Judicial functions of Administrative Authorities
Judicial Functions of Administrative Authorities: Detailed Explanation
1. Meaning of Judicial Functions of Administrative Authorities
Administrative authorities primarily perform executive or administrative functions, such as implementing policies and managing government affairs. However, many administrative bodies also exercise judicial functions—these are functions involving adjudication, determination of rights, liabilities, or obligations, similar to the role of courts or tribunals.
Key idea:
Judicial function means deciding disputes, applying legal principles, and delivering judgments or orders affecting the rights of individuals.
When administrative authorities perform such functions, they act as quasi-judicial bodies.
2. What are Quasi-Judicial Functions?
Quasi-judicial functions are administrative functions that require hearing parties, examining evidence, and making binding decisions.
Examples:
Licensing authorities deciding on granting or revoking licenses.
Tax authorities determining tax liability.
Labour tribunals resolving industrial disputes.
Regulatory commissions adjudicating complaints.
3. Features of Judicial Functions of Administrative Authorities
Decision affects rights and interests of individuals or entities.
Must observe principles of natural justice (fair hearing, no bias).
Must act within jurisdiction and according to the law.
Decisions can be challenged in courts by judicial review or appeals.
Decisions are usually final unless appellate provisions exist.
4. Importance of Judicial Functions of Administrative Authorities
Relieves ordinary courts by decentralizing dispute resolution.
Provides specialized expertise in complex areas (e.g., taxation, industrial relations).
Ensures speedy and accessible justice.
Promotes efficiency in administration while safeguarding rights.
5. Important Case Laws on Judicial Functions of Administrative Authorities
Case 1: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969)
The Supreme Court held that when an administrative authority exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions, it must follow principles of natural justice.
It emphasized audi alteram partem (right to be heard) as mandatory.
It declared that bias or pre-determination by administrative authorities is illegal.
This case established the scope of natural justice in quasi-judicial functions.
Case 2: Ridge v. Baldwin (1964) (UK)
Ridge, a police chief, was dismissed without a hearing.
The House of Lords held that dismissal was void as it violated the right to a fair hearing.
The case is foundational in administrative law for requiring natural justice in administrative decisions affecting rights.
It clarified that administrative bodies exercising judicial functions must provide procedural fairness.
Case 3: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
The Supreme Court held that tribunals performing adjudicatory functions are part of the “courts” under Article 136 and 227 of the Constitution.
Therefore, their decisions are subject to judicial review by High Courts and Supreme Court.
The case emphasized that administrative authorities exercising judicial functions are subject to court scrutiny.
Case 4: E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)
The Supreme Court ruled that administrative actions must be free from arbitrariness.
This applies especially to decisions with judicial or quasi-judicial character.
It introduced the principle that equality and fairness must be observed in all administrative adjudications.
Case 5: Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978)
The Supreme Court held that administrative tribunals exercising judicial functions must adhere to principles of natural justice.
It emphasized that any violation of procedural fairness would render the decision invalid.
The case reinforced that the rule of law governs administrative adjudication.
6. Summary Table of Case Principles
| Case Name | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| A.K. Kraipak v. UOI | Natural justice mandatory in quasi-judicial functions |
| Ridge v. Baldwin (UK) | Right to fair hearing in administrative decisions |
| L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI | Tribunals subject to judicial review |
| E.P. Royappa v. State of TN | Administrative decisions must not be arbitrary |
| Bangalore Water Board v. Rajappa | Natural justice applies strictly to administrative tribunals |
7. Conclusion
Administrative authorities often perform judicial functions as quasi-judicial bodies. These functions require them to apply the law fairly, give affected parties a chance to be heard, and decide impartially. The courts have consistently emphasized the importance of natural justice, fairness, and judicial oversight in such functions to protect individual rights and uphold the rule of law.
The case laws highlighted serve as foundational pillars for ensuring that administrative adjudication respects constitutional and legal safeguards.
RELATED Blog
0 comments