The modern administrative state is not confined to enforcing laws passed by the legislature. Its role has expanded dramatically, particularly in countries like India, where the government is responsible for socioeconomic development, regulation of industries, welfare schemes, and maintaining public order. As a result, administration today performs three major functions: legislative, executive, and judicial. These are collectively referred to as the tripartite functions of administration. Although the Indian Constitution broadly separates powers among the legislature, executive, and judiciary, it recognises that the complexities of modern governance require the administration to exercise all three types of functions to ensure efficiency, flexibility, and responsiveness. This tripartite nature of administrative functioning is, however, subject to constitutional safeguards and judicial oversight to prevent abuse of power.

The first major function performed by administrative authorities is quasi-legislative or rule-making power. This function is known as delegated legislation. The legislature, due to limitations of time, expertise, and resources, cannot create detailed rules for every situation. Therefore, it often delegates rule-making authority to administrative bodies such as ministries, regulatory agencies, and local authorities.

This power allows the executive to frame detailed regulations, policies, notifications, and orders necessary for implementing statutes. For example, when Parliament enacts a law regulating the environment, it may leave it to the Central Pollution Control Board to frame detailed rules regarding emissions, waste management, or pollution control standards. Delegated legislation is a practical necessity in a constantly evolving society. It ensures that the administration can respond swiftly to new challenges, technological developments, and sector-specific issues without requiring fresh legislative action every time.

However, because delegated legislation allows administrative bodies to make rules with the force of law, the Indian Constitution ensures that such powers are not misused. Courts in India exercise judicial review to determine whether delegated legislation exceeds the authority granted by the parent statute. Administrative rules must conform to constitutional principles, particularly those relating to fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court has struck down delegated legislation that violates equality, fairness, or due process. The doctrine of excessive delegation also acts as a constitutional limitation, ensuring that the legislature does not delegate essential legislative functions and retains ultimate responsibility for law-making. Thus, while the administration performs quasi-legislative functions, these functions operate within a constitutional framework.

The second major function is quasi-executive or administrative in the classical sense. This involves the implementation of laws, formulation of government policies, performance of day-to-day administrative duties, and management of public affairs. Executive functions are the most extensive among the tripartite functions, as they include everything not specifically included in legislative or judicial functions.

Administrative authorities enforce laws, maintain public order, administer government departments, and provide public services such as healthcare, education, transport, and welfare assistance. They also make decisions affecting individual rights, such as granting licenses, collecting taxes, awarding contracts, and regulating industries. The Indian executive operates under Articles 53 and 154 of the Constitution, which vest executive power in the President and Governors, but real authority rests with the council of ministers and administrative machinery.

The executive nature of administrative action requires adherence to constitutional mandates, especially those relating to fairness, non-arbitrariness, and public interest. Courts in India have consistently held that executive actions must comply with Article 14, which prohibits arbitrary state action, and Article 21, which requires just, fair, and reasonable procedures. Administrative discretion cannot be unfettered. It must be exercised based on rational criteria, relevant consideration, and proper procedures. When authorities misuse executive power, courts intervene through judicial review by issuing writs such as mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and habeas corpus. The requirement to follow principles of natural justice further strengthens accountability in executive functioning. Thus, while administrative authorities perform vast executive functions, they are constitutionally obliged to exercise such powers responsibly.

The third important function performed by administrative authorities is quasi-judicial or adjudicatory in nature. With the growth of the welfare state and increasing regulation of social and economic activities, disputes requiring technical expertise and speedy resolution have multiplied. Traditional courts, which are often overburdened and not always equipped to deal with technical matters, cannot address every dispute efficiently. As a result, administrative bodies have been entrusted with judicial or quasi-judicial functions. .

These functions involve determining rights, imposing penalties, resolving disputes, and adjudicating claims through tribunals, commissions, boards, and authorities. Examples include the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, National Green Tribunal, Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, Consumer Commissions, and Labour Courts. These bodies apply law to specific cases and give decisions after hearing parties, assessing evidence, and following principles of natural justice.

Quasi-judicial functions must adhere to procedural fairness and impartiality. Administrative adjudicators cannot act arbitrarily. They must follow established procedures, provide opportunities for hearing, give reasoned decisions, and remain unbiased. The Supreme Court has held that even when statutes do not expressly require the application of natural justice, fairness must be read into administrative adjudication unless specifically excluded. Judicial review remains a vital safeguard. High Courts and the Supreme Court ensure that quasi-judicial bodies do not exceed their jurisdiction, ignore procedural fairness, or violate constitutional rights. Although courts do not generally interfere with findings of fact, they examine the legality, rationality, and propriety of administrative adjudication. This maintains a balance between efficiency in dispute resolution and protection of individual rights.

The tripartite functions of administration reflect the reality of modern governance. The State today is not merely a regulator but also a welfare provider, service distributor, and economic participant. As responsibilities have multiplied, administrative bodies have been compelled to assume legislative, executive, and judicial roles. This concentration of functions in a single authority may appear to conflict with the classical doctrine of separation of powers, but the Indian Constitution accommodates this arrangement through constitutional safeguards and judicial oversight. The basic structure doctrine, judicial review powers, natural justice principles, and parliamentary control mechanisms collectively ensure that the administrative exercise of tripartite functions does not violate constitutional limits.

In Parliament and State Legislatures, committees review delegated legislation, debates assess executive functioning, and budget controls limit administrative expenditure. These mechanisms ensure democratic oversight over administrative rule-making and policy execution. Similarly, the judiciary’s power to review administrative decisions ensures accountability in quasi-judicial functions. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that administrative bodies must operate within constitutional boundaries and cannot exercise powers that undermine fundamental rights or contradict statutory mandates.

In conclusion, the tripartite functions of administration under the Indian Constitution represent a pragmatic response to the demands of modern governance. Administrative bodies perform legislative functions by framing detailed rules, executive functions by implementing laws and delivering public services, and judicial functions by adjudicating disputes. Although the administration performs these multifaceted roles, constitutional safeguards ensure that the exercise of power is fair, reasonable, and just. The balance between administrative efficiency and constitutional accountability lies at the heart of India’s administrative law system. As governance becomes increasingly complex and technology-driven, the tripartite nature of administrative functions will continue to evolve, but the Constitution and judicial oversight will remain the guiding force ensuring that administrative power serves public interest and upholds the rule of law.