Faculty of Law, Aligarh Muslim

University

2021

Administrative Law
(Project)
On
‘Administrative Adjudication: Meaning, Features and need’

Submitted to
Dr. Saim Farooqui

Submitted by
Shrishti Thenuan
19BALLB013
BA LLB VI Semester (Section A)
Enrolment No.- GK1816
 Synopsis

➢Introduction
➢Need for Administrative Adjudication
➢Problems in Adjudication by Administrative
➢Rules of Natural Justice applicable in Administrative
Adjudication
➢Salient features of Natural Justice
➢Reasons for the growth of Administrative
Adjudication
➢Conclusion
➢Bibliography
Introduction
Administrative laws play a crucial role in any democracy. It is that part of the
entire governmental set-up that puts a check on the government and prevents
any misuse of power and authority. Administrative law comprises all the laws
that deal with the functioning of the government. It includes the laws
concerning their duties, powers and their constitutional framework as
well. Now, why is this so important in a democracy?

Administrative laws define the powers and boundaries of the government. This
ensures that the powers of the government are limited and are not arbitrary in
nature. This is a major factor of support for the Rule of Law.

As we know, the Rule of Law states that all people and institutions are equal
before the law. Everyone in the society, including the government and its three
organs- the legislature, judiciary and the executive must adhere to this Rule of
law.

Administrative laws make sure that this rule of law is practised and that all the
powers and rules of the government fall well within its legal boundaries. All
decisions made in a position of public authority need to be in conformation with
democratic provisions.

It eliminates the possibility of the government exceeding its power and if at all
the government does exceed its power it also provides for remedies to the public
to fight against any injustice caused. Now that we understand what kind of
actions come under administrative law let’s look at the position and origin of
administrative justice.
Meaning
‘Administrative decision-making’ or ‘Administrative Adjudication’ is a by-
product of an intensive form of government, and consequential socialization of
law (thus causes for the evolution of administrative adjudication and delegated
legislation are same); the traditional judicial system cannot give to the people
that quantity and quality of justice which is required in a welfare state, because
it is the highly individualistic and ritualistic approach.
Natural justice is the common law doctrine that provides important procedural
rights in administrative decisions- making. The doctrine now has a wide
application and is presumed by the courts to apply the exercise of virtually all
statuary powers. But the courts have also accepted that natural justice can be
excluded by legislation that is expressed in sufficiently clear terms. The doctrine
(natural justice) is now termed as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice
and stands as the most accepted methodology of governmental action.
It is a settled position of law that the rules of natural justice have many facets and
cannot be put in a straitjacket formula; in other words, they are flexible. Rules of
natural justice are synonymous to fairness in the backdrop of common sense.
Natural justice is another name for common-sense justice. The question to be
asked in every case to determine whether the rules of natural justice have been
violated is: Have the authorities acted fairly? [Dev Dutt v Union of India (2008)
8 SCC 725].
The purpose of following principles of natural justice is to prevent the
miscarriage of Justice [Bharat Ratna Indira Gandhi College of Engineering v
State of Maharashtra AIR 2011 SC1912]. Today, the bulk of decisions relating
to personal or property rights of the people come not from the courts, but from
administrative agencies exercising judicial power. Sometimes the task of
adjudication is merely incidental to administration; sometimes it begins to
assume a very close resemblance with the work usually assigned to the judiciary.
‘Administrative decision-making’ or ‘Administrative Adjudication’ is a by-
product of an intensive form of government, and consequential socialization of
law (thus causes for the evolution of administrative adjudication and delegated
legislation are same); the traditional judicial system cannot give to the people
that quantity and quality of justice which is required in a welfare state, because
it is the highly individualistic and ritualistic approach.

Need for Administrative Adjudication

(i)It provides a system of adjudication which is informal, cheap, and rapid, unlike
the traditional courts.

(ii) It explores new public law standards based on moral and social principles
away from the highly individualistic norms developed by courts. For example,
the Employees’ State Insurance Scheme in India required a new standard of
medical service and treatment to which all the insured population and doctors
must conform. The setting up of new standards requires expertise,
specialization, and experimentation which can be provided by the
administration.

(iii) Nowadays, there is a growing emphasis on preventive justice rather than

punitive. This can be done only by administrative agencies exercising
adjudicatory powers.
However, it is being said that strategy of administrative adjudication was
developed not as a result of public necessity but for governmental convenience
and expediency. People doubt the independence of administrators as judges and
also fear their anti-legal approach.

Problems in Adjudication
by Administrative

Administrative justice has been a host of controversies in India. A few common

problems the adjudicative process occurs are as follows:

(i) Number and complexity– A large number of adjudicative bodies have come
up in recent times; every statutory scheme contains its own machinery for
decision-making. A large number of parallel bodies adjudicating on the same
kind of disputes give diverse decisions and adopt a variety of procedures.
Because the principles of natural justice are not rigid and do not apply
uniformly in all situations, the consequent results at times in arbitrary actions.

(ii) Unsystematic system of appeal: No uniform system of appeal is there.

Sometimes, decisions are made appealable before an independent tribunal as in
tax cases, and sometimes before a higher administrative agency. Some acts do
not provide for any appeal.

(iii) Invisibility and anonymity of decisions: Not all the administrative agencies
exercising judicial power publish their decisions; their decisions thus go beyond
the Pale of public criticism. Also, often the decisions are made in a ‘hole and
the corner’ fashion. No one knows where the decision comes.
(iv) Unpredictability and anonymity of decisions: Administrative agencies do
not follow the doctrine of precedent, hence they are not bound to follow their
decisions. This ad hocism not only makes the development of law incoherent but
also violates the principles of the rule of law.

(v) Combination of functions: Except in the case of civil servants, in all

disciplinary proceedings, the functions of a prosecutor and the judge are either
combined in one person or in the same department, in such a situation bias is
inevitable.

(vi) No evidence rule: In India, the technical rules of the Evidence Act do not
apply to administrative adjudications. The gap is filled, true inadequately, by
the judge-made rule of ‘No Evidence’.

(vii) Official perspective and official bias: In administrative justice, an official

prospective is inherent. In any disciplinary proceedings of presumption is of
guilt rather than innocence. The actions are taken on the basis of expediency
and various other extra-legal considerations. Official or departmental bias is
very common e.g. Strong and sincere conviction as to public policy or bias
results due to pecuniary interest.

(viii) Plea bargaining: It means the bargaining of ‘plea of guilt’ with lesser
charges and punishment. A poor employee is bullied by an overbearing superior
to accept the charge against him on a promise that a lesser punishment will be
awarded.

(ix) Political interference: Instrumentalities of Administrative justice are, by

their very nature, subject to some more manner of political interference.
(x) Reasoned decisions: Generally there is no requirement for the
administrative authority to give reasons, which undermines the faith in
administrative justice.

(xi) Legal representation and cross-examination: There is no general

requirement for administrative authority to allow legal representation and
cross-examination in every case.

In order to create confidence among the people in administrative justice, a code

prescribing a minimum procedure of Administrative agencies must be adopted;
till this is done, judicial review must be enlarged by using the test of
reasonableness of Administrative findings of the fact and law.

Rules of Natural Justice applicable

in Administrative Adjudication

The principles of natural justice, in brief, are as follows:

1. That every person whose rights are affected must have reasonable notice of
the matter that he has to meet.

2. That he must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard in his’ defense.

That the hearing must be an impartial person i.e. A person who is neither
directly or indirectly a party to the case. One who has an interest in the
litigation is already biased against the party concerned.

4. That the authority of hearing the case must act in good faith and not
arbitrarily but reasonably.

Salient features of Natural Justice

The salient features of natural justice are summed up as follows:

1. The allegation should be specific and precise and ought to be produced in

writing. The charges framed against the workman on the basis of allegations
should be such as are qualitative and specific provisions of the service rules or
the notified standing orders applicable to the establishment.

2. Reasonable time should be given to the delinquent the employee to reply to

the charge-sheet and prepare for his defense, inquiry is to be conducted.

3. Inquiry officer appointed for conducting domestic inquiry should be totally

unbiased and not connected with the incident. He should not appear as the
prosecution witness himself.

4. All prosecution witnesses should be examined individually in the presence of

a delinquent employee and their statements recorded. Pre-recorded should not
be on the record of the inquiry proceedings.
5. The delinquent employee or his Defense Representative should be given
ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the replies of the witness
should be recorded by the inquiry officer.

Reasons for the growth of Administrative

Adjudication

▪ Administrative Adjudication protect the rights of citizens at the cost of the

state authority. Following mentioned are some of the reasons contributing
to the growth of Administrative Adjudication:

▪ Administrative authorities can help in taking various preventive and

cautionary measures. As it has been observed that the disputing parties
approach the courts of law for redressal, however, the same is not the case
with Administrative authorities as herein, the preventive actions are
already taken which then prove to be more effective and useful than what
happens in regular courts i.e. punishing the perpetrator after he has
committed a breach of law.

▪ Administrative authorities endure effective measures for the enforcement

of the aforesaid preventive measures e.g. suspension, revocation and
cancellation of license, destruction of contaminated articles etc., which are
not generally available through regular courts of law.

▪ The judicial system of India is considered to be inadequate in deciding and

settling all kinds of disputes, for the reasons it being, slow, incompetent,
costly, complex and formal. The Indian court are already overloaded with
 number of cases and it becomes impossible to expect speedy disposal of
even very important matters. Thus, the development of administrative
authorities such as industrial tribunals and labour courts have led to bring
a relief in the number of cases. Lastly, these tribunals had updated
techniques and expertise to handle such complex issues.

▪ The legislative process followed in our country is considered to be quite

inappropriate. The lengthy proceedings and obsolete techniques followed
in the Indian courts make the process of delivering justice delayed. Even
having detailed provisions in some legislations made by the legislature,
they are considered to be defective. Therefore, it the need of the hour to
delegate some powers to the administrative authorities.
 Conclusion
We understand that although there is an efficient system of administrative
action in our country there is a huge scope of improvement. We must look into
the different options and maybe even adopt a few of the best practices from
other countries which have successfully established a good system to provide
administrative justice as it would remain to be a very crucial feature in a
growing democracy like India.
Bibliography

➢ https://scroll.in/article/884663/to-reform-indias-tribunals-the-
government-must-uphold-judicial-independence
➢ • Sathe SP, Administrative Law ( Edition 7th, Lexis Nexis
Publications)
➢ https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-
11/administrative-justice.pdf