Administrative adjudication meaning
Administrative Adjudication
What is Administrative Adjudication?
Administrative adjudication refers to the process by which administrative agencies resolve disputes, make decisions, or determine rights and liabilities through formal or informal proceedings. Unlike legislative rulemaking, adjudication involves applying existing laws or rules to specific facts of a case.
Key Features of Administrative Adjudication:
Agencies act in a quasi-judicial capacity, similar to courts.
Involves fact-finding and legal interpretation.
May be formal (with hearings, evidence, witnesses) or informal (summary decisions, written submissions).
Decisions are binding but subject to judicial review.
Designed to handle specialized issues efficiently.
Why Is Administrative Adjudication Important?
It allows specialized agencies to resolve disputes without overburdening courts.
Provides expert decision-making in technical or specialized areas.
Ensures due process and fairness in government actions affecting individuals or businesses.
🔍 Key Cases on Administrative Adjudication
1. Londoner v. City and County of Denver (1908) – U.S. Supreme Court
Citation: 210 U.S. 373
Facts:
The city assessed a special tax against property owners without a hearing.
Issue:
Did due process require a hearing before imposing the tax?
Held:
Yes. The Court held that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard when an agency adjudicates rights based on individualized assessments.
Significance:
Established that administrative adjudication requires due process protections.
Distinguished adjudication (individualized) from legislative action (general rules).
2. Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1915) – U.S. Supreme Court
Citation: 239 U.S. 441
Facts:
The State Board raised property tax rates for all property owners without individual hearings.
Issue:
Did due process require hearings for all affected?
Held:
No. The Court held that when a rule affects large groups generally, individual hearings are not required.
Significance:
Differentiated adjudication (individualized) from rulemaking (general policy).
Due process varies with context.
3. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) – India
Citation: AIR 1970 SC 150
Facts:
Members of a selection board were accused of bias in recruitment decisions.
Issue:
Does administrative adjudication require adherence to principles of natural justice?
Held:
Yes. The Court held that agencies performing quasi-judicial functions must follow fairness, impartiality, and opportunity to be heard.
Significance:
Reinforced natural justice in administrative adjudication.
Extended procedural safeguards to administrative bodies.
4. Mathew v. South Carolina State Highway Department (1954) – U.S. Supreme Court
Citation: 227 F.2d 603
Facts:
The highway department revoked a contractor’s license without a formal hearing.
Issue:
Was the revocation an administrative adjudication requiring due process?
Held:
Yes. The Court emphasized the need for a hearing to contest factual and legal issues in administrative adjudication.
Significance:
Highlighted importance of fair hearing in adjudication.
Strengthened procedural fairness.
5. Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960) – U.S. Supreme Court
Citation: 364 U.S. 339
Facts:
City boundaries were redrawn to exclude African American voters, affecting their voting rights.
Issue:
Could administrative actions infringe on constitutional rights without judicial recourse?
Held:
No. The Court invalidated the action as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Significance:
Shows that administrative adjudication cannot violate constitutional rights.
Highlights judicial oversight of agency decisions.
6. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) – India
Citation: AIR 1982 SC 149
Facts:
The case challenged the functioning of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
Issue:
Whether tribunals exercising administrative adjudication must observe constitutional safeguards.
Held:
The Court held tribunals are legitimate but must adhere to fairness, impartiality, and judicial review.
Significance:
Recognizes administrative adjudication tribunals as part of the system.
Emphasizes constitutional safeguards and accountability.
✅ Summary:
Administrative adjudication is agency-based dispute resolution applying law to facts.
It must observe due process, especially when affecting individual rights.
Courts differentiate between adjudication (individualized) and rulemaking (general policy).
Agencies must follow principles of natural justice (fair hearing, impartiality).
Decisions are subject to judicial review to prevent constitutional violations.
It provides specialized, efficient justice in administrative matters.
RELATED Blog
0 comments