Administrative law is the branch of legal principles that governs the actions and operations of governmental bodies. It serves as a framework for ensuring that administrative decisions are fair, transparent, and consistent. One notable theory within administrative law is the "red light, green light" theory, which aims to optimize administrative efficiency and effectiveness.[1] This theory was first proposed by legal scholars Carol Harlow and Richard Rawlings in 1948 and plays a significant role in shaping administrative practices.[2]

As described by Dicey in 1889, administrative law encompasses the intricate balance between the rights and obligations of individuals in relation to governmental authorities.[3] It establishes the mechanisms through which vested rights are safeguarded and enforced. A landmark case, Marbury v. Madison (1803), exemplifies the concept of judicial supremacy, asserting the authority of the judiciary to review and potentially invalidate actions taken by other branches of government.[4] This precedent has had a far-reaching impact, influencing legal systems across various nations.

The "red light, green light" theory, rooted in the fundamental principle of the Rule of Law, seeks to curb the potential abuse of power within administrative bodies.[5] Under this theory, administrative actions are subjected to legal scrutiny, acting as a "red light" that halts any actions that do not align with legal standards.[6] The "red light" signifies a legal restraint on government power, ensuring that authorities operate within the bounds of the law.[7] This theory emphasizes the importance of checks and balances, preventing arbitrary exercises of authority.[8]

In contrast, the "green light" aspect of the theory acknowledges the necessity of state intervention and regulatory measures. In situations where governmental involvement is required for the public good, the "green light" allows for expanded state powers.[9] This facet emphasizes the broader role of government in addressing societal needs and challenges, often involving political considerations.

Most legal systems encompass a blend of both the "red light" and "green light" approaches, recognizing the need for regulatory control while acknowledging the state's responsibilities.[10] Striking a balance between these perspectives gives rise to the "Amber light" theory, which seeks a middle ground.[11] An administration guided by the Amber light theory incorporates aspects of both theories, ensuring a just and effective governance framework.

These divergent viewpoints contribute to the overarching discourse on the role of law in administration. The "red light, green light" theories provide insights into the complex interplay between legal oversight and governmental authority. This article aims to delve deep into administrative law, critically analyzing the "red light, green light" theories, and their implications for the practice of governance. Through a comprehensive examination, this article intends to shed light on the merits and drawbacks of these contrasting perspectives.

Establishing The Concept Of 'Traffic Light' Theories

The Red Light Theory

The origins of the Red Light Theory can be traced back to the political landscape of the 19th century, during the era of the industrial revolution, which coincided with the rise of the laissez-faire theory.[12] At its core, this theory sought to curtail excessive government intervention. Its underlying premise rested on a skepticism towards the state's authority.[13] According to this theory, granting extensive powers to the government could potentially encroach upon the rights and freedoms of citizens.[14] Consequently, the Red Light Theory advocates for judicial oversight as a means to regulate matters, where courts and the law assume a supreme role.[15]

In alignment with the viewpoints presented by Dhital in 2020, the concept of legal authority embodies the principles of the Red Light Theory.[16] Here, the government is expected to operate within the confines of established parliamentary rules and regulations. Legal authority necessitates a governing body that prescribes and individuals adhere to, effectively preventing actions that transgress the boundaries of the law. Administrative law becomes instrumental in restraining state actions, thereby safeguarding individual rights.

A case exemplifying this perspective is the Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) case, in which the 39th amendment was introduced to shield the Head of the state from judicial scrutiny by incorporating it into the ninth schedule.[17] This maneuver underscored the government's intent to protect its head, revealing a potential abuse of power. The Supreme Court's intervention led to the declaration of the 39th amendment as unconstitutional, highlighting the judiciary's pivotal role in upholding constitutional principles. Had the ruling favored the government, it could have paved the way for unchecked state interference, possibly resulting in oppression and corruption.

Central to the Red Light Theory is the belief that judicial intervention becomes essential when public bodies or executive authorities exceed their designated powers.[18] This involvement of the judiciary serves as a safeguard against potential encroachments on individual liberties. Consequently, judicial oversight is woven into the political fabric of the state, aligning with the principle of checks and balances.[19] Advocates of the Red Light Theory also emphasize that the judiciary operates independently, guided by principles of fairness and reason, rendering it effective in assessing the legality of executive actions.[20]

Key principles of the Red Light Theory encompass:

1. Courts serve as a primary safeguard for citizens and a check on the executive branch.

2. Legal supremacy prevails over political considerations.

3. Judicial oversight should extend to administrative authorities.

4. Mechanisms for judicial review, such as arbitration, are deemed appropriate.

5. Public law should strengthen individual freedoms.

6. Legal realms remain distinct from those of government, politics, and administration.

7. Administrative law aims to regulate and restrain state power.

The Red Light Theory underscores the role of law as a mechanism for controlling power and safeguarding individual freedoms. It promotes a proactive stance by the judiciary in evaluating administrative decisions. Building upon Dicey's perspective, this theory shifts focus towards a "balanced constitution," wherein judicial oversight of executive power complements political control by the Parliament through stringent regulations and court-driven checks.[21]

The Green Light Theory
The Green Light Theory presents a distinct perspective that underscores the potential risks associated with concentrating power in the hands of a single individual. It goes beyond the concept of individual rights, advocating for collective rights.[22] According to this theory, the state should transition towards an absolutist approach, while simultaneously ensuring the promotion of cooperation and the well-being of its citizens. In essence, the Green Light Theory serves as a counterbalance to the principles of the Red Light Theory. As articulated by Stott and Felix in 1997, the Green Light Theory can also be labeled as a functionalist theory, reflecting a positive outlook towards the role of the state.[23]

In alignment with this theory, the law is perceived as a product of political discourse. It is not superior to, nor can it override, the role of administration. The Green Light Theory emphasizes that public administration is not merely a means to an end; it is an integral component of the state's framework.[24] Unlike the exclusive focus of the Red Light Theory on restraining negative government actions, the Green Light Theory advocates for a more comprehensive approach. It asserts that administrative law should not only limit undesirable governmental behaviors but also facilitate effective administration and promote sound administrative practices.[25]

The philosophical origins of the Green Light Theory can be traced back to utilitarianism, as advocated by thinkers like Jeremy Bentham[26] and John Stuart Mill.[27] Utilitarianism posits that an action is morally right if it promotes happiness and well-being.[28] Similarly, the central aim of the Green Light Theory is to minimize the influence of courts over administration, as courts are perceived as impeding administrative progress due to their rigid legal principles.[29]

Key principles of the Green Light Theory encompass:

1. Law is a result of political discourse, and it does not surpass or control administration.
2. Public administration holds intrinsic value within the state, beyond serving as a means to an end.
3. Administrative law should not solely restrict negative governmental actions but should also facilitate effective administration.
4. Traditional adjudication based on legal standards may not be the sole appropriate mechanism for enabling administration.
5. Alternative mechanisms to courts should be considered.

Therefore, at the heart of the Green Light Theory is the objective to mitigate the influence of courts on administration, as courts' legal principles are seen as a hindrance to administrative progress. The Green Light Theory aligns with democratic forms of accountability. Based on these assumptions, proponents of the Green Light Theory advocate for collaborative engagement with administration and the prevention of excessive judicial or legal intervention in executive actions.[30] This perspective envisions a harmonious synergy between administration and legal oversight, fostering a balanced and effective governance structure.

The Amber Light Theory
The Amber Light Theory represents a balanced amalgamation of the Red Light and Green Light theories, charting a middle path between their contrasting viewpoints.[31] Rather than outright rejecting the rigidity of the Red Light Theory, proponents of the Amber Light Theory acknowledge that excessive transparency can potentially lead to unintended consequences. They contend that complete openness may not always be prudent, as certain matters of a sensitive nature could incite internal disturbances if disclosed to the public.[32]

Central to this theory is the proposition that law holds a superior position to politics. While politics should have a role, it ought to remain subordinate to the legal framework.[33] This stance implies that the judiciary can effectively constrain the actions of the state, while also accommodating a degree of discretionary power for responsible administration. The Amber Light Theory aims to strike a delicate balance between safeguarding individual rights and maintaining state security.[34]

Key principles of the Amber Light Theory encompass:

1. Law stands independently from and ranks higher than politics.
2. The state can be judiciously controlled by law, while allowing a controlled level of administrative discretion.
3. Judicial articulation and enforcement of broad principles of legality are the most potent means of state control.
4. The primary objective of this theory is to uphold a specific vision of individual liberties.

In essence, the Amber Light Theory harmonizes the imperative for overseeing administrative decisions with the need for well-defined guidelines governing administrative behavior. It underscores effective decision-making, accountability, and the protection of civil liberties.[35] While closely related to both the Red Light and Green Light theories, the Amber Light Theory does not wholeheartedly endorse either approach in isolation. Instead, it acknowledges the principles underlying both theories and seeks to reconcile their divergent perspectives.[36]

Hence, the Amber Light Theory represents a nuanced synthesis, recognizing the value of administrative oversight while advocating for responsible governance.[37] It strives to strike a delicate equilibrium, preserving individual freedoms within the framework of a well-regulated state.

Examining The Interplay Between The Theories

Analysing the conflict between Red and the Green Light theories

The Red Light and Green Light theories, though complementary in certain aspects, exhibit distinct differences that underlie their approaches to administrative control and governance.[38] While these theories often intersect, their disparities reveal diverse viewpoints on the role of courts, government, and the law in the administrative process.[39]

The proponents of the Red Light Theory advocate for a proactive stance of judicial intervention when it comes to reviewing administrative decisions. This perspective emphasizes the courts' pivotal role in scrutinizing and potentially curbing government actions, ensuring they align with legal standards. In contrast, the Green Light Theory questions the extent of courts' involvement in checking executive actions, suggesting a more lenient approach.[40]

The fundamental distrust of governmental actions is a hallmark of the Red Light Theory. It approaches the government with skepticism, viewing its actions with caution. In contrast, the Green Light Theory regards the government in a more favorable light, seeing it as a collaborative and beneficial force within the administrative framework.[41]

Regarding mechanisms of control, the Red Light Theory relies primarily on the judicial system for oversight and administrative control. On the other hand, the Green Light Theory explores alternative avenues beyond the courts, suggesting that other methods could effectively regulate administrative actions.[42]

In the eyes of the Red Light Theory, judicial control over administration is seen as a constructive tool for ensuring sound governance. However, the Green Light Theory perceives such control as an intervention that might hinder the natural progression of administrative processes.[43]

While both theories recognize the necessity of judicial review at times, the Red Light Theory considers it a fundamental mechanism for controlling administrative actions. In contrast, the Green Light Theory sees judicial review as a means to facilitate administrative actions when required.[44]

The Red Light Theory attributes a higher degree of authority to the law, positioning it as superior to politics. This perspective underscores the importance of legal principles in guiding administrative actions. Conversely, the Green Light Theory challenges the notion of law's supremacy over politics and administration, suggesting that the law may not always dictate the course of governance.[45]

The Red Light Theory can be characterized as politically conservative, reflecting a cautious approach to government actions and a reliance on established legal structures. In contrast, the Green Light Theory presents a more progressive view, embracing the potential for innovative governance beyond traditional legal confines.[46]

The Balancing Role of Amber Light Theory

The Red Light and Green Light theories diverge in their attitudes towards courts, government, law, and politics. While they share common ground in their focus on administrative control, these theories underscore the complexity of balancing legal oversight, government efficacy, and societal progress within the administrative realm.[47]

The emergence of the Amber Light Theory stands as a testament to the endeavor of finding equilibrium between the divergent perspectives of the Red Light and Green Light theories. By harmonizing the principles of cautious oversight from the Red Light Theory with the collaborative and progressive outlook of the Green Light Theory, the Amber Light Theory offers a nuanced approach that seeks to strike a delicate balance between the need for administrative control and the imperative of fostering effective governance. In this pursuit of equilibrium, the Amber Light Theory navigates the intricate terrain of law, politics, and administration, shaping a framework that champions both individual liberties and responsible state authority.[48]

Impact of the Theories

The impact of these theories has resonated across numerous nations, notably India and Canada, sparking significant deliberation on critical matters. Central among these considerations is the role of law and the judiciary, a realm where the theories diverge. In this context, laws are pivotal in shaping ethical norms and advancing public policies that foster internal harmony within society.[49] Contrasting with this, the judiciary assumes a role as an intermediary, bridging the gap between laws, individuals, and administration. It is contended that the judiciary's ability to interpret and apply laws to real-world scenarios, resolving disputes, underscores its fundamental importance.[50]

An essential question revolves around whether courts can be fundamentally entrusted with the task of overseeing administration. It is asserted that a well-functioning administration necessitates an oversight mechanism beyond the government itself.[51] Citing Said (2020), the principle that nobody is above the law underscores that both individuals and government entities are subject to legal boundaries, and courts must uphold the law impartially.[52] This perspective underscores the courts' pivotal role in ensuring the proper functioning of administration, elevating their responsibility beyond mere facilitation.

In the face of divergent approaches—one emphasizing the judiciary and the other favoring the government—a crucial inquiry surfaces: Who should wield ultimate power? The authors contend that a balanced distribution of powers is essential for both the government and the judiciary to fulfill their respective roles effectively. The Red Light Theory highlights that granting ultimate power solely to the government carries the risk of excessive use of authority by public bodies and executive entities. Here, judicial intervention acts as a corrective measure. Conversely, the Green Light Theory posits that excessive judicial intervention may hamper administrative efficiency.[53]

In response to this pivotal question, scholars popularily advocate for the adoption of the Amber Light Theory. They posit that judicial intervention, within the boundaries of the law, provides the most effective means of controlling a state. Acknowledging the potential dangers of a state being above the law, there is a necessity of maintaining a system where judicial oversight prevents undue amendments to laws that could undermine individual rights and societal stability. By advocating for a balance between government and judiciary, the Amber Light Theory strives to create a harmonious and effective governance framework that upholds both legal principles and the needs of society.

Analysis Of The Traffic Light Theories In The Indian And Global Context

Administrative law plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the rights and interests of individuals within a society by regulating the powers and actions of public administration.[54] It strives to strike a balance between the executive's authority and the need to prevent unconstitutional acts. One prominent framework is the Red Light Theory, which sheds light on issues surrounding executive administration. It highlights procedural improprieties and potential abuses of power, emphasizing the role of the judiciary in overseeing administrative matters.[55]

Manifestation of the Theories in Foreign Jurisdictions
The "Traffic Light Theory" of administrative law has manifested differently in various jurisdictions, influencing the relationship between the three primary branches of government and the administrative agencies.

In the United States, the Traffic Light Theory has been utilized to delineate the roles and powers of administrative agencies within the federal government. Here, the rulemaking phase involves agencies formulating regulations to implement laws passed by Congress.[56] Adjudication entails agencies resolving disputes and applying regulations in quasi-judicial settings.[57]

Lastly, enforcement involves agencies ensuring compliance with regulations. This theory has influenced the creation of administrative procedures acts and guidelines for agency interactions, enhancing transparency, accountability, and due process.[58] However, challenges remain in maintaining the balance of power and preventing agencies from overreaching or lacking adequate oversight.

In the European Union, the Traffic Light Theory has influenced the development of administrative law within its supranational structure. The EU's rulemaking phase involves the European Commission proposing directives and regulations,[59] while the Council of the European Union[60] and the European Parliament[61] play roles akin to legislative bodies. Adjudication is performed by the European Court of Justice, which ensures uniform interpretation and application of EU law.

Enforcement is achieved through mechanisms like infringement procedures against member states. The Traffic Light Theory has contributed to the establishment of a complex yet functional administrative framework that facilitates integration among diverse member states. However, challenges arise from balancing EU-level and national interests, as well as ensuring democratic accountability in this multi-tiered administrative system.

In Canada, the Traffic Light Theory of administrative law has been incorporated into the country's legal system to define the roles and functions of administrative agencies. The rulemaking phase involves agencies creating regulations to give effect to statutes enacted by the Canadian Parliament.[62] Adjudication includes agencies making decisions in quasi-judicial matters, often involving disputes between citizens and the government. Enforcement is carried out by agencies to ensure compliance with regulations. Canada's administrative law framework, influenced by the Traffic Light Theory, emphasizes principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.[63]

Administrative decisions can be subject to judicial review by the courts to ensure that agencies operate within their designated powers and adhere to established legal standards.[64] However, challenges arise in maintaining a clear balance between administrative autonomy and the rule of law, as well as addressing issues related to the potential for administrative decision-makers to possess both adjudicative and enforcement roles.

Similarly, in Australia, the Traffic Light Theory has had an impact on the structure of administrative law. The rulemaking phase involves agencies creating rules and regulations to implement statutes enacted by the Australian Parliament.[65] Adjudication encompasses administrative tribunals and bodies making decisions in matters such as social security, immigration, and taxation. Enforcement is achieved through agencies ensuring compliance with regulations, often involving areas like environmental protection and consumer rights.

The Traffic Light Theory has contributed to the development of administrative review mechanisms, such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)[66] and the Federal Court of Australia,[67] which provide avenues for citizens to challenge administrative decisions. However, challenges exist in maintaining the independence of administrative tribunals, addressing concerns of bias, and ensuring timely and effective resolution of disputes. The Traffic Light Theory has played a significant role in shaping Australia's administrative law landscape, emphasizing the separation of powers and the need for checks and balances in administrative decision-making.

Manifestation of the Theories in India
In India, the evolving concept of Public Interest Litigation aligns with the Red Light Theory, focusing on individual rights.[68] This theory gains significance in contemporary times, particularly as contentious bills drafted by governments face global criticism. Judicial control becomes imperative to preserve the nation's integrity, ensuring government actions remain within constitutional boundaries. It ensures that no administrative action contravenes established principles, such as instances of disruptive "Hartals" in India.[69] While such protests may have valid reasons, the judiciary must possess the authority to intervene and prevent possible disruptions, underscoring the primacy of law over politics.

However, there exists a viewpoint advocating for a more liberated administration, free from excessive control, to achieve policy objectives more effectively. The laws formulated by the government generally align with constitutional provisions, minimizing instances of unconstitutionality. Criticism from the opposition is a standard practice that serves as a check against unilateral laws, ultimately benefiting society.[70] This perspective argues that judicial intervention in administrative processes may not be necessary as long as the government adheres to established rules and regulations. It emphasizes the need to maintain a distinction between the judiciary and politics, intervening only when laws impede individual liberties.

An example highlighting the balance between administrative power and judicial oversight is the differing term limits for State leaders and officials in government agencies or banks. This disparity underscores the principle of "equality before the law."[71] The Green Light Theory contends that law should prevail over executive authority. It suggests that an unregulated administration could deliver more efficient services, yet in the present context, restraining judicial control over government actions is unwise. Public law, which holds paramount importance, necessitates the effectiveness of the Red Light Theory. Regardless of the entity involved, whether government or other bodies, the supremacy of the law prevails in cases of misconduct or abuse of power.[72]

At times, executive bodies withhold information, claiming it falls outside the purview of Right to Information. In such instances, judicial awareness becomes crucial to prevent potential maladministration, thereby safeguarding individual freedoms. A myriad of theories has emerged over time, attempting to define the scope and objectives of administrative law. The Red Light Theory advocates for stringent control, fearing abuse of discretion. Conversely, the Green Light Theory argues for a balance, asserting that unfettered judicial control can hinder efficient administration.

In this landscape, the Amber Light Theory seeks a harmonious coexistence of both perspectives. It acknowledges the merits of both the Red and Green Light Theories, aiming to extract their positive elements for application in governance. Ultimately, the Amber Light Theory appears to hold promise, reconciling the two opposing views by preserving their essential tenets.[73] As we assess these theories, the Amber Light Theory emerges as the most compelling, for it strives to synergize the essence of both the Red and Green Light Theories, fostering a balanced and effective administrative framework.

Furthermore, the core essence of administrative law is to establish a comprehensive framework for overseeing governmental activities and safeguarding the rights of citizens. Over time, a plethora of theories have emerged, each aiming to delineate the objectives of administrative law. As highlighted by Franklin (2018), in societal contexts, laws serve as a set of guidelines that define permissible and prohibited actions, while also encompassing the institutions responsible for legislating and enforcing these laws.[74] Similarly, within the realm of effective governance, adherence to the law dictates the permissible actions and obligations of the government.[75]

The realm of administrative law intricately delves into the operations and functions of administrative bodies, delineating the methodologies guiding their roles and responsibilities. A landmark case, A.K. Kraipak v. Association of India (1970),[76] stands as a testament to this jurisprudential notion. The court's pronouncement accentuated the thread of constitutional principles interwoven throughout the fabric of governance, illuminating a cardinal principle: every facet of the state machinery must act within the confines of its prescribed legal authority.

The policies must advocate the primacy of safeguarding individual liberties, underscoring the indispensable ascendancy of the law over governmental actions.[77] They contend that the edicts of the law should reign supreme, reigning in the government's endeavors. A prudent course of action, as posited, involves tempering the exercise of administrative powers with judicious restraint, thereby preempting the potential for any undue exploitation or misconduct.[78] In essence, the crux of the argument emphasizes the imperative of upholding the supremacy of the law as a pivotal mechanism to channel and regulate the conduct of administration.

This perspective accentuates the core ethos of administrative law – a meticulous calibration of the administrative machinery within the contours of legality, guided by the overarching imperative of ensuring that the freedoms and rights of individuals remain sacrosanct.[79]

Conclusion
The intricate tapestry of administrative law that we have examined unveils a nuanced interplay between the exercise of executive authority and the unwavering adherence to legal demarcations. The pivotal legal case discussed serves as a vivid illustration of how constitutional principles are interwoven throughout the governance fabric, serving as an unwavering compass that directs every arm of the state toward the confines of their prescribed powers. This jurisprudential landmark embodies a compelling reminder that the entire spectrum of governmental functions must be orchestrated within the orchestration of the law, evoking a profound call for governance within legal perimeters.

Within the contours of this discourse, the passionate endorsement of the primacy of individual liberties reverberates as a poignant resonance. Their contention that the rule of law must transcend mere statutes to become an overarching and moderating force within administrative realms reflects a nuanced understanding of the delicate equilibrium between authoritative exercise and prudent restraint.

The proposition for judicious circumscription of administrative authority emerges as a strategic bulwark against potential abuses or excesses that might arise in the exercise of power. The call for a vigilant equilibrium stems from a recognition that an unchecked exercise of power, however well-intentioned, has the potential to undermine the very foundations of a democratic society.

Hence, we glean from this exploration a reaffirmation of the transcendent importance of upholding the supremacy of law. It serves as the fulcrum upon which the machinery of administration pivots – both as a guiding principle that upholds the principles of justice, equality, and rights, and as a safeguard against overreach.

The dynamic interplay between administrative functions and the rule of law forms the bedrock of a democratic society, ensuring that the exercise of power remains rooted in legitimacy and accountability. In the broader context of a constantly evolving governance landscape, this discourse underscores the enduring relevance of the rule of law as an indispensable pillar, providing not only direction but also a necessary check on the course of governance.

End-Notes:

1. Carol Harlow & Richard Rawlings, Law and Administration, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 2009.
2. Id, at 6.
3. A. V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, MacMillan & Co, Third Edition, 1889.
4. Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
5. Adam Tomkins, 'In Defence of the Political Constitution', Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2002, available at s3.amazonaws.com/oxbridgenotes/samples/15602/original/Theory_sample.pdf, accessed on 29 December 2022.
6. William Wade & Christopher Forsyth, Administrative Law, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom, 2014, pp. 5-6.
7. Id, at 6.
8. Supra, note 6 at 6.
9. Supra, note 1 at 6.
10. Id, at 7.
11. David Stott & Alexandra Felix, Principles of administrative law, Cavendish Publishing Limited, London, United Kingdom, 1997.
12. Id, at 7.
13. Peter Leyland & Gordon Anthony, Textbook on Administrative Law, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom, 2013, p.5.
14. Supra, note 9 at 7.
15. Supra, note 11 at 7.
16. Yuvakeerthana K, The "Traffic Light" Theories Of Administrative Law – An Analysis, 7(12) IJNRD 2022, ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2212236.pdf.
17. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1976 (2) SCR 347.
18. Supra, note 16 at 8.
19. Supra, note 11 at 7.
20. Supra, note 16 at 8.
21. T.R.S. Allan, Law, Liberty, and the Separation of Powers, 1994 Oxford Scholarship Online 48, doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198259916.003.0003.
22. Abhiraj Vaidya, International journal for legal research and analysis, 2 IJLRA (2023), ijlra.com/paper-details.php?isuurl=a-critical-analysis-of-green-light-and-red-light-theory-under-administrative-law-by-abhiraj-vaidya.
23. David Stott & Alexandra Felix, Principles of administrative law, Cavendish Publishing Limited, London, United Kingdom, 1997.
24. Supra, note 16 at 8.
25. Supra, note 22 at 9.
26. The History of Utilitarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/.
27. John Stuart Mill/Utilitarianism | Introduction to Philosophy: Hymowech, Lumen Learning, courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-fmcc-philosophy/chapter/mill/.
28. Supra, note 9 at 7.
29. Supra, note 16 at 8.
30. Sabari K S, Red Light, Green Light And Amber Light Theories Of Administrative Law: A Comprehensive Analysis, IJLLR, ijllr.com/post/red-light-green-light-and-amber-light-theories-of-administrative-law-a-comprehensive-analysis.
31. Id, at 11.
32. Supra, note 22 at 9.
33. Administrative Law and its Analysis with reference to Red Light and Green Light Theory - Black n' White Journal, Black n' White Journal, bnwjournal.com/2021/09/09/administrative-law-and-its-analysis-with-reference-to-red-light-and-green-light-theory/.
34. Supra, note 33 at 11.
35. Massimo Tommasoli, Rule of Law and Democracy: Addressing the Gap Between Policies and Practices, 49(4) Delivering Justice 2012, un.org/en/chronicle/article/rule-law-and-democracy-addressing-gap-between-policies-and-practices.
36. Id, at 12.
37. Supra, note 35 at 12.
38. Srujith Krishna, Evaluation of Red Light, Green Light, and Amber Light Theories of Administrative Law (June 16, 2022), ssrn.com/abstract=4138171 or dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4138171.
39. Supra, note 9 at 7.
40. Yılmaz, H., An Approach to the Function of Administrative Law: "The Traffic-Light Metaphor", 77(2) Istanbul Law Review (2019), 1041-1059. doi.org/10.26650/mecmua.2019.77.2.0088.
41. Supra, note 22 at 9.
42. Supra, note 16 at 8.
43. David J. Mullan, Substantive Fairness Review: Heed the Amber Light, 18 Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev. 293 (1988).
44. Id, at 14.
45. Supra, note 38 at 13.
46. Supra, note 16 at 8.
47. Supra, note 38 at 13.
48. Functions, Theories And Practice Of Administrative Law In Contemporary Governance, 3(1) Administrative and Environtmental Law Review (2022), 49-62, researchgate.net/publication/362233610_Functions_Theories_And_Practice_Of_Administrative_Law_In_Contemporary_Governance.
49. Id, at 15.
50. Supra, note 38 at 13.
51. Supra, note 40 at 13.
52. Mark Said, No one is above the law, TIMES MALTA, (Last Accessed on December 19, 2022), timesofmalta.com/articles/view/no-one-is-above-the-law-mark-said.931456
53. Carol Harlow and Richard Rawlings, Red and green light theories, Third Edition, Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-70179-2 - Law and Administration, assets.cambridge.org/97805217/01792/excerpt/9780521701792_excerpt.pdf.
54. Supra, note 40 at 13.
55. Supra, note 16 at 8.
56. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Congress of the United States | History, Powers & Structure, Encyclopedia Britannica (July 20, 1998), britannica.com/topic/Congress-of-the-United-States.
57. Id, at 17.
58. Supra, note 56 at 17.
59. European Commission, commission.europa.eu/index_en.
60. Council of the European Union – role | European Union, European Union, european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/institutions-and-bodies/search-all-eu-institutions-and-bodies/council-european-union_en.
61. European Parliament, europarl.europa.eu/portal/en.
62. Canadian Parliamentary System - Our Procedure - ProceduralInfo - House of Commons of Canada, Welcome to the House of Commons of Canada - House of Commons of Canada, ourcommons.ca/procedure/our-procedure/parliamentaryFramework/c_g_parliamentaryframework-e.html.
63. Id, at 18.
64. Supra, note 62 at 18.
65. Supra, note 62 at 18.
66. Administrative Appeals Tribunal | Administrative Appeals Tribunal, aat.gov.au/.
67. Federal Court of Australia, fedcourt.gov.au/.
68. Supra, note 48 at 15.
69. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Hartal | Workers' Protest, Ceylon Politics & Colonialism, Encyclopedia Britannica (July 20, 1998), britannica.com/event/hartal.
70. Supra, note 22 at 9.
71. Acemoglu Daron & Wolitzky Alexander, A Theory of Equality Before the Law, OUP Academic (Sept. 30, 2020), https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/131/636/1429/5913319.
72. T.R.S. Allan, Legislation and the Common Law, OUP Academic (Dec. 15, 1994), https://academic.oup.com/book/9766/chapter/156954173
73. Supra, note 16 at 8.
74. Robert Franklin, The Red Light Theory and The Green Light Theory Portray Contrary Views as to the Extent and Object of Administrative law, THE LAWYERS AND JURISTS, (Last Accessed on December 25, 2022), https://www.lawyersnjurists.com/article/the-red-light-theory-and-the-green-light-theory-portray-contrary-viewsas-to-the-extent-andobject-of-administrative-law-2/
75. Supra, note 48 at 15.
76. A.K. Kraipak v. Association of India, [1970] 1 SCR 457
77. Ian Ellis-Jones, Essential Administrative Law, Cavendish Publishing Limited, London, United Kingdom, 2001, p.9.
78. Supra, note 16 at 8.
79. Supra, note 22 at 9.