The statement highlights a fundamental principle of democratic governance: the distinct yet complementary roles of the legislative and judicial branches in overseeing the executive administration. Parliamentary control and judicial control are both vital checks and balances, but they operate on different principles, with different objectives, and thus, one cannot substitute the other.

Parliamentary Control over Administration:

Parliamentary control refers to the mechanisms through which the legislature (Parliament) holds the executive (administration) accountable. Its primary objective is to ensure political accountability, policy oversight, and responsiveness of the government to the will of the people as represented by their elected representatives. Key mechanisms include:

• Question Hour and Zero Hour: Members of Parliament can ask questions to ministers on various aspects of administration, seeking information and accountability.
• Debates and Discussions: On policies, bills, and issues of public importance.
• Budgetary Control: Parliament approves the budget, scrutinizes expenditure, and can even cut grants, ensuring financial accountability.
• Parliamentary Committees: Standing committees, ad-hoc committees, and public accounts committees scrutinize departmental functioning, financial irregularities, and policy implementation in detail.
• Motions: Adjournment motions, censure motions, and no-confidence motions can be used to express disapproval or remove the government.

Limitations of Parliamentary Control:

• Political Nature: Often driven by party politics, leading to partisan debates rather than objective scrutiny.
• Time Constraints: Parliament has limited time to delve into the intricacies of administration.
• Lack of Expertise: MPs may not always possess the specialized knowledge required for detailed administrative oversight.
• Executive Dominance: In a parliamentary system, the executive often enjoys a majority in the legislature, which can dilute effective control.

Judicial Control over Administration:

Judicial control refers to the power of the courts to review the legality, constitutionality, and procedural fairness of administrative actions. Its primary objective is to ensure that the administration acts within the bounds of the law, protects fundamental rights, and adheres to principles of natural justice. Key mechanisms include:

• Judicial Review: Courts can examine the constitutionality of laws and administrative actions.
• Writs: High Courts and the Supreme Court can issue writs (Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Certiorari, Quo Warranto) to compel or restrain administrative action, protect rights, and correct legal errors.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Allows citizens to approach courts on behalf of public interest, holding the administration accountable for its omissions or commissions affecting the public.
• Principles of Natural Justice: Courts ensure that administrative decisions are made fairly, with due process, and without bias.
• Doctrine of Ultra Vires: Courts ensure that administrative bodies do not exceed their statutory powers.

Limitations of Judicial Control:

• Ex-post facto: Judicial review typically occurs after an administrative action has been taken.
• Limited Scope: Courts generally do not interfere with policy matters unless they are illegal or unconstitutional.
• Time-Consuming: Judicial processes can be lengthy and expensive.
• Judicial Overreach: Concerns about courts encroaching upon the domain of the executive or legislature.

Why one cannot substitute the other:

1. Different Objectives: Parliamentary control focuses on political accountability and policy effectiveness, while judicial control focuses on legality, constitutionality, and protection of rights.
2. Different Spheres of Operation: Parliament scrutinizes policy, expenditure, and overall governmental functioning. The judiciary scrutinizes the legality and fairness of specific administrative decisions and actions.
3. Nature of Scrutiny: Parliamentary scrutiny is broad and political; judicial scrutiny is narrow, legal, and based on established legal principles.
4. Complementary Roles: They act as distinct but complementary checks. Parliamentary control ensures that the executive is answerable to the people's representatives, while judicial control ensures that the executive operates within the rule of law. Without parliamentary control, the executive could become autocratic and unresponsive. Without judicial control, the executive could act illegally or unconstitutionally, infringing on citizens' rights.

In conclusion, parliamentary and judicial controls are indispensable pillars of a democratic system. They serve different purposes, employ different methods, and address different aspects of administrative functioning. Far from being substitutes, they are mutually reinforcing mechanisms that collectively ensure a robust system of checks and balances, promoting good governance, accountability, and the rule of law.