Ultimate Guide to Administrative Adjudication in India

INTRODUCTION

“Administrative decision making” is a term that has been used interchangeably with “administrative adjudication in India”. Presently, administrative agencies derive most of the decisions on personal or property rights of the people exercising adjudicatory powers. Observers noted that administrative functions and judicial functions were almost always intricately bound to one another. This was with regards to organs of the government. However, these organs applied the concept of “separation of powers” later on. It is also important to note that presently we observe somewhat of an overlapping of these powers between various organs of the government, a consequence of which is that the administration now holds some judicial power.

NEED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION IN INDIA

We shall briefly discuss the need for administrative adjudication as follows:

1. We required administrative decision making to achieve the principle of socialism that our nation strives to adhere along-with its intensive form of government. The government focused on education, public health, social security, transport, industrialization, agriculture and national assistance; and these programs often required determination of legal questions involved with the assistance of law courts due to their ritualistic and individualistic approach. Thus, administrative decision making was the only plausible answer for social control over this area.

2. Administrative decision making was practical as this system of adjudication was cheap, informal and quick.

3. The need to explore new public law standards based on moral and social principles away from individualistic norms developed by courts was another reason for the increased need for administrative adjudication.

4. Administrative adjudication puts more focus on preventive justice rather than punitive, and this is a growing demand of modern democratic societies.

5. Administrative adjudication represents a functional approach to law. For example, in cases with regards to licensing, nationalization, fixing priorities and planning action, the decision is dependent not upon law but also upon policy considerations.

6. Administrative decision making system supplements the existing overburdened justice system.

PROBLEMS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION IN INDIA

Controversies have often riddled administrative justice in India. Some of the problems regarding administrative adjudication are as below:

1) Number and complexity

A large number of administrative agencies having adjudicatory powers have blossomed since 1947, each such agency containing their own machinery for decision making. A large number of parallel bodies adjudicate the same kind of disputes, leading to different decisions. This complicates the task of uniform application of uniform principles and gives rise to arbitrariness.

2) Large variety of procedures

Every administrative agency has its own procedure, therefore many administrative agencies lead to a diversity of procedures and ambiguity. The Act which constitutes the agency may provide procedure. But, the agency may develop its own procedure, or the agency may rely on the civil court for compelling attendance and document production. In most circumstances, the agency must merely follow natural justice minimal process. Uneven application of the principles leads to arbitrariness.

3) Unsystematic system of appeal

No uniform system of appeal exists with regards to administrative adjudications. Also, the period for allowing appeals vary from one agency to the other. However, at times certain Acts do not provide for an appeal thereby making the decision of the administrative agency final. It is necessary that at least one appeal should be granted for matters pertaining to question of fact to a higher administrative body and at least one appeal should be granted for matters pertaining to question of law to a court of law.

4) Unpredictability of decisions

Since administrative agencies do not follow the doctrine of precedent, they are not bound to even follow their own decisions. This results into incoherence in development of law and violation of the principles of natural justice.

5) Combination of Functions

All the disciplinary proceedings the functions of a prosecutor and a judge are either combined into one person or one department, except with regards to civil servants. Also, The Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 states that no official having investigative or prosecuting function can participate in decision making.

6) No Evidence Rule

The technical rules contained in Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply in India with regards to administrative adjudications. A judge made rule of no evidence is used instead. The Supreme Court explained this rule in the case of State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, where it was observed that, where there was some evidence or no evidence, not in a technical sense but in a common sense way as a man of understanding and worldly wisdom would accept. In this case, the sufficiency of evidence in proof of findings of a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny.

In the case of Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. V. Workmen, the Supreme Court held that administrative tribunals are not bound by the strict rules of evidence and procedure and they follow the principles of natural justice. However, this does not mean that they can act on something which is not an evidence at all.

7) Official Perspective

Official perspective is inherent in administrative adjudication. There is an existence of presumption of guilt in place of presumption of innocence in any disciplinary proceeding and actions are taken on the basis of expediency and extra-legal concerns. The projection of official perspective is even more concerning as administrative agencies are not required to adhere to standard rules of procedure and evidence.

8) Official Bias

Administrative agencies are infested with the problem of official bias or departmental bias. Official bias or departmental bias mainly exists due to policy bias or pecuniary bias.

9) Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining is a bargaining “plea of guilt” for lesser charges and punishment. Plea bargaining considered to be immoral, unethical and unjust as it preys on the poor and illiterate.

10) Political Interference

Administrative agencies are often subject to political interference, however this is not true for every tribunal.

11) Off-the-record consultation

India does not have any law to eliminate the dangers of off-the-record consultation pertinent to administrative agencies. Instead, the principles of natural justice are relied upon which demands that the authority must not base its decision on any evidence which is not brought to the notice of the other party.

12) Reasoned decisions

In India apart from the requirement, if any, of the legislation establishing the administrative agency, there is no obligation for the administrative authority to give reasons apart from the principles of natural justice.

13) Legal Representation and Cross Examination

In India, adjudicatory agencies are not required to follow any standard laws of evidence and procedure. They also do not adhere to the doctrine of precedent. They mainly subscribe to the principles of natural justice and the general requirement of natural justice does not always allow legal representation and cross examination in every case.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION VERSUS JUDICIAL ACTION

At times, both, the department and the court of law can proceed a person. The Supreme Court is of the view that merely because the court of law acquits an accused, it can not take away the power of the authority to continue with its departmental proceedings. This is due to the fact that the standard of proof differs in both criminal cases and departmental proceedings. In the case of departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is based upon preponderance of possibilities whereas, in a criminal proceedings the charge has to be beyond reasonable doubt. Also, both proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdiction areas.

In the case of Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra, the Corporation suspended an employee pending enquiry on the charge that he had swindled money deposited as fines by the people. The authorities also filed a criminal case against him, in which the court acquitted him. The Supreme Court held that the authorities could still take departmental action even after his acquittal in the criminal case.

Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.

In the case of Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., the Supreme Court further elaborated the law on this matter as follows:

1. Both the legal proceedings and departmental proceedings can proceed separately or simultaneously.

2. If both proceedings are based on identical facts and the criminal charge involves grave and complicated questions of law and fact, it is best for the authorities to stay the departmental proceedings until the criminal case concludes.

3. Whether the nature of charge in a criminal case is grave and involves complicated questions of law and fact would depend upon the basis of evidence collected during investigation and reflected in the char`ge sheet.

4. Authorities can revise departmental proceedings stayed due to the pendency of a criminal case to conclude them at an early date. They do this to vindicate the honour of an employee if he is not found guilty, or to remove him quickly if he is found guilty.