The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has reaffirmed that prolonged inaction on administrative representations by public authorities constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. This judgment establishes a clear timeline for decision-making, reinforcing accountability in public service delivery.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Chhiddilal Kherwar, a former government employee, submitted a representation dated Annexure P-5 seeking recalibration of his salary from the date of his initial appointment on 8 June 1991. He alleged that his pay had been incorrectly calculated since 2001, resulting in substantial financial loss. Despite repeated follow-ups, no formal decision was rendered on his representation.
Procedural History
The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 after exhausting internal remedies:
- Representation submitted in 2023
- No response received within six months
- No explanation provided for delay
- No interim relief granted by any lower forum
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to:
- Decide his representation expeditiously
- Recalculate his salary from 8 June 1991
- Pay arrears with interest
- Cover litigation costs
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prolonged and unexplained delay in deciding a public servant’s representation constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, and whether the Court can mandate a time-bound decision without adjudicating the merits of the claim.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner relied on State of U.P. v. Raj Narain and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to argue that the right to timely administrative action is an essential facet of due process under Article 21. He emphasized that indefinite delay in deciding financial claims erodes public trust and inflicts irreparable harm on livelihoods.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate conceded that the representation remained pending but argued that the matter involved complex salary calculations requiring internal review. He contended that judicial intervention at this stage would encroach upon administrative discretion and that no legal right had been definitively violated.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the principle that administrative silence is not a valid form of decision-making. It observed that while courts must respect administrative autonomy, they cannot permit indefinite inaction when fundamental rights are at stake. The Court distinguished this case from those involving substantive disputes over entitlements, noting that here, the issue was purely procedural: the absence of any decision.
"The right to life includes the right to live with dignity, which cannot be sustained when a citizen’s legitimate claim for rightful dues remains in bureaucratic limbo for years without any reasoned response."
The Court held that the State’s failure to respond within a reasonable time, without justification, amounted to a breach of natural justice and the duty to act fairly. It rejected the notion that the Court must first determine the correctness of the claim before intervening. The remedy lies in compelling a decision, not in substituting the authority’s judgment.
The Court further noted that a speaking order - one that explains the reasoning behind the decision - is mandatory under established jurisprudence, even in administrative matters affecting financial rights.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that unexplained administrative delay violates Article 21 and directed the competent authority to decide the representation within 60 days by issuing a speaking order. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the salary claim.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Silence Is Not an Answer
- Practitioners must now treat any representation pending beyond 90 days as prima facie violative of Article 21
- Writ petitions under Article 226 can be filed even before substantive rights are finally determined, if delay is unreasonable
- Authorities must record reasons for denial or approval - mere non-response is legally untenable
Speaking Orders Are Non-Negotiable
- All administrative decisions affecting financial or service rights must include reasoning
- Courts will not uphold decisions that are silent, generic, or boilerplate
- Failure to issue a speaking order within the mandated period may invite contempt proceedings
60-Day Deadline Sets New Standard
- This judgment establishes a binding precedent for time-bound disposal of representations in public employment matters
- Similar petitions in other states may now cite this order to demand prompt action
- Government departments must institutionalize internal timelines for representation disposal
