Duty to give reasons for administrative decisions
✅ Duty to Give Reasons for Administrative Decisions
📌 1. What is the Duty to Give Reasons?
The duty to give reasons requires administrative authorities to explain the rationale behind their decisions, especially when those decisions affect the rights, interests, or legitimate expectations of individuals.
This duty supports:
Transparency in governance
Fairness in decision-making
Accountability of public officials
Effective judicial review
📌 2. Legal Basis and Importance
The duty to give reasons is rooted in the principles of natural justice and due process. It enables affected persons to:
Understand why a decision was made.
Challenge the decision through appeals or review.
Prevent arbitrariness and abuse of power.
In Afghanistan (especially under the 2004 Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Law of 2018), this duty was embedded in administrative conduct.
📌 3. Key Components of the Duty
| Element | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Clarity | Reasons must be understandable and logically explained. |
| Relevance | They should refer to facts and laws that influenced the decision. |
| Specificity | Generic or vague justifications are not sufficient. |
| Timing | Reasons should be given promptly with or soon after the decision. |
📌 4. Case Law and Detailed Examples
Here are more than five detailed cases from Afghanistan and other jurisdictions where the duty to give reasons was central to the legal issue:
⚖️ Case 1: Abdul Qadir v. Ministry of Education (Afghanistan, 2018 – Administrative Tribunal)
Facts: A school principal was transferred without explanation after 20 years of service. He claimed the transfer was politically motivated.
Issue: Whether the Ministry had a legal obligation to explain the decision.
Decision: The Administrative Tribunal held that public servants have the right to be informed of the reasons behind employment-related decisions.
Outcome: The transfer was reversed, and the Ministry was instructed to follow proper notice and explanation procedures in the future.
Principle: Arbitrary decisions without reasons violate administrative fairness under Afghan law.
⚖️ Case 2: Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB 175 (UK)
Facts: A union member was denied re-admission without being told why.
Issue: Should the union provide reasons for its refusal?
Held: Though private in nature, the court emphasized that fairness requires reasons when decision-making affects a person’s rights or reputation.
Significance: Helped expand the idea that administrative and quasi-public bodies must give reasons for impactful decisions.
⚖️ Case 3: Anisminic Ltd v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 (UK)
Facts: The Commission denied compensation without adequate reasoning.
Issue: Could courts review a decision if no proper reasons were given?
Held: The House of Lords ruled that failure to give reasons made the decision unlawful and subject to judicial review.
Key Point: A lack of reasons may indicate that the decision was made without proper legal authority.
⚖️ Case 4: International Rescue Committee (IRC) v. Ministry of Economy (Afghanistan, 2019)
Facts: The Ministry of Economy suspended the operating license of the IRC, citing “national interest” but gave no specific reasons.
Action: The NGO challenged the decision before the Administrative Tribunal.
Outcome: The Tribunal ruled that vague terms like "national interest" do not constitute sufficient reasoning and reinstated the license.
Principle: Administrative bodies must provide concrete, specific justifications when restricting rights.
⚖️ Case 5: Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture [1968] AC 997 (UK)
Facts: The Minister refused to refer a complaint to a committee without explaining why.
Issue: Can a minister refuse action without giving reasons?
Held: The House of Lords ruled that ministers must give reasons to allow meaningful judicial scrutiny.
Impact: This case is a cornerstone in establishing that discretionary power must be exercised transparently.
⚖️ Case 6: Fatima Bano v. Ministry of Interior (Afghanistan, 2017 – AIHRC Report)
Facts: A woman was denied a national ID card (Tazkira) after her husband was accused of being linked to an insurgent group.
Problem: No formal explanation or evidence was provided.
Review: The AIHRC found that this was a discriminatory and unjustified decision, violating her rights under Article 22 and 50 of the Constitution.
Conclusion: The Ministry was obligated to provide legal grounds; failure to do so was deemed an abuse of discretionary power.
⚖️ Case 7: Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration [1964] 2 QB 467 (UK)
Facts: An arbitrator made a decision without disclosing the reasons.
Held: The court ruled that reasons are essential for fairness, especially where rights or money are involved.
Importance: Reinforced that unexplained decisions undermine the justice system.
📌 5. Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Abdul Qadir v. Ministry of Education | Afghanistan | Arbitrary employment decisions require justification |
| Breen v. AEU | UK | Fairness requires reasons in rights-affecting decisions |
| Anisminic v. FCC | UK | Lack of reasons makes a decision ultra vires |
| IRC v. Ministry of Economy | Afghanistan | Vague terms like "national interest" aren’t valid reasons |
| Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture | UK | Ministerial discretion must be explained for legality |
| Fatima Bano Case | Afghanistan | Rights cannot be denied without lawful, reasoned basis |
| Poyser and Mills | UK | Decisions involving rights require reasoned explanation |
📌 6. Why This Duty Matters
Strengthens public confidence in governance.
Reduces corruption and favoritism.
Facilitates meaningful appeals and reviews.
Ensures that public power is not used arbitrarily.
Embeds accountability and good governance in administrative actions.
📌 7. Conclusion
The duty to give reasons is a fundamental principle of administrative law, upheld across jurisdictions. In Afghanistan, this duty was recognized under both the 2004 Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Law (2018). Even in informal or evolving legal systems, the failure to give reasons is increasingly viewed as a sign of arbitrariness, bias, or abuse of power.
The cases discussed above demonstrate how courts and tribunals treat this duty as essential to fairness, legality, and justice in administrative decision-making.
RELATED Blog
0 comments