Administrative adjudication: meaning and scope
I. Meaning of Administrative Adjudication
Administrative adjudication refers to the legal process by which administrative agencies resolve disputes between parties or between a party and the state. It is a quasi-judicial function, meaning the administrative authority performs functions similar to courts but under statutory powers, not constitutional authority.
It involves:
Determining facts,
Applying legal standards (statutes, regulations),
Issuing decisions (like penalties, permits, licenses, or orders).
While administrative agencies are part of the executive branch, their adjudicatory decisions have legal force, and in many cases, they resemble judgments passed by judicial courts.
II. Scope of Administrative Adjudication
The scope includes:
Regulatory bodies (e.g., TRAI, SEBI, IRDAI in India),
Tax authorities (e.g., GST appellate tribunals, Income Tax authorities),
Licensing bodies (e.g., environmental clearance boards),
Labour and employment (e.g., Industrial Disputes Tribunals),
Public service commissions, and many more.
Administrative adjudication covers areas such as:
Imposition of fines or penalties
Grant or cancellation of licenses
Determination of benefits (e.g., pensions)
Labour and employment disputes
Disciplinary actions against public servants
It is faster, less formal, and often more specialized than court proceedings.
III. Key Characteristics
Quasi-judicial in nature – involves hearing and decision-making.
Bound by principles of natural justice – fairness, impartiality, and reasoned decisions.
Subject to judicial review – courts can review administrative decisions for illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
Specialized domain knowledge – administrative bodies have technical expertise.
IV. Case Law: Detailed Explanations
Let’s now explore five landmark cases that explain the scope, procedure, and limitations of administrative adjudication in India.
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150)
Facts:
The case involved the selection of officers to the Indian Forest Service. One of the members of the selection committee was also a candidate for the post.
Issue:
Whether administrative actions must follow the principles of natural justice.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that even administrative actions that have civil consequences must follow natural justice. The selection committee member could not be a judge in his own case.
Importance:
Blurred the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions.
Confirmed that natural justice applies to administrative adjudication.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without giving her an opportunity to be heard.
Issue:
Was the administrative action of impounding the passport valid without a hearing?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the right to be heard is a fundamental aspect of natural justice, and any administrative action affecting fundamental rights must follow fair procedure.
Importance:
Expanded Article 21 (right to life and liberty) to include procedural fairness.
Strengthened the application of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) in administrative adjudication.
3. Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corporation (1996) 4 SCC 69
Facts:
A license for importing goods was suspended without giving an opportunity to the licensee to be heard.
Issue:
Is suspension of a license without a hearing permissible?
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that license suspension affects civil rights, and thus cannot be done arbitrarily or without following natural justice.
Importance:
Confirmed that administrative discretion is not absolute.
Reinforced that even temporary suspensions require prior hearing, unless urgent or emergency situations exist.
4. Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (AIR 1959 SC 308)
Facts:
The same person who conducted the hearing on a transport permit application also made the final decision on the permit.
Issue:
Can the same person both hear and decide a case in an administrative setting?
Held:
The Court held this violates the principle of natural justice, particularly the rule against bias and fair hearing.
Importance:
Administrative adjudication must maintain separation between hearing and deciding authorities.
Prevents institutional bias in quasi-judicial proceedings.
5. State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei (AIR 1967 SC 1269)
Facts:
A government employee was compulsorily retired based on a change in her date of birth, without any hearing.
Issue:
Was this administrative action valid?
Held:
The Court held that even though it was an administrative decision, it had serious consequences on her career. Therefore, she should have been given an opportunity to be heard.
Importance:
Emphasized that civil consequences trigger the requirement for natural justice, even in administrative decisions.
Fair hearing is mandatory before taking any adverse administrative action.
V. Conclusion
Administrative adjudication plays a crucial role in modern governance. It allows for:
Efficient dispute resolution,
Specialized decision-making,
Regulatory enforcement without overburdening the judiciary.
However, to ensure fairness and justice, administrative bodies must:
Follow the principles of natural justice,
Provide reasons for decisions,
Allow for judicial review where rights are affected.
The case laws show that courts in India have consistently emphasized fairness, transparency, and procedural safeguards, even in administrative settings.
RELATED Blog
0 comments