1. Core Legal Answer & Context: The 'Rule of Law' is a fundamental principle of good governance, implying that all persons, including those in authority, are subject to and accountable to law. Its core tenets include the supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to law, fairness, and the absence of arbitrary power. Administrative powers, by their very nature, involve discretion. The statement that administrative actions are not always in conflict with the rule of law is accurate; in fact, they are essential for the functioning of a modern state. Conflict arises only when administrative actions are arbitrary, ultra vires (beyond legal authority), mala fide (in bad faith), or violate principles of natural justice.

When administrative powers are exercised within the bounds of the law, for the purpose for which they were granted, reasonably, and with due regard for fairness and natural justice, they uphold the rule of law. For instance, a licensing authority granting a permit to a qualified applicant based on established criteria and transparent procedures exemplifies administrative action consistent with the rule of law. Conversely, if the same authority denies a permit arbitrarily or based on personal bias, it conflicts with the rule of law. The essence is that discretion must be guided by law, not by whim or caprice.

2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

• Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, prohibiting arbitrary state action.
• Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, ensuring that any procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable.
• Administrative Law Principles: Judicial review, proportionality, legitimate expectation, and principles of natural justice are all mechanisms to ensure administrative actions conform to the rule of law.

3. Important Landmark Cases:

• E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974): The Supreme Court held that arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality guaranteed by Article 14. Any administrative action that is arbitrary is unconstitutional.
• S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India (1967): Emphasized that the rule of law requires that every organ of the state must act under the law and not by arbitrary fiat. Discretion must be exercised according to rules and not whims.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded the scope of Article 21, holding that the 'procedure established by law' must be fair, just, and reasonable, thereby incorporating principles of natural justice into administrative decision-making affecting fundamental rights.

4. Clear Conclusion: Administrative powers are indispensable for governance. They are in harmony with the rule of law when exercised fairly, reasonably, transparently, and strictly within the legal framework. It is only when these powers are abused, exercised arbitrarily, or without due process that they come into conflict with the rule of law. Judicial review serves as a crucial check to ensure that administrative actions remain within constitutional and legal bounds, thereby upholding the rule of law.