property, and a few others. Similarly, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has jurisdiction throughout Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland.In fulfilment of its former EU treaty obligations, European Union law was actively transposed into the UK legal systems under the UK parliament's law-making power—acts of the European Union Parliament not having direct effect in the dualist UK. Upon Brexit, EU law was transplanted into domestic law as "retained EU law", though during the transition period it is expected that the UK will remain in alignment with EU regulations. Justices of the Supreme Court The judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom are known as Justices of the Supreme Court, and they are also Privy Counsellors.