Arbitrary and capricious test in adjudication
I. Remedies in Administrative Adjudication
What is Administrative Adjudication?
Administrative adjudication is the process by which administrative agencies or tribunals resolve disputes, enforce regulations, and provide remedies. Unlike ordinary courts, these bodies deal with specific statutory matters often related to government functions, regulatory compliance, or public rights.
Types of Remedies in Administrative Adjudication
Quashing or Setting Aside Orders (Judicial Review)
When an administrative decision is found to be illegal, arbitrary, or without jurisdiction.
Mandamus (Compelling Action)
A writ ordering an administrative authority to perform a public duty.
Prohibition and Certiorari
Prohibition prevents an authority from acting beyond jurisdiction; certiorari quashes or corrects errors in decisions.
Declaration
A formal statement of rights or legal position without ordering any action.
Injunction
Restraining an authority or party from doing something unlawful.
Damages or Compensation
In some cases, monetary relief may be awarded for loss caused by administrative action.
Why Are Remedies Important?
Correct abuses of power
Protect citizens’ rights
Ensure rule of law and accountability
Maintain fairness and transparency
Ensure enforcement of lawful administrative action
II. Landmark Indian Case Laws on Remedies in Administrative Adjudication
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262
Facts:
The selection committee for a government post included members with a vested interest. The selection process was challenged.
Issue:
Whether bias or conflict of interest in administrative adjudication can be remedied.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that bias vitiates the entire adjudication process.
The remedy is to quash the selection and order a fresh process.
Established the principle of “reasonable apprehension of bias”.
Significance:
Emphasized fairness and impartiality as fundamental requirements in administrative decisions.
Administrative decisions affected by bias can be set aside.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving a reason or hearing.
Issue:
Whether the action violated the principles of natural justice and due process.
Judgment:
Court held that fundamental rights include procedural fairness.
Remedy was to set aside the impoundment order for lack of fair hearing.
Expanded the scope of administrative remedies to include due process requirements.
Significance:
Landmark for enforcing procedural fairness and natural justice.
Remedy is often quashing arbitrary orders without due process.
3. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
Facts:
An employee was dismissed without an inquiry.
Issue:
Whether dismissal without holding an inquiry can be remedied.
Judgment:
Court ruled dismissal without inquiry is illegal.
Ordered quashing of dismissal and reinstatement with back wages in some cases.
Held that administrative authorities must follow statutory procedures.
Significance:
Remedies include reinstatement and compensation when due process is violated in disciplinary actions.
4. Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967) 3 SCR 229
Facts:
Employee’s pension benefits were stopped arbitrarily.
Issue:
Whether administrative decision affecting livelihood can be challenged.
Judgment:
Court ordered that pensions and benefits cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn.
Quashed the order and directed payment of arrears.
Emphasized administrative accountability in welfare matters.
Significance:
Remedies include restoration of benefits and compensation for wrongful administrative acts.
5. Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India (1964) 4 SCR 566
Facts:
Promotional opportunity was denied on grounds not supported by rules.
Issue:
Whether such administrative decisions can be set aside.
Judgment:
Court ruled that action taken without authority or in violation of rules is void.
Ordered promotion and damages in some cases.
Significance:
Reinforced remedies of setting aside unlawful orders and granting consequential relief.
6. State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh (1964) 3 SCR 1016
Facts:
Tenants’ rights were being ignored in eviction proceedings by administrative authorities.
Issue:
Whether tenants could seek remedy against administrative eviction orders.
Judgment:
Court granted injunctions and declaratory relief protecting tenants’ rights.
Held that administrative actions must respect substantive rights.
Significance:
Administrative remedies can include injunctions to prevent unlawful eviction and declarations to protect rights.
7. Surya Dev Rai v. State of Sikkim (1981) 1 SCC 35
Facts:
Illegal detention by administrative police authorities.
Issue:
Whether habeas corpus and other remedies apply.
Judgment:
Court granted habeas corpus to secure release from illegal detention.
Emphasized the availability of writ remedies against administrative action.
Significance:
Demonstrates use of constitutional remedies in administrative adjudication.
III. Summary Table
| Case | Remedy Awarded | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| A.K. Kraipak | Quashing of biased selection | Fairness & impartiality |
| Maneka Gandhi | Quashing arbitrary order | Natural justice & due process |
| Tulsiram Patel | Reinstatement & compensation | Statutory procedural compliance |
| Rajasthan State Electricity Board | Restoration of pension | Accountability & compensation |
| Som Prakash Rekhi | Setting aside unlawful denial | Authority & rule compliance |
| State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh | Injunction & declaration | Protection of substantive rights |
| Surya Dev Rai | Habeas corpus (release) | Constitutional safeguards |
IV. Conclusion
Remedies in administrative adjudication are crucial for:
Correcting illegal or unfair administrative decisions
Enforcing natural justice and statutory procedures
Protecting fundamental rights
Ensuring accountability and fairness in governance
Indian courts have expanded remedies to not just quash illegal orders but also to include compensation, reinstatement, injunctions, and writs, thereby providing a comprehensive framework to maintain administrative justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments