SY.

LLB – A

Roll No. 58
Name: Shekhar Atul Panse
Subject: Administrative Law
Topic: Analysis of the Case of A.K. KRAIPAK v.
UNION OF INDIA
Analysis of the Case of A.K. KRAIPAK v. UNION OF INDIA

The Supreme court held that though the action of making selection for government service
is administrative, yet the selection committee is under a duty to act judicially.
The court found that the power exercised by the Selection board as an administrative one
and tested the validity of the selection on that basis. It was held that the concept of rule of
law would lose its importance if the instrumentalities of the state are not charged with the
duty of discharging their functions in a fair and just manner in a welfare state like India,
where the jurisdiction of the administrative bodies is increasing at a rapid rate.

In A.K. Kraipak V. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC A), the Supreme Court held that a
person who sits on a Committee for selection of candidates for certain job must not be a
Candidate himself for the Job. The logic is that Judges could be impartial and neutral. He
must be free from any controversy, suspicion of bias in rendering Justice.

Firstly, it is well settled that as regards pecuniary interest, the least pecuniary interest in the
subject matter of litigation will disqualify any person from acting as a Judge. A Judge or
Lawyer could not instigate the parties to come settlement between them by gaining
pecuniary benefits from both sides. It will be considered to be misconduct. Secondly, it is
also well settled that Personal Bias is against the Justice.

A number of circumstances may give rise to personal bias. If a Judge be a relative, friend or
business partner or associate he might have some personal grudge, enmity, professional
rivalry against such party. In view of these factors, there is very likelihood that the Judge
may be biased towards one party or prejudiced towards others. Thirdly, Official Bias is also
very serious one.

An official appointed for acting as an Adjudicator cannot be disqualified from a mere

official loophole or policy weak in his role and responsibility. There shall be total
application of minds on his part or he shall not be acting under some one’s dictation instead
of deciding the matter independently. Then, out of these three bias, the first one (Pecuniary
Bias) is very danger that it can disqualify a person from acting as a Judge. But the
remaining two is indeed needed to test whether there is a real likelihood of Bias in the
Judgment.

Judgment:
• The court held that the selections made by the selection Committee were in violation of
the principles of natural justice as a result of there was a true probability of a bias for the
mere presence of the candidate on the selection Board might adversely influence the
judgement of alternative members. it had been held that although the action of making
choice for government service is administrative, however the selection committee is
underneath a obligation to act judicially.
• The court found that the ability exercised by the selection board as an administrative one
and tested the validity of the selection on that basis. It was held that the idea of rule of law
would lose its importance if the instrumentalities of the state don't seem to be charged with
the duty of discharging their functions in a fair and just manner in a country like India,
where the jurisdiction of the executive bodies is increasing at a speedy rate.
• The principle of “nemo judex in causa sua” was in violation while appointing
Naquishband as a member of the selection board. though he failed to participate in the
deliberations of the board when his name was being considered however the actual fact that
he was a member of the selection board which too holding the post of the chairman had a
major impact on the choices of the selection board. Also, he participated among the
deliberations when the claims of his rivals i.e., Basu, Baig and Kaul were considered. He
was also present when the list of chosen candidates in order of preference was being
created. Hence it was very clear that from the very beginning of the choice process, at each
stage of his participation within the selection process, there was a conflict between his
interest and duty. By viewing all the necessary conditions, the court came to the verdict that
Naquishbund could have been unbiased.
• During this case, for the first time, without the help of any foreign judgement, the
Supreme court had determined that principles of natural justice were applicable not solely
to judicial functions but additionally to administrative functions.
• The principle of natural justice would apply on administrative functions also and struck
down the selection method on ground of violation of principles of natural justice. And held
that selections made by the board were in violation of principles of natural justice.

Significance:
The decision made with bias and without the relevancy of rules of justice would have
adversely affected the careers of the officers not chosen. In such circumstances leaving the
executive actions out of the clutches of rules of justice would undermine rule of law.
Therefore what emerges from this case is that though the courts are making distinctions
between the quasi-judicial and administrative powers but at the same time there's one
common component of fair procedure in each the cases which might be stated as the duty
to act fairly.

The dividing line between an administrative power and a -judicial power is quite thin and is
gradually being obliterated. The requirement of acting judicially in essence is nothing but a
requirement to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously. In recent years the
concept of quasi-judicial power has been undergoing a radical change. What was
considered as an administrative power some years back is now being considered as a
quasi-judicial power.

Conclusion:

Therefore what emerges from this case is that although the Courts are making distinctions
between the Quasi-Judicial and Administrative powers but at the same time there is one
common element of fair procedure in both the cases which can be referred to as the ‘duty to
act fairly’. This duty arises from the same general principles, as do the rules of natural
justice.

The case of A. K Kraipak v. Union of India is a landmark judgement in the development of

administrative law in India and has strengthened the rule of law in this country. Though the
applicability of rules of natural justice to administrative functions had already been made in
Dr Binapani’s case, it had not gained as much importance as it deserved. In the present case
while extending the application of these principles to administrative function as well,
Hedge, J. observed that - “If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent
miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to
administrative inquiries”
Reference:
https://lawtimesjournal.in/a-k-kraipak-ors-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors/
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1162/A.K-Kraipak-v.-Union-of-India.html
http://e-pao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=education.Human_Rights_Legal.A_Judge
_Cannot_Judge_His_Own_Case_By_Advocate_Arjun
https://www.justvocateslaw.com/projects/a.k.-kraipak-%26-ors.-etc-vs-union-of-india-%2
6-ors.--