Administrative Adjudication

''Administrative Adjudication'' denotes the system of deciding disputes by body other than the court. Disputes between administration and individuals or between individuals themselves are resolved apart from judicial system by an alternative system of adjudication ranging from tribunals to administrative officers exercising quasi-judicial powers . The adjudicatory bodies are characterized as quasi-judicial, indicating that they are not simple courts but partake some features of both courts as well as that of administration. Hence, quasi-judicial indicates a process, which are simultaneously both judicial and administrative . Therefore to understand quasi-judicial or adjudicatory body, it is necessary to understand both administrative and judicial bodies in comparison to adjudicatory body. L.J. Saville defines ''court'' in following terms It is not necessary that a court should be a court in the sense that this court is a court; it is enough if it is exercising after hearing evidence, judicial functions in the sense that it has to decide on evidence between a proposal and an opposition; and it is not necessary to be strictly a court; if it is a tribunal, which has to decide rightly after hearing evidence and opposition.

By Suwarn Rajan , Advocate & Patent Agent ,Managing Partner, CARE INTELLECT,NEW DELHI, INDIA
Email:[e-mail],www.careintellect.com

Administrative Adjudication

''Administrative Adjudication'' denotes the system of deciding disputes by body other than the court. Disputes between administration and individuals or between individuals themselves are resolved apart from judicial system by an alternative system of adjudication ranging from tribunals to administrative officers exercising quasi-judicial powers . The adjudicatory bodies are characterized as quasi-judicial, indicating that they are not simple courts but partake some features of both courts as well as that of administration. Hence, quasi-judicial indicates a process, which are simultaneously both judicial and administrative . Therefore to understand quasi-judicial or adjudicatory body, it is necessary to understand both administrative and judicial bodies in comparison to adjudicatory body. L.J. Saville defines ''court'' in following terms:

It is not necessary that a court should be a court in the sense that this court is a court; it is enough if it is exercising after hearing evidence, judicial functions in the sense that it has to decide on evidence between a proposal and an opposition; and it is not necessary to be strictly a court; if it is a tribunal, which has to decide rightly after hearing evidence and opposition.

Similarly as pointed out by Lord Sankey in L.G. Shell Co. of Australia v. Federal Commission of Taxation Tribunals are defined in following terms:
There are tribunals with many trappings of court, which nevertheless are not courts, in strict sense of exercising judicial power. It seems to me that such tribunals though they are not full fledged courts, yet exercise quasi-judicial functions are within ambits of Tribunals".

In Cooper v. Wilson word quasi-judicial and judicial is defined in rather clear terms:

A true judicial decision presupposes an existing dispute between two or more parties and then involves four requisites: (1) The presentation (not necessarily orally) of their case by parties to the dispute; (2) if the dispute between them is a question of fact the ascertainment of fact by means of evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute and often with the assistance of argument by or on behalf of parties, on the evidence; (3) if dispute between them is a question of law the submission of legal arguments by the parties and (4) a decision, which disposes of whole matter by a finding upon the facts in dispute and application of law of the land to the facts so found including where required, a ruling upon any disputed question of law. A quasi-judicial decision equally presupposes an existing dispute between two or more parties and involves (1) and (2), but does not necessarily involves (3) and never involves (4). The place of (4) is in fact taken by administrative action, the character of which is determined by the minister''s free choice.

The Supreme Court while deciding the ambit of Article 136 of the Constitution of India in Bharat Bank v. Their employee came to a question that what is difference between administrative body and judicial body and what is position of Tribunal for the purposes its amicability to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution? It observed that the tribunal, which does not derive authority from the sovereign power, cannot fall within ambit of Article 136. The condition precedent to bring a tribunal within ambit of Article 136 is that it should be constituted by the state. It reiterated that a tribunal would be outside the ambit of Article 136 if it is not vested with any part of the judicial function of the state but discharge purely administrative or executive duties. The tribunal, which is vested with certain functions of a court of justice and have some of the trappings of the court, would fall within ambit of Article 136.

Classification of bodies into quasi-judicial and administrative is an enigma. There is great diversity in structure of these adjudicatory bodies. An adjudicatory body may be an integral part of administrative department, which is entrusted with the task of implanting a particular task and policy; it may exercise a regulatory along with adjudicatory function. When an adjudicatory body is part and parcel of the department the statute may designate or specify the authority, which is to exercise the adjudicatory power. In many other cases however, the task is entrusted to the government and the actual official, who will be functioning, is determined by the conduct of business rules.

Frank Committee in its Report does not consider that the Tribunals are not part of the machinery of administration or appendage of govt. department. Instead the committee emphasized that the tribunals ought to be regarded as "machinery provided for independent adjudication" outside the department concerned. The committee supports the idea that the tribunals are within machinery of justice rather than of administration. Faulkes Says :

The tribunals are not to be treated as mere appendage of the department; and further while tribunals are not part of ordinary court of law..., in their independence of the department and in their functional they are a kin to the regular courts.

The Frank Committee laid emphasis on three basic attributes of the tribunal''s procedure viz. openness, fairness and impartiality. The concept of openness requires the publicity of the proceedings and knowledge of the essential reasoning underlying the decision. The concept of fairness requires adoption of clear procedure, which enables parties to know their case fully and to know the case, which they have to meet. Impartiality demands, freedom of tribunals from influence, real or apparent, of the department concerned, which is subject matter of their decision .

The Constitution of India empowers the Parliament to frame laws to provide for adjudication by tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connections with the affairs of the Center and States or any local authority or any other authority within territory of India or under the Central Govt. or any other corporation owned or controlled by the Govt. . The tribunals are autonomous bodies independent of executive power and enjoy status equivalent to that of the High Court but later Supreme Court held that the decisions of such tribunals are subject to writ jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the High Court . The Constitution empowers the appropriate legislative to make laws to provide for adjudication or trial by tribunals of any disputes complaint or offence with respect to all or any of the specific matter . The above-mentioned provisions override other Constitutional provisions or other law in force. However, the tribunals are subject to writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as well as that of High Courts and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts . Tribunal are established by statutory provisions and assigned sphere of jurisdiction to operate . Besides the abovementioned tribunals, there are administrative officers empowered to exercise adjudicatory power along with their administrative power for instance the passport authority can impound a passport in the interest of the public. Similarly the central government, as chief controller of imports and exports can debar a person from importing or receiving import license . Under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, the estate officer of Directorate of Estate has to adjudicate a dispute between Directorate of Estate and the occupant of Public premises.

Understanding difference between judicial bodies on the one hand and Administrative bodies on the other is quite easy as there is definite hierarchy of judicial system in the state where courts share Judicial power of the sovereign with High Courts and the Supreme Court on the top of judicial systems and administrative bodies share no judicial power of the sovereign and they are subject to judicial decisions. But difference between Quasi-judicial bodies on the one hand and judicial on the other or Quasi-judicial on the one hand and administrative on the other is a real enigma. In Neelima Mishra v. Harvinder Kaur Paintal Supreme Court held that an Administrative function is called quasi-judicial when there is an obligation to adopt the judicial approach and to comply with the basic requirement of Justice. When there is no such obligation the decision is called purely administrative.

Bias can vitiate an action whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative. Where there is adjudication either by administrative body as in licensing cases, for example, or by a judicial body as in cases of criminal trial, for example, bias can be pleaded as ground for seeking quashing of the decision arrived at or the proceeding itself. It is immaterial what rule of procedure the body against which bias is pleaded adopts. Judicial bodies are following strictly the rule of evidence whereas quasi-judicial and administrative bodies are guided by the rules of Principle of Natural Justice. In certain areas of procedure the judicial and quasi-judicial bodies are applying similar, though not same, doctrine to guide their procedure. Such doctrines are doctrine of judicial notice in case of judicial proceeding and that of official notice in case of quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings. Doctrine of res-gestae makes hearsay evidence acceptable in certain circumstances in judicial proceedings, whereas hearsay evidence is acceptable in quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings if it has reasonable nexus and credibility. Rules of Natural Justice are equally applicable in judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings.