Agency adjudication vs arbitration
Criticism of Administrative Adjudication
What is Administrative Adjudication?
Administrative adjudication refers to dispute resolution carried out by administrative agencies or tribunals, which exercise quasi-judicial powers.
These bodies resolve conflicts involving regulatory laws, government policies, or specialized fields without recourse to traditional courts.
It is faster, less formal, and expert-driven compared to the judiciary.
Common Criticisms of Administrative Adjudication
Lack of Independence and Bias
Agencies are part of the executive and may lack impartiality.
Risk of decisions favoring government interests or agency policy over justice.
Inadequate Procedural Safeguards
Due process protections like strict rules of evidence, right to cross-examination, or public trials may be diluted.
Parties may face limited opportunity to fully present their case.
Overlapping Jurisdiction and Confusion
Multiplicity of tribunals with overlapping jurisdiction leads to forum shopping and confusion.
Contradictory decisions may arise between administrative bodies and courts.
Limited Judicial Review
Courts often defer to administrative expertise, limiting effective judicial scrutiny.
This may allow erroneous or unjust decisions to stand.
Lack of Transparency and Accountability
Some administrative tribunals do not provide reasoned judgments.
Decisions may be arbitrary or inconsistent.
Erosion of Fundamental Rights
Administrative decisions may infringe on fundamental rights without proper judicial safeguards.
Landmark Case Laws Illustrating Criticism of Administrative Adjudication
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
Facts: The case involved a selection process where the committee was alleged to be biased.
Criticism Highlighted: Lack of impartiality and procedural fairness in administrative adjudication.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that administrative agencies must follow the principles of natural justice, including fairness and absence of bias.
Significance: This case was a wake-up call highlighting that administrative adjudication must respect fundamental procedural safeguards.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: The government impounded Maneka Gandhi's passport without providing a fair hearing.
Criticism Highlighted: Administrative decisions sometimes violate fundamental rights and due process.
Judgment: The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21, ruling that any administrative action depriving a person of liberty or rights must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Significance: Emphasized procedural fairness and safeguards in administrative adjudication, criticizing arbitrary administrative decisions.
3. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Facts: The constitutional validity of administrative tribunals and their limited judicial review was challenged.
Criticism Highlighted: Limited scope of judicial review and lack of independence in tribunals.
Judgment: The Court held that tribunals are subject to judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, ensuring a check on administrative excess.
Significance: Recognized the potential for abuse and the necessity of judicial oversight over administrative adjudication.
4. R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979)
Facts: The case questioned procedural fairness in administrative decisions related to contracts.
Criticism Highlighted: Lack of transparency and fair hearing in administrative adjudication.
Judgment: The Supreme Court underscored that even administrative decisions should comply with natural justice principles.
Significance: Reaffirmed that administrative adjudication must be transparent and fair.
5. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
Facts: Concerned the disciplinary proceedings against a government employee where procedural safeguards were ignored.
Criticism Highlighted: Inadequate procedural protections in administrative adjudication.
Judgment: The Court held that fair inquiry, opportunity to cross-examine, and proper recording of evidence are mandatory.
Significance: Highlighted criticism regarding procedural laxity and stressed fairness.
6. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) (The Judges’ Transfer Case)
Facts: Challenged the appointment and transfer procedures for judges, involving administrative discretion.
Criticism Highlighted: The risk of administrative overreach and lack of transparency in quasi-judicial decisions.
Judgment: Though not directly about administrative tribunals, the case emphasized need for transparent, accountable, and fair administrative actions.
Significance: Criticized administrative opacity and advocated for transparent procedures.
Summary of Criticisms Supported by Case Law
| Criticism | Case Example | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of impartiality | A.K. Kraipak | Administrative bodies must avoid bias and uphold fairness. |
| Violation of fundamental rights | Maneka Gandhi | Administrative decisions must respect due process and fundamental rights. |
| Limited judicial oversight | L. Chandra Kumar | Administrative adjudication is subject to judicial review. |
| Procedural laxity | Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel | Fair hearing and procedural safeguards are mandatory. |
| Lack of transparency | R.D. Shetty | Administrative decisions must be transparent and reasoned. |
| Risk of administrative overreach | S.P. Gupta | Need for accountability and openness in administrative actions. |
Conclusion
While administrative adjudication offers speed and expertise, it is criticized for lack of independence, procedural safeguards, and transparency. Judicial interventions, as seen in these cases, aim to check arbitrariness, protect rights, and ensure fairness in administrative processes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments