UNIT: 4

ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION
 Administrative Adjudication

 Meaning & Definition of Administrative Adjudication

 Administrative Adjudication means the determination of questions of a

judicial or quasi-judicial nature by an administrative department or
agency. Like a regular court, administrative bodies hear the parties, go
through evidence, and pronounce a decision in cases where legal rights or
duties are involved.

 Adjudication involves intervention in the dispute by a third party

appointed by the government for the purpose of deciding the nature of
final settlement.
 Administrative Adjudication
 In the words of Prof White, “…administrative adjudication
means the investigation and settling of a dispute involving a
private party on the basis of a law and fact by an
administrative agency.”

 Prof. Dimock defines “Administrative Adjudication as the

process by which administrative agencies settle issues arising
in the course of their work when legal rights are in question.”
 Administrative Adjudication
 Administrative adjudication is the process by which an
administrative agency issues an order, such order being
affirmative, negative, injunctive, or declaratory in form.

 Most formal proceedings before an administrative agency

follow the process of either rule making or adjudication.
Rulemaking formulates policy by setting rules for the future
conduct of persons governed by that agency.
 Adjudication applies the agency's policy to the past actions of
a particular party, and it results in an order for or against that
party. Both methods are strictly regulated by the law of
administrative procedure.
 Administrative Adjudication
 Reasons for the growth of Administrative Adjudication
1. Vast expansion of State activity like industrialisation, agriculture,
education, health, planning, social security, transport etc.
2. The desire to provide a system of adjudication which was informal,
cheap and quick.
3. Litigation before a court of law is not only time consuming but is a
luxury of the rich.
4. The need to explore new public law standards based on moral and
social principles away from the highly individualistic norms
developed by courts.
5. In law there is growing emphasis on preventive justice rather than
punitive.
 e.g., if it is necessary that the injury done to the person is to be
remedied, it is equally necessary that the chances of injury must be
eliminated.
 Administrative Adjudication
6. Administrative adjudication also represents a functional approach
to law. Justice lies not in disposal of the case according to law but
in fair disposition.
 e.g., licensing, nationalisation, fixing priorities in planning and
action on the ground of policy considerations etc.
7. In a Welfare State there may be areas of adjudication where,
instead of concentrating on isolated facts in a dispute, the whole
area is to be concentrated upon with sympathetic attitude coupled
with an awareness of social context of the problem.
8. The courts are already groaning the weight of pending cases and
as such, if the whole mass of fresh litigation arising in an intensive
form of Govt. is diverted towards them, the judicial system would
virtually collapse.
 Administrative Adjudication
 Kinds of Administrative Adjudication:
 Administrative adjudication may take the following forms:

i. Advisory administrative adjudication which means that the power of final

decision is vested in the head of the department or other authority.
ii. Administrative adjudication may constitute a part of the regular functions of
an administrative officer.
iii. Administrative adjudication may be combined with a legislative and
administrative process.
iv. Regular suits may be filed against administrative decision.
v. Administrative adjudication sometimes applies to licensing activities.
vi. Administrative adjudication may be adopted for the settlement of claims.
vii. Administrative adjudication may sometimes serve as a condition precedent
to the performance of an administrative act.
 Administrative Adjudication
 Administrative Tribunals in India
 Historical background
 The social philosophy of the Constitution, as reflected in the
Preamble as well as Part IV, signifies the essence of the
administrative process. Yet, administrative law did not receive any
separate recognition in our country, prior to the forty second
constitutional amendment, 1976.
 This was in spite of the fact that the first law commission setup
way back in 1955 felt the necessity of setting up of tribunal. The
Commission had recommended that appeals from quasi-judicial
bodies on facts should lie to an independent Tribunal. It observed
that such tribunals ought to be presided over by a person qualified
to be a judge of the High Court and be assisted by a person or
persons having administrative and technical knowledge.
 Administrative Adjudication
 However, the Law Commission did not favour the system of
administrative courts as it wanted review of administrative action to
remain unimpaired with the High Courts. The Commission further
recommended that ;
i. judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative decisions should be clearly
demarcated;
ii. in the case of judicial and quasi - judicial decisions, appeal or
revision should lie on a question of Law;
iii. an administrative division of the High Court may be established, if
necessary, administrative decisions should be accompanied by
reasons in writing;
iv. a tribunal delivering administrative judgment should conform to the
principles of natural justice and should act with openness, fairness
and impartiality;
v. legislation providing for simple procedure embodying the principles
of natural justice for the functioning of all tribunals may be passed.
 Administrative Adjudication

• A committee under the Chairmanship of Justice Shah, appointed in

1969 addressed itself to the issue of pending service cases. It came
up with a recommendation, advising the Government to set up an
independent Tribunal to handle service cases, pending before the
Supreme Court.
• At this point of time, the Administrative Reforms Commission
under the Chairmanship of Morarji Desai also addressed itself to
the issue. The Administrative Reforms Commission too
recommended the setting of Civil Services Tribunals to deal with
appeals of government servants, against disciplinary action.
 Administrative Adjudication

• In spite of the above recommendation, the Central Government addressed

the matter further as a major chunk of service litigations related to
matters other than disciplinary action. A few years later, the matter came
to be considered by the Swaran Singh Committee in the year, 1976. This
committee too came up with the recommendation for setting up of
separate administrative tribunals for certain matters. The very same year
the matter also came to be considered by a conference of chief secretaries
of the States.
• The Government finally introduced the constitution forty second
amendment in Parliament in the year 1976. Clause 46 of the aforesaid
amendment came to be introduced providing for Articles 323A and 323B
by way of an innovation under Part XIV-A to the Constitution. The
constitutional amendment thus provided for a new chapter relating to
tribunals.
 Administrative Adjudication
 In view of the importance of Article 323A, providing for the setting up of
administrative tribunals, the same is quoted in extensio:
a) To enable Parliament to make an enactment for the constitution of
Administrative Tribunals for adjudication of disputes in regard to service
matters,
b) To make the enactment in conformity with the guideline set out in
clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (2) of the Article,
c) To exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court
especially the High Courts to entertain writ petitions as well as appeals
from the decisions,
d) Administrative Tribunal and lower courts as the Administrative Tribunals
are now being given the sole authority to decide the fact in all matters
concerning his service conditions.
 Administrative Adjudication
• Vide 42nd amendment in the Constitution of India Articles 323 A
and 323B were added.(effective from 03.01.1977).

• Art.323A provides for the establishment of Administrative

Tribunals by the Parliament for adjudication of service matters.
Article 323B provides for the establishment of Tribunals, to
adjudicate on the matters with regard to which the respective
State Legislature has power to make laws, as specified in Article
323B(2).

• After the 42nd amendment, The Administrative Tribunals Act,1985

was enacted under which Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) was
established.
 Administrative Adjudication
 Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985

• After almost a decade of the constitutional amendment which

incorporated Article 323A in the Constitution, the Government piloted the
Administrative Tribunals Bill before Parliament . The statement of objects
and reasons while stressing the need for speedy disposal of cases, clearly
admits of the pendency of a large number of cases relating to service
matters before the various courts.
• Pursuant to the passing of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the vires
of the legislation came to be challenged before the Supreme Court in the
case of S .P. Sampat Kumar v. Union of India(1986). Various provisions of
the Act, along with the constitutional validity of Article 323A came up for
adjudication before the Supreme Court. It was also the contention of the
petitioner, that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court could not be taken
away by any constitutional amendment.
 Administrative Adjudication
• After an interim order by a division bench of the Apex Court, the matter
came up before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. In the mean
time certain amendments were effected in respect of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 in compliance with the interim order of the Apex
Court.

• While upholding the constitutional validity of Article 323A as well as the

impugned Act, (as amended) the Supreme Court observed that, the
Constitution permits Parliament to abrogate the jurisdiction of the High
Courts under Article 226 and 227, provided the same happens to be
exercised effectively and efficiently by a closely comparable institution or
body.
• In so holding, the Apex Court made the following observation, "What,
however, has to be kept in view is that the Tribunal should be a real
substitute for the High Court not only in form and dejure but in content and
de facto". It has to be ensured “that the substitute institution-the Tribunal
 Administrative Adjudication
 Administrative Tribunals
 In pursuance of administrative law, there can arise disputes.
These disputes require adjudication. There are administrative
agencies other than the courts to adjudicate such issues
arising in the course of day to day administration.
 Definition
1. Peter Johnson
 “Administrative tribunals are bodies established under a
statute (Act of Parliament), outside the ordinary court system,
to hear and settle disputes between government agencies
and individuals or citizens, employers and employees,
landlords and tenants, buyers and sellers or between other
individuals.”
 Administrative Adjudication
2) L. B. Curzon: "Administrative Tribunals are adjudicative
bodies constituted, manned and operated by the Executive.“

3) Blachly and Oatman describe administrative tribunals or

Admin­istrative Courts as, “authorities outside the ordinary
court system which interpret and apply the laws when acts of
public administration are attacked in formal suits or by other
established methods.”

 Administrative tribunals are often referred to as

"Commission," "Authority," "Quasi-judicial Body," "Statutory
Tribunal," or "Board."
 Administrative Adjudication
 Tribunals/Commissions/Boards

1) Airport Appellate Tribunal

2) Airport Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal
3) Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
4) Appellate Tribunal for Electricity(ATE)
5) Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange
6) Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property
7) Armed Forces Tribunal
8) The Authority for Advance Rulings (under Income tax Act)
9) The Authority for Advance Rulings (Central Excise, Customs and
Service Tax)
10) Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority (Central Sales Tax Act,1956)
 Administrative Adjudication

11) Central Administrative Tribunal

12) Competition Commission of India
13) Competition Appellate Tribunal
14) Copyright Board
15) Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
16) Cyber Appellate Tribunal
17) Debt Recovery Tribunal
18) Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
19) Film Certification Appellate Tribunal
20) Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
 Administrative Adjudication

21) Food Safety Appellate Tribunal

22) Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal – National, regional
and state tribunals
23) Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
24) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
25) Intellectual Property Appellate Board
26) Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
27) National Company Law Tribunal
28) National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
29) National Environment Tribunal
30) National Green Tribunal
 Administrative Adjudication
31.National Highways Tribunal
32.Industrial Tribunal
33.National Industrial Tribunal
34.Railway Claims Tribunal
35.Railway Rates Tribunal
36.Securities Appellate Tribunal
37.Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal
38.Water Disputes Tribunal
39.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
40.National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
41.State Human Rights Commission
42.National Human Rights Commission
 Administrative Adjudication
 Characteristics of Administrative Tribunals
1. They are authorities outside the ordinary court system.
2. They interpret and apply the laws when acts or decisions of public
administration are challenged or questioned in formal suits or
complaints.
3. They are agencies created by specific Acts of Parliament to
adjudicate upon disputes that may arise in the course of
implementation of the provisions. They are independent bodies
and are only required to follow the procedure prescribed by the
relevant law and observe the principles of 'Natural Justice.'
4. They hear evidence, make findings of fact and apply established
policy.
5. Their decisions are reviewable by a superior court in limited
circumstances.
 Administrative Adjudication
6. They are not bound by the elaborate rules of evidence or procedures
governing the ordinary courts.

7. They are not a court nor are they an executive body. Rather they are a
mixture of both. They are judicial in the sense that they have to decide
facts and apply them impartially, without considering executive policy.
They are administrative because the reasons for preferring them to the
ordinary courts of law are administrative reasons.

8. They are free from administrative (Govt.) interference in the discharge of

their functions.
9. The composition, functions and powers of administrative tribunals are
stated in the statute establishing them.

10. They deal with disputes relating to immigration, social security, taxation,
land, rent, unfair dismissal, employment, etc.
 Distinction between Courts and Tribunals
Courts Administrative Tribunal
1) The administrative tribunal is an agency created by a
1) A Court of law is a part of the traditional judicial system.
statute endowed with judicial powers.
2) It deals with service matters and is vested with limited
2) A Court of law is vested with general jurisdiction over all
jurisdiction to decide a particular issue.
the matters.

3) It is not bound by the rules of the Evidence Act and the

3) It is strictly bound by all the rules of evidence and by the
CPC unless the statute which creates the tribunal imposes
procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure.
such an obligation.

4) It is not mandatory in every case that the members need

4) It is presided over by an officer expert in the law.
to be trained and experts in law.

5) The decision of the court is objective in nature primarily 5) The decision is subjective i.e. at times it may decide the
based on the evidence and materials produced before matters taking into account the policy and expediency.
the court.

6) It is not obligatory to follow precedents and principle of

6) It is bound by precedents, the principle of res judicata
res judicata but the principle of natural justice must be
and the principle of natural justice.
followed.

7) It can decide the validity of legislation. 7) It cannot decide the validity of legislation.

8) The courts do not follow investigatory or inquisition

functions rather it decides the case on the basis of 8) Many tribunals perform investigatory functions as well
evidence. along with its quasi-judicial functions.
 Administrative Adjudication
 The advantages of Administrative Tribunals

1. Administrative tribunals settle disputes/cases more quickly,

more cheaply and more efficiently than ordinary courts.
2. They possess greater technical knowledge/ expertise (in fields
such as law, medicine, taxation, business, industry, health,
engineering, land, etc.) than the courts of law and hence they
can effectively deal with technical and socio-economic
problems arising out of administrative action.
3. They could decide cases according to the requirements of
different circumstances. In other words, they possess flexibility.
Unlike the regular courts, the tribunals are not bound by
precedents in deciding cases; they can even go against the
existing precedents if the circumstances warrant so.
 Administrative Adjudication

3. Administrative tribunals ensure inexpensive and speedy justice. The

procedure in the law courts is long and cumbersome and litigation is
costly.
5. They help to relieve the heavy workload of the ordinary courts of law
which are already overburdened with legal suits and a backlog of cases.
6. Tribunals help in the efficient conduct of public administration and
promote a policy of social development.
7. Tribunals are usually local by nature, and can therefore acquaint
themselves with local conditions and carry out inspections of property
and sites (particularly in the case of lands tribunal, rent tribunal,
consumer and housing tribunals) where this would assist them in their
decisions.
 Administrative Adjudication

 Disadvantages of Administrative Tribunals

1. They violate the principles of the rule of law and natural justice.
Administrative tribunals, with their separate laws and procedures often
made by themselves, put a serious limitation on the concept of equality
before law for everybody and the supremacy of ordinary law.
2. They also violate the theory of the separation of powers because they
sometimes exercise administrative as well as quasi-judicial or judicial
functions.
3. They cannot act in a judicial spirit as they are staffed by administrators
and not by trained judges.
4. In the case of some tribunals, appeals to the courts against their
decisions are not provided. This is regarded as quite unfair.
 Administrative Adjudication
6. They do not follow uniform procedures and precedents. This
would lead to arbitrary and inconsistent decisions by the
tribunals.

7. Some tribunals are not obliged to give reasons for their decisions.
This could cause some problems for the aggrieved party.

8. No legal aid is available for persons appearing before tribunals,

and they may therefore not be properly represented at the
hearing.

9. Some tribunals meet in private. Holding a tribunal in private and

the lack of openness and transparency can lead to suspicion
about the fairness of the decisions.
 Administrative Adjudication

9. They are not always independent of the Government. There

is a possibility of political interference by the government,
preventing the tribunal from giving an impartial decision.

10. The investigation of facts of a case are of poor quality as

strict rules of evidence are not observed by the tribunals.

11. Administrative tribunals are manned by administrators and

technical personnel who may not have the background of
law or training in judicial work. Some of them may not
possess the independent outlook of a judge.
 Administrative Adjudication
 Tribunalisation of Justice in India

 Reference cases
1. SP Sampath Kumar v. Union of India ( AIR 1987 SC)
2. Sambamurthy v. State of A.P.(1987) SCC 386
3. Sakinala Harinath v. State of A.P. ( 1993)
4. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India ( AIR 1995 SC 1151)
 Administrative Adjudication

1) SP Sampath Kumar v. Union of India ( AIR 1987 SC)

• The petitioners in these writ petitions and transfer petitions

challenged the Constitutional validity of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985. It was contended that the exclusion of
the jurisdiction of the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 in
service matters specified in Sec.28 of the Act was
unconstitutional and void, and that the composition of the
Tribunal and mode of appointment of Chairman, Vice-
Chairman and Members was outside the scope of the power
conferred on Parliament under Art. 323-A.
 Administrative Adjudication
 The SC held that it is the High Court which is being supplanted by
Administrative Tribunal. The office of Chairman of the Tribunal,
therefore, for all practical purposes should be equated with the office of
the Chief Justice of a High Court. Judicial discipline generated by
experience and training in an adequate dose is a necessary qualification
for that post. It is thus essential that he should have been a Judge of the
High Court or he should have for at least two years held office as Vice-
Chairman.
 A person who has merely held the post of Secretary to the Government
of India and who has no legal and judicial experience if appointed,
Chairman would not only fail to inspire confidence in the public mind but
would also render the Administrative Tribunal a much less effective and
efficacious mechanism than the High Court. Thus, the Supreme Court has
struck down Clause (c) of Sec.6(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985 pertaining to the appointment of an administrative member as a
Chairman under the ATs Act, 1985.
 Administrative Adjudication

2) P. Sambamurthy v. State of A.P.(1987) SCC 386

 Article 371-D was introduced in the Constitution by the Constitution (Thirty-
Second Amendment) Act 1973, which came into force with effect from 1st July,
1974, and pursuant to cl. (3) thereof the President of India made an order on
19th May, 1975 constituting an Administrative Tribunal for the State of Andhra
Pradesh with jurisdiction to deal with service matters specified in that order.
 In these petitions under Art. 32, the petitioners challenged the validity of cl. (3)
& (5) of Art. 371-D. However, challenge to cl. (3) was not pressed and arguments
confined only to cl. (5).
 Clause (5) which says that “the State Government may by special order made
in writing for reasons to be specified therein, modify or annul any order of the
Administrative Tribunal before it becomes effective and in such a case, the order
of the Administrative Tribunal shall have effect only in such modified form or be
of no effect.”
 Administrative Adjudication

 The SC held that it would be open to the State Government, after it

has lost before the Administrative Tribunal, to set aside the
decision given by the Administrative Tribunal against it. Such a
provision is, to say the least, shocking and is clearly subversive of
the principles of justice.
 A party to the litigation cannot be given the power to over-ride
the decision given by the Tribunal. It would be violating the basic
concept of justice and make a mockery of the entire adjudicative
process. Not only is the power conferred on the State Government
to modify or annul the decision of the Administrative Tribunal
starting and wholly repugnant to the notion of justice but it is also a
power which can be abused or misused.
 Administrative Adjudication

 The SC further held that, if the exercise of the power of judicial

review can be set at will by the State Government by overriding the
decision given against it, it would sound the death knell for the
rule of law. The rule of law would be meaningless as it would be
open to the State Government to defy the law and yet to get away
with it. The Proviso to cl.(5) of Art. 371-D is, therefore, violative of
the basic structure doctrine and must be struck down.
 Administrative Adjudication

3) S. Harinath v. State of A.P. ( W.P M.P No.17958 of 1994)

• In this case the constitutional validity of Article 323-A (2) (d) was
challenged as unconstitutional since it destroys the basic structure
of the Constitution; the Constitution vests judicial power of the
State in the Supreme Court and the High Courts under Articles
32,226 and 227 and any interference with that power would
amount to destroying the basic and essential feature of the
Constitution.
• The SC held that Article 323-A(2)(d) of the Constitution of India is
unconstitutional to the extent it empowers Parliament, by law, to
exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and
consequently, SC further declare that Section 28 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to the extent it divests the High
Court of its jurisdiction under Article 226 is unconstitutional.
 Administrative Adjudication

4) L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1125)

• There were special leave petitions, civil appeals and writ

petitions regarding to the constitutional validity of Article
323A (2)(d) and Article 323B (3)(d) and also with reference to
the constitutional validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985; and also there was challenge regarding whether the
Tribunals constituted under Part XIV A of the Constitution of
India can be effective substitutes for the High Court in
discharging the power of judicial review?
 Administrative Adjudication
 Issues:
1) Whether the Tribunals constituted either under Article 323A or under
Article 323B of the Constitution, possess the competence to check the
constitutional validity of a statutory provisional or rule?
2) Whether these Tribunals, as they are working at present, can be said to
be effective substitutes for the High Courts in discharging the power of
judicial review? If not, what are the changes needed to create them to
change to their founding objectives?
3) Whether the power given to Parliament or State Legislatures, as the case
may be, by Article 323A(2)(d) or by Article 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution,
wholly exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts, except that of the Supreme
Court under Article 136, in respect of disputes and complaints said in
Article 323A(1) or with relation to all or any of the matters laid out in
Article 323B(2) runs counter to the power of judicial review given to the
High Courts under Article 226/227 and on the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution?
 Administrative Adjudication

• The Court held that Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
and the “exclusion of Jurisdiction” clauses in all other Legislations enacted
under the aegis of Article 323A and 323B would, to the extend that they
exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts ( under Articles 226 and 227)
and the Supreme Court (under Article 32) would be ultra vires the
Constitution.
• In exercising their powers such tribunals cannot act as substitutes for High
Courts and the Supreme Court. Their decision are going to be subject to
scrutiny by a Division Bench of the concerned High Courts i.e., all decisions
of these Tribunals ( tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B of the
Constitution of India) are going to be subject to scrutiny before a Division
Bench of the High Court within whose Jurisdiction the involved tribunal
falls.
Thank You