ADMINISTRATIVE

ADJUDICATION
UNIT 3
 TOPICS TO BE COVERED

1. Reasons for the growth of Administrative Adjudication

2. Distinction between Quasi-Judicial and Administrative Functions
3. Principles of Natural Justice or Fairness
1. Nemojudex in re sua
2. Audi alterampartem
3. Reasoned Decision
4. Institutional Decision
4. Administrative Appeal
5. High Court’s Superintendence over Tribunals in the light of S. P. Sampatkumar and
L.Chandrakumar's case
NEED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION
 AA is the bye product of an intensive government and consequential socialization of law.

 It provides a system of adjudication which is informal, cheap, and quick

 Need to explore new public standards based on moral and social principles away from the
highly individualistic norms developed by the Courts.

 Emphasis to be given on preventive rather than punitive justice.

 Provides functional approach to law

 In the administrative decision making process, the government develops its own system
which supplements the existing one.
 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

 NJ exists as a measure to protect oneself against the excess of organised power. It could be
the God and his laws, divine law or natural law.
 NJ is the higher law of nature or natural law
 It is based on common sense justice based on natural sense of what is right and what is
wrong.
 Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. They are principles ingrained in the
conscience of man
 It is not circumscribed by linguistic technicalities, grammatical niceties or logical
prevarication. It supplies omission of a formulated law.
 It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form.
MAIN PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

 Nemo in propria causa judex, esse debet- No one should be made a judge in his own
cause, or the rule against bias
Bias is an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, in relation to a party or
issue, which may be the result of a preconceived opinion or a predisposition or a
predetermination to decide a case in a particular manner, which is not founded on reason and
actuated by self-interest, pecuniary or personal.
 Audi Alterum partem- Hear the other party, or the rule of fair hearing, or the rule
that no one should be condemned unheard
Any wrong order may adversely affect a person and therefore a reasonable opportunity should
be given before passing order It ensures fair play and justice to affected persons. It is important
that “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seem to
be done.”
 RULE AGAINST BIAS
 Personal Bias
Mineral Development Corporation ltd. V. State of Bihar (1960)
Real Likelihood of bias/Reasonable suspicion of bias
The test is not whether the fact of bias has affected the judgment but whether a litigant could
reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable might have operated against him in the final
decision

The test of bias is whether a reasonable man, in possession of relevant information, would
have thought that the bias was likely and whether the person concerned “was likely to be
disposed to decide the matter only in that particular way.”
Contn….

 What is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in the mind of the party. Even if the deciding
officer is impartial as if a right minded person would think in the circumstances that there is a real likelihood
of bias
 “Justice must be rooted in confidence; the confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away
thinking “the judge was biased.”
A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India 1969
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1162/A.K-Kraipak-v.-Union-of-India.html
Padma v. Hiralal Motilal Desarda
Cases not amounting to Bias
Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994)
G.N. Nayak v. Goa University (2002)
https://www.lawyerservices.in/GN-Nayak-versus-Goa-University-and-Ors-2002-01-29
 RULE AGAISNT BIAS

PECUNIARY BIAS
J. Mohaptra v. State of Orissa (1984)
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1619801/
Jeejobhoy v. Collector (1965)
SUBJECT MATTER BIAS/DEPRTMENTAL BIAS
G. Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC (1959) I
G. Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC (1959) II
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/449421/
Krishna Bus Service Pvt Ltd. V. State of Haryana (1985)
RULE AGAINST BIAS

 Policy notion bias

T. Govindraja Mudaliar v. State of T.N. (1973)

 Doctrine of Necessity
The law permits certain thing to be done as a matter of necessity which would otherwise not
countenance on the touchstone of judicial propriety.
Ashok Kumar Yadav. State of Haryana (1985)
 2. AUDI ALTERUM PARTEM

ESSENTIALS THE PRINCIPLE

 Notice
Time, place and nature of hearing
Legal authority under which hearing is to be held
Settlement of specific charges which the person has to meet
Particular penalty or action which is proposed to be awarded

State of UP V. Vam Organic Chemicals ltd. (2010)

Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (1978)
Essential Elements of the Principle

 Right to know the evidence against himself

Dhakeswari Cotton Mills v. CIT (1955)
 Right to present case and Evidence/oral hearing
Southern Painters v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore ltd (1994)
 Right to rebut adverse evidence
Cross-examination
Kanungo & Co. v. Collector of Customer (1973)
Legal representation
No evidence should be taken at the back of the other party
Report of the enquiry to be shown to the other party
CONTN
REASONED DECISIONS OR SPEAKING ORDERS
Reason provides a link between fact and decision, guard against non-application of mind, arbitrariness and
maintain public confidence in judicial and administrative authorities.
MJ Sivani v. State of Karnataka (1995)
Global Energy Ltd. V. CERC (2009)
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Global-Energy-Ltd-and-Another-Versus-Central-Electricity-Regulatory-Com
mission-2009-05-11

 Reasons may be mandated by the Constitution

Anumathi Sadhukhan v. AK Chatterjee (1951)
Kishan Chand Arora v. Commr. Of Police (1961)
 Reasons may be mandated by law
Section 31 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Contn…

 Reasons may be mandated by the principles of natural justice

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/801705/
 Reasons may be mandated by the nature of functions which an administrative
authority exercises
Mahabir Prasad v. State of UP (1970)
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/219637/
Bhagat Ram Patanga v. State of Panjab (1972)
Divisional Forest Officer v. Madhusudhanan Rao (2008)
Kranti Associates p ltd. V. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010)
 Contn….

INSTITUTIONAL DECISION/ONE WHO DECIDES MUST HEAR

Local Government Board v. Aldridge v. (1915)
Morgan v. United States (1935)
Nageswara Rao v. State of AP (1959)
Kalinga Mining Corporation v. Union of India (2013)

RULE AGAINST DICTATION

Mahadayal v. CTO (1958)
Orient Paper Mills ltd. V. Union of India (1970)
Contn…

DECISION POST HASTE

City Corner v. Collector
SP Kapoor (1981)
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE DECISIONS
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
 S. P. Sampat Kumar v. Union of India (1987)
“Though judicial review is the basic feature of the Constitution, the vesting of the power of
judicial review in an alternative Institutional Mechanism, after taking it away from the High
Court, would not be violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, so long it was ensured
that the alternative mechanism was an effective and real substitute for the High Court.”
 L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
In this case, the Supreme Court changed its earlier position regarding tribunals and held that
since judicial review is a fundamental, integral and essential feature of the Constitution, the
jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be ousted even by a provision in the constitution.
In view of this, the  courts and tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the
powers  conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the constitution.
CONTN…
• Power of judicial review over legislative action vested in the High Courts and the Supreme Court
under Articles 226 and 32 respectively is the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Power of judicial superintendence over decisions of all courts and Tribunals within their
jurisdiction is the basic structure of the Constitution
• Judicial review of legislative action in exercise of power by subordinate judiciary or Tribunals
created under ordinary legislation cannot be to the exclusion of the High Courts and the Supreme
Court. However they can perform supplemental – as opposed to substitutional – role in this respect.
• Tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B have the power to test vires of subordinate
legislation except vires of their parent statutes. All its decisions would be subject to scrutiny before
Division Bench of their respective High Courts under Articles 226/227. No appeal would lie
directly to the Supreme Court under Article 136. The said direction would operative prospectively.
• Appointment of Administrative members need not be stopped.
• Till a wholly independent body is set for the purpose of overseeing the working of the Tribunals, all
such Tribunals will be under single nodal ministry whose members would be appropriately be a
Ministry of Law.
THANK YOU ….