Reasons for the growth of Administrative Adjudication and its Need

Administrative decision-making or Administrative Adjudication is a by-product of an intensive form of government,

and consequential socialization of law. The traditional judicial system cannot give to the people that quantity and
quality of justice which is required in a welfare state, because it is the highly individualistic and ritualistic approach.
Modern public administration has taken a leaf not only from the legislature’s book but also from that of the
judiciary. Administrative Adjudication is the latest addition to the administrative techniques. Administrative
Adjudication means the determination of questions of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature by an
administrative department or agency. Like a regular court, administrative bodies hear the parties, sift
evidence, and pronounce a decision in cases where legal rights or duties are involved.
● administrative adjudication means the investigation and settling of a dispute involving a private party on the
basis of a law and fact by an administrative agency.
● Administrative Adjudication is the process by which administrative agencies settle issues arising in the
course of their work when legal rights are in question.
● Administrative tribunals or Administrative Courts are authorities outside the ordinary court system which
interpret and apply the laws when acts of public administration are attacked in formal suits or by other
established methods.

The agencies for administrative adjudication may comprise a minister, head of the department (permanent), a
ministerial tribunal, a special committee or commission like Independent Regulatory Commissions, specialized courts
of law, single member tribunal or a Composite tribunal.

Causes of the Growth of Administrative Adjudication

1. A By-Product of the Welfare State

The Administrative Tribunals rendering Administrative justice constitute a by-product of the welfare state. In
the 18th and 19th century when laissez faire theory held sway, law courts emerged out as the custodian of the
rights and liberties of the individual citizens. At times they protected the rights of the citizens at the cost of
State authority. With the emergence of welfare state, social interest began to be given precedence over the
individual rights. The existing judiciary failed to uphold the new system. With the extension during the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries of the functions of the government to one new field after another, with the progressive limitation
of the rights of the individuals in the interests of the health, safety and general welfare of the community as
a whole, with the development of collective control over the conditions of employment and manner of living
and the elementary necessities of the people, there has arisen a need for a technique of adjudication better fitted to
respond to the social requirements of the time than the elaborate and costly system of decision provided by litigation
in the courts of law. In brief the new system of administrative adjudication suited new social ends espoused
by a welfare state. It proved a potential instrument for enforcing social policy and legislation. It became easier and
cheaper for the aggrieved person to approach the authority rather than the court.

2. Suitable to Industrialized and Urbanized Society

Administrative Adjudication suits modern industrialized and urbanized society as well. The latter necessitates positive
and prompt action which is possible if the problems arising out of the new order are not left to the mercy of ordinary
courts. Parliament did not overlook the courts of law but they found the possibility of setting up new organs of
adjudication which would do the work more rapidly, more cheaply and more efficiently than the ordinary courts ,
which would possess greater technical knowledge and fewer prejudices against government, which would give
greater weight to the social interests involved and show less solicitude for private property rights which would
decide with a conscious effort at furthering the social policy embodied in the legislation. This prospect offered solid

1
By : Sagar Jain
advantages which induced the legislature to extend in one sphere after another the administrative jurisdiction of
governmental departments so as to include judicial functions affecting the social services.

3. Ordinary Law Courts not Competent

Law courts, on account of their elaborate procedures, legalistic forms and attitudes can hardly render justice to the
parties concerned in technical cases. Ordinary judges brought up in the traditions of law and jurisprudence is
not capable enough to understand technical problems which crop up in the wake of modern complex economic
and social processes. Only administrators having expert knowledge can tackle such problems judiciously. There is the
desire to secure adjudication by a body of experts in the subject-matter of litigation rather than by a body of experts in
the law. The expert witnesses are only too often hired assassins of the truth; and even if they were just men made
perfect the assimilation of technical facts at short notice, through the testimony of another individual, is a
different thing from a first-hand knowledge of the groundwork based on personal experience or training. The court
procedures when tested by times are found wanting. Litigants have to face exasperating delay because of
crowded dockets of these courts and an excessive right of appeal to the higher courts. The justice in these ordinary
courts has neither been speedy nor cheap. It has been dilatory or cumbersome. Hence an improvement was
contemplated in administrative courts. Ordinary courts were under too much strain. Hence they were to be relieved of
the strain

4. Safety to be ensured

A good number of situations are such as require quick and firm action otherwise health and safety of the
people may remain in jeopardy. For instance, ensuring of safety measures in coal mines, preventing of illegal
transactions in foreign exchange, and unfair business practices necessitate prompt action. Such cases, if to be dealt
with in the ordinary courts of law, would cause immense loss to the state exchequer and undermine national
prestige. However, the administrative courts presided over by the experts would ensure prompt and fair action.

5. Standards of Conduct to be devised

Besides the points suggested above, the main business of the ordinary courts is to settle disputes and not to set
standards of human behaviour. It is for the legislature to set such standards. The legislatures are not in a position to
prescribe in exact details the pattern of conduct. This power is delegated by the legislature to the administration. The
disputes arising out of the enforcement of these standards can be properly tackled by the Administrative
courts alone. For instance, the factory rules provide certain safety measures. A workman working in the factory gets
injured. Has he been injured due to bad workmanship or non-compliance of the safety measures by the
management can be decided only by the administrative expert rather than an ordinary judge.

6. Administrative authorities endure effective measures for the enforcement of the aforesaid preventive measures e.g.
suspension, revocation and cancellation of license, destruction of contaminated articles etc., which are not
generally available through regular courts of law.

Need
● Cheaper - Administrative justice is cheaper comparatively. In suits, lawyers may or may not appear. No court
fees are to be paid, no solicitors are to be instructed, no counsel is to be briefed, no pleadings are to be printed,
no affidavits are to be sworn. It is also cheaper from the point of view of the state, if the relative salaries of the
official members of the administrative tribunals and the judges are taken into consideration.
● Speedy Justice - Justice by the Administrative Tribunals is speedy. Oral hearings are dispensed with.
Intricate trial procedures are abandoned. Vexatious rules of evidence are conspicuously absent.
● Adequate Justice - In the fast changing world of to-day, administrative tribunals provide the most effective
means of rendering fair justice to the individuals. Lawyers steeped in the old traditions and philosophy
of law and environed by procedural dialectism generally discernible in the ordinary courts of laws, can hardly
2
By : Sagar Jain
 appraise the needs of the modern welfare society. Hence administrative courts alone can render adequate
justice.
● Burden of Courts Lessened - The system provides the much needed relief to the ordinary courts of laws which
are overburdened with varied types of ordinary suits. Many of the disputes coming before the ordinary
tribunals are of ordinary nature and do not warrant the attention of highly paid judges or the necessity of
elaborate procedures and rules of evidence. Such cases can easily be referred to these tribunals.
● Useful in Developing Democracies - In developing democracies which experiment with new social and
economic programme, ordinary courts would be completely misfit. All the disputes arising out of such
programmes will get struck, thus giving a setback to the programme itself unless we switch over to the
Administrative Courts.
● Fixing of Standards - The disputes which come for adjudication before the Administrative Tribunals arc not
concerned with the proprietary or other claims of the disputants but the fixation of public standards of
performance. Such standards of performance can be determined only by these administrative and not ordinary
courts. For example, a dispute concerning an injured employee’s claim for compensation from the
employer is more a problem of enforcing standards of safety in the factory than a mere dispute of rights
between the employer and the employees. Obviously ordinary courts are not capable of undertaking such
work.
● Flexibility - The legalistic approach to problems is static, un-progressive and individualistic. An ordinary
court intervenes only when a conflict arises. It moves in the direction of controversy alone. It is not
concerned with the problems arising from the decisions the complications following such decisions and
the other inter-relations involved. The fast changing society necessitates a progressive attitude and an
adaptation of policies to meet changing conditions. Administrators formulate policy, develop administrative
techniques, work out new methods of adjusting controversies, check and modify their standards in the
ordinary functions and difficulties confronting everyday life and adjust their decisions and attitudes.
Thus conditions fostering controversies are removed through such a type of flexibility.
● Nowadays, there is a growing emphasis on preventive justice rather than punitive. This can be done only
by administrative agencies exercising adjudicatory powers.

Rules of Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice, in brief, are as follows:

● That every person whose rights are affected must have reasonable notice of the matter that he has to meet.

● That he must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard in his’ defense.

● That the hearing must be an impartial person i.e. A person who is neither directly or indirectly a party to the
case. One who has an interest in the litigation is already biased against the party concerned.
● That the authority of hearing the case must act in good faith and not arbitrarily but reasonably.

Problems of Administrative Adjudication

1. It can be observed that the establishment of the administrative tribunals has repudiated the concept of rule of
law. Rule of law was propounded to promote equality before the law and supremacy of ordinary law over the
arbitrary functioning of the government. The administrative tribunals somewhere restrict the ambit of the rule
of law by providing separate laws and procedures for certain matters.
2. Lack of specified procedure: The administrative adjudicatory bodies do not have any rigid set of rules and
procedures. Thus, there is a chance of violation of the principle of natural justice.

3
By : Sagar Jain
 3. No prediction of future decisions: Since the administrative tribunals do not follow precedents, it is not
possible to predict future decisions.
4. Scope of Arbitrariness: The civil and criminal courts work on a uniform code of procedure as prescribed
under C.P.C and Cr.P.C respectively. But the administrative tribunals have no such stringent procedure. They
are allowed to make their own procedure which may lead to arbitrariness in the functioning of these tribunals.
5. Absence of legal expertise: It is not necessary that the members of the administrative tribunals must belong
to a legal background. They may be the experts of different fields but not essentially trained in judicial work.
Therefore, they may lack the required legal expertise which is an indispensable part of resolving disputes.
6. Lack of specialist judges - Adjudicators lack training in law and legal procedures. This results in faulty
decisions being made. Also, combining various functions in one person many lead to a casual approach, as
compared to a specialist approach, required the dispensation of justice. Further, it over burdens a person, who
has to single handedly manage most of the things. For instance, the functions of a prosecutor and the judge are
either combined in one person or in the same department. In such cases, personal bias or official bias is bound
to creep in. This may ultimately lead to more appeals in the courts and will be counter effective.
7. Lack of uniform procedure - There is no uniformity in the procedures, which administrative tribunals follow
in dispensing justice. The tribunals often hold summary trials and do not follow the laid down precedents. In
such circumstances it is often not possible to predict the course of future decisions.
8. Principle of natural justice undermined - Administrative tribunals violate the principle of natural justice.
No one can be a judge to his/her own case. The parties involved need to heard and should be conveyed the
rationale for a decision taken. Likewise, investigation into facts by the tribunals does not justify quality.
Adjudication violates the principles of natural justice, viz., no man should be a judge in his own case; no
party ought to be condemned unheard; party should know the reason for the decision. The Administrative
courts do not often give the reasons for decision. The quality of investigation is also poor. Free from the
trammels of judicial procedure, administrative courts depend on unsworn written statements, unsupported
by verbal testimony given on oath and subjected to cross-examination. Neither the documents are not sent for
nor are witnesses compelled to attend. Thus justice remains at stake.
9. Invisibility of decisions - Unlike judicial courts, most of the tribunals do not publish their decisions. It is
commonly said that administrative adjudication does not inspire confidence in public, as the rules of
procedure of administrative tribunals does not provide for the publicity of proceedings. They may not even
state the rationale for taking a particular decision. In the words of Robson, “Without publicity it is impossible
to predict the trend of future decisions and an atmosphere of autocratic bureaucracy is introduced by the
maintenance of secrecy.... There is no inherent reason for this. The administrative tribunals need to publish
reports of their decisions at regular intervals and give reasoned arrangements for the conclusions.
10. Limited right to appeal - The strength of any judicial system lies in the right to appeal. In fact, an appeal is a
safeguard against any error in the administration of justice. Sometimes, the administrative tribunals disallow
any appeal to courts of law against their decisions. Hence, the public do not repose confidence and faith in the
tribunal system of justice.
11. Lack of Publicity - The rules of procedure of administrative courts do not provide for the publicity of
proceedings. Provision of oral hearing may not be there or if it is there it may not be open to the public and the
press. Reports of the cases so decided may not be publicized. Even the statement of reasons on which
they are based, may not be given. In the absence of proper publicity, it is not easy to predict the trend of
future decisions.
12. They are free to go against the existing precedents. This makes administrative law flexible and enables
administrative tribunals to further a policy of social amelioration unhampered by legal rigidities.

MECHANISM FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION – STATUTORY AND DOMESTIC TRIBUNALS

4
By : Sagar Jain
In India the administrative adjudication is done by the tribunals, the decision of tribunals can also be reviewed by the
High court and then the Supreme court. If any party is aggrieved by the decision of the administrative tribunal they
can approach the High Court and Supreme Court.

● LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre - In this case, the SC held that administrative
decisions must be reasoned and that the reasons must be communicated to the affected parties. The court
stated that reasoning is a fundamental requirement of administrative decision-making, and without it, the
decision would be arbitrary and capricious. In this case, the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC)
increased the premium rates for its policies without providing any reasons for the increase. The Consumer
Education and Research Centre (CERC) filed a petition challenging the increase in premiums and sought to
know the reasons for the increase. LIC argued that it was not required to provide reasons for the increase as it
was a business decision. The court also observed that the requirement of reasons serves several purposes, such
as ensuring transparency, facilitating review, and promoting public confidence in the administrative process.
The court held that the requirement of reasons applies to all administrative decisions, whether they are quasi-
judicial or administrative in nature.
● State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co – SC held that administrative decisions that are based on subjective
opinions without objective justification would be arbitrary and capricious. The court also held that
administrative decisions must be based on relevant considerations and that irrelevant considerations must be
excluded. The court stated that administrative decisions that are based on irrelevant considerations would be
arbitrary and unreasonable.

Constitution

The Constitution of India has made provisions with regard to the Constitution of administrative tribunals. Article 323
A (1) states that Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes
and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of services of persons appointed to public services and
posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory
of India or that which comes under the control of the GOI. A tribunal may possess some of the features of a regular
court. Article 323 A(1) provides for establishment of an administrative tribunal for the Union and a separate
administrative tribunal for each state or for two or more states; specifies the jurisdiction, powers (including the power
to punish for contempt), and authority, which may be exercised by the tribunals; provides for the procedures,
including rules of procedures to be followed by the tribunals; excludes tribunals from the jurisdiction of all courts,
except Supreme Court, under Article 136 with respect to the disputes or complaints.

The legislature may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by tribunals of any disputes, complaints, or offences
with respect to all or any matters specified in Article 323 B Clause (2) with respect to, which the legislature has power
to legislate. Such matters referred to in the respective Clause include matters such as foreign exchange, election to
either house of parliament, assessment, levy, collection, and enforcement of any tax etc. The Supreme Court, lays
down certain norms for a tribunal to work on:

● The proceedings can only commence on an application, which is in the nature of a complaint.

● It must have the power of a court relating to discovery, inspection, and taking of evidences.

● It must allow examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

● It must allow legal representation.

● Its decisions must be based on evidences, as per the provisions of the statute.

5
By : Sagar Jain
 ● Its members must be qualified to be judges of a regular court.

● It is required to sit in public.

In L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI the court ruled that the tribunals created under Article 323A and 323B would continue
to be the courts of the first instance in their respective areas for which they are constituted. The litigants are not
allowed to approach the High Court’s directly by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned tribunal. No appeal for
the decision of the tribunal would lie directly before the Supreme Court under Article 136 but instead, the aggrieved
party would be entitled to move the High Court under Article 226 and 227 and after the decision of the Division
Bench of the High Court, the party may approach the Apex Court under Article 136.

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - In pursuance of the provisions in Article 323A, Parliament passed the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, providing for all the matters falling within the clause(1) of Article 323-
A. According to this Act, there must be a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at the centre and a State
Administrative Tribunal (SAT) at the state level for every state. The tribunal is competent to declare the
constitutionality of the relevant laws and statutes. The Act extends to, in so far as it is related to the Central
Administrative Tribunal, to the whole of India and in relation to the Administrative tribunals for states, it is applicable
to the whole of India.

Definition of Administrative Tribunal

They are of statutory origin and so must be created by a statute or by the Parliament or State Legislation. They are
quasi-judicial in nature. This means they have features of a court but not all. The administrative Tribunal is bound to
act judicially and follow the principles of Natural Justice. We see various procedural matters, i.e., administrative
tribunals have the powers related to the summoning of the witness, administering the oath, to compel production of the
documents. It is not bound to the strict rules of the evidence law and the procedure prescribed by the civil procedure
code. They are independent and are not subject to any administrative interference in the discharge of their judicial
functions and quasi-judicial functions. The writ of certiorari and prohibition are available against the decisions of the
administrative tribunals. It has some toppings of the court and is required to act openly, fairly and impartially.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Section 252 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that the Central Government shall
constitute an Appellate Tribunal consisting of many Judicial Members and Accountant members as it thinks fit
to exercise the powers and functions conferred on the Tribunal by the Act.

Administrative Tribunals were set-up by an act of Parliament, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.I t owes its
origin to Article 323 A of the Constitution. It adjudicates disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and
conditions of service of persons appointed to the public service and posts in connection with the affairs of the
Union and the States. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides for three types of tribunals:

▪ The Central Government establishes an administrative tribunal called the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT).
▪ The Central Government may, upon receipt of a request in this behalf from any State
Government, establish an administrative tribunal for such State employees.
▪ Two or more States might ask for a joint tribunal, which is called the Joint Administrative Tribunal
(JAT), which exercises powers of the administrative tribunals for such States.

There are tribunals for settling various administrative and tax-related disputes, including Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
(CESTAT), National Green Tribunal (NGT), Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) and Securities Appellate
Tribunal (SAT), among others.
6
By : Sagar Jain
Central Administrative Tribunal - It has jurisdiction to deal with service matters pertaining to the Central
Government employees or of any Union Territory, or local or other government under the control of the Government
of India, or of a corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government. The appeals against the orders of
an Administrative Tribunal shall lie before the Division Bench of the concerned High Court.

State Administrative Tribunal - Article 323 B empowers the state legislatures to set up tribunals for various
matters like levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of any of the tax matters connected with land reforms
covered by Article 31A.

Water Disputes Tribunal - The Parliament has enacted Inter-State River Water Disputes (ISRWD) Act, 1956 have
formed various Water Disputes Tribunal for adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-State rivers and river
valleys thereof. Standalone Tribunal: The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019 is passed by
Parliament for amending the existing ISRWD Act, 1956 to constitute a standalone Tribunal to remove with the need
to set up a separate Tribunal for each water dispute which is invariably a time-consuming process.

Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) - It is a military tribunal in India. It was established under the Armed Forces
Tribunal Act, 2007. It has provided the power for the adjudication or trial by AFT of disputes and complaints with
respect to commission, appointments, enrolments and conditions of service in respect of persons subject to the Army
Act, 1950, The Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950.

National Green Tribunal (NGT) - The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 and National Environment
Appellate Authority Act, 1997 were found to be inadequate giving rise to demand for an institution to deal with
environmental cases more efficiently and effectively. NGT was formed as a special fast-track, quasi-judicial body
comprising of judges and environment experts to ensure expeditious disposal of cases. The National Green Tribunal
was established in 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 as a statutory body. It was setup for effective
and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural
resources.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Section 252 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that the Central Government
shall constitute an Appellate Tribunal consisting of many Judicial Members and Accountant members as it thinks fit
to exercise the powers and functions conferred on the Tribunal by the Act.

Railway Rates Tribunal - This-Tribunal was set up under the Indian Railways Act, 1989. It adjudicates matters
pertaining to the complaints against the railway administration. These may be related to the discriminatory or
unreasonable rates, unfair charges or preferential treatment meted out by the railway administration. The appeal
against the order of the Tribunal lies with the Supreme Court.

Industrial Tribunal - This Tribunal has been set up under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It can be constituted by'
both the Central as well as State governments. The Tribunal looks into the dispute between the employers and the
workers in matters relating to wages, the period and mode of payment, compensation and other allowances, hours of
work, gratuity, retrenchment and closure of the establishment. The appeals against the decision of the Tribunal lie with
the Supreme Court.

Administrative Tribunal – Definition, structure and procedure

The word “Tribunal” is the seat of the Judge. In Administrative Law, the term ‘Tribunal’ is used in a special sense
and refers to adjudicatory bodies outside the sphere of ordinary Courts of the land. Administrative adjudication is the
resolution of quasi-judicial matters by administrative agencies or commissions established for the purpose. A number
of technical issues and' disputes emerge in the day-to-day administration. The ordinary courts do not have the
technical expertise and it becomes quite dilatory and costly to dispense with cases of administrative nature. It is only
the administrative agencies, which are capable of looking into the matters of administrative exigencies. These
administrative agencies with the power to adjudicate the disputes arising out of administrative action or inaction are
called administrative tribunals. The development of administrative law in a welfare state has made administrative

7
By : Sagar Jain
tribunals a necessity'. In India, and in many other countries, there has been a steady proliferation of administrative
tribunals of various kinds. They have, indeed, become a permanent part of the law adjudication machinery of the
country. As a system of adjudication they have come to stay, and their number is constantly on the increase.

Administrative tribunals are authorities outside the ordinary court system, which interpret and apply the laws when
acts of public administration are questioned in formal suits by the courts or by other established methods. In other
words, they are agencies created by specific enactments to adjudicate upon disputes that may arise in the course of
implementation of the provisions of the relevant enactments. They are not a court nor are they an executive body.
Rather they are a mixture of both. They are judicial in the sense that the tribunals have to decide facts and apply them
impartially, without considering executive policy. They are administrative because the reasons for preferring them to
the ordinary courts of law are administrative reasons. They are established by the executive in accordance with
statutory provisions. They are required to act judicially and perform quasi-judicial functions. The proceedings are
deemed to be judicial proceedings and in certain procedural matters they have powers of a civil court. They are not
bound by the elaborate rules of evidence or procedures governing the ordinary courts. They are independent bodies
and are only required to follow the procedure prescribed by the relevant law and observe the principles of 'Natural
Justice'. They do not follow the technicalities of rules of procedure and evidence prescribed by the CPC and Evidence
Act respectively. The administrative tribunals may be more appropriately defined as specially constituted authorities
established by law to settle the disputes between the citizen and administration.

PROCEDURE

Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 talks about the Procedure and Powers of Tribunals. -

(1) A Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but
shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made
by the Central Government, the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places
and times of its inquiry and decided whether to sit in public or in private.

(2) A tribunal shall decide every application made to it as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every application
shall be decided on a perusal of documents and written representations and after hearing such oral arguments as may
be advanced.

(3) A Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested
in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following
matters, namely :

▪ Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

▪ requiring the discovery and production of documents;

▪ receiving evidence on affidavits;

▪ subject to the provisions of section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), requisitioning
any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office;
▪ issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or, documents;

▪ reviewing its decisions;

▪ dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte;

▪ setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and

▪ any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government.

8
By : Sagar Jain
The procedure for application to the Tribunals is laid down in the Act. A person aggrieved by any order pertaining to
any matter within the jurisdiction of the tribunal may make an application to it for redressal of grievance. Such
applications should be in the prescribed form and have to be accompanied by relevant documents and evidence and by
such fees as may be prescribed by the central government but not exceeding one hundred rupees for filing the
application. The tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant has availed of
all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules. This includes making of any administrative appeal
or representation. Since consideration of such appeals and representations entails delay, the applicant can make an
appeal before the tribunal, if a period of six months has expired after the representation was made and no order has
been made. But an application to the tribunal has to be made within one year from the date of final order of rejection
of the application or appeal or where no final order of rejection has been made, within one year from the date of
expiry of six months period. The tribunal, may, however, admit any application even after one year, if the applicant
can satisfy the tribunal that he/she had sufficient cause for not making the application within the normal stipulated
time.

Every application is decided by the tribunal on examination of documents, written representation and at times
depending on the case, on hearing of verbal arguments. The applicant may either appear in person or through a legal
practitioner who shall present the case before the tribunal. The orders of the tribunal are binding on both the parties
and should be complied within the time prescribed in the order or within six months of the receipt of the order where
no time-limit has been indicated in the order. The parties can approach the Supreme Court against the orders of the
tribunal by way of appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. The administrative tribunals are not bound by the
procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. They are guided by the principles of natural justice. Since
these principles are flexible and adjustable according to the situation, they help the tribunals in moulding their
procedure keeping in view the circumstances of a situation.

STRUCTURE

Organisational Safeguards
The Adjudicator of disputes should be a person different from the one who is involved in a dispute against the
individual or group of individuals. He may be drawn from the same service responsible for administration of the
functions of the agency. An adjudication board or tribunal rather than a single officer should be empowered to
adjudicate. This is in consonance with a well-established rule of fair justice. The appointment of the members and
particularly of the chairman should not vest solely with the minister concerned. A Council or Tribunal in India may
comprise judges both existing and retired, lawyers, academicians and reputed persons in other walk of life.
Such a council should be consulted in matters concerning composition and procedures of administrative
tribunals.

Procedural Safeguards
▪ No man should be a judge in his own case;

▪ No man should be condemned unheard;

▪ Party concerned should know the reasons for the decision.

All the evidence and documents on the basis of which a decision is to be taken should be disclosed. No one should be
taken by surprise; the concerned should be entitled to represent his case either by himself or through a legal expert.
The accused should be entitled to cross-examine the evidence and challenge the evidence produced against him. The
accused should not only be given an opportunity to examine the evidence produced against him but should also have
an opportunity to call evidence, oral and documentary. He should be given the right to full judgment which should
reveal the reasons for the order and not merely the order. He should possess the right to appeal for further and higher
judgment.

Judicial
9
By : Sagar Jain
The right to judicial review on points of law should remain unimpaired. Any judicial review of administrative action
in which the highest court of the country is not the predominating authority, would not inspire public confidence. In
a developing democracy like India in particular, the judicial review is almost a necessity. Articles 32, 136, 226
and 227 of the Constitution provide for judicial review of the decisions of the Administrative Tribunals. Some of the
Acts are immune from judicial control. The Opium Act, 1857, the Ganges Tolls Act, 1867, the Explosives Act,
1884 the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, the Indian Cotton Cess Act, 1923, the Trade Marks
Act 1940 the Mines Maternity Benefit Act, 1941, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the Representation of
the People Act, 1950, the Air Corporation Act, 1953, and the Inter-State Water Dispute Act, 1956, are some of the
examples of such Acts. Though these safeguards will help in removing the lacunae of the functioning of the
Ad-ministrative Courts, yet it is advisable that indiscriminate recourse to Administrative Courts must be avoided.
The democratic superstructure is likely to be undermined if administrative adjudication is used as an alternative
to the ordinary court system. In no circumstances should the power of the courts to restrain a special tribunal from
exceeding its jurisdiction be taken away.

NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS : DEFINITION AND CONCEPT

The principles of natural justice constitute the basic elements of fair hearing, having their roots in the innate sense of
man for fair play and justice which is not the perverse of any particular race or country but is shared in common by all
men. Natural justice is another name for common sense justice rules of natural justice are not in codified form these
principles imbedded or ingrained or inbuilt in the conscience of human being. It supplies the omission made in
codified law and helps in administration of justice. Natural justice is not only confined to ‘fairness’ it will take
many shade and colour based on the context. Thus natural justice apart from ‘fairness’ also implies reasonableness,
equity and equality. They are neither cast in a rigid mould nor can they be put in legal straitjacket. These principles
written by nature in the heart of mankind, they are immutable, inviolable, and inalienable. The term natural justice
signifies fundamental rules of judicial procedure and fair play in action. The principles of natural justice are those
fundamental rules; the breach will prevent justice from being seen to be done. Earliest expression of ‘natural justice’
could be found in philosophical expression of Roman Jurist (jus natural) and signified rules and principles for the
conduct of man which where independent of enacted law or customs and could be discovered by the rational
intelligence of man and would grow out of and conform to his nature.

Audi Alteram Partem: This Latin phrase translates to "hear the other side." It represents the principle that
individuals must have the opportunity to be heard and present their case before a decision is made that may
affect their rights or interests. This includes the right to know the allegations against them, respond to
evidence, and make arguments in their defense.
Right to a Fair and Impartial Tribunal: Individuals have the right to have their case heard by an independent and
impartial tribunal or decision-maker. This ensures that decisions are made based on evidence and legal principles
rather than personal bias or influence.
Reasons for Decision: Decision-makers are generally required to provide reasons for their decisions, allowing parties
to understand the basis for the decision and to challenge it if necessary. This promotes transparency and accountability
in the decision-making process.
Proportionality and Fairness of Procedures: The procedures followed in legal or administrative processes should be
fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the issues at hand. This ensures that individuals are not unfairly disadvantaged
by overly complex or burdensome procedures and that outcomes are just and equitable.

EVOLUTION
Procedural fairness is part of our cultural heritage. It is deeply rooted in our law. Though now it is believed that
Principles of Natural Justice were systematized in ancient Rome, principles of natural justice are not new India.
Principles of fair hearing and rule against bias were well recognized in ancient India. In ancient India foremost duty of
a judge was his integrity which included impartiality and a total absence of bias or attachment. Brihaspati says: "A

10
By : Sagar Jain
judge should decide cases without any consideration of personal gain or any kind of personal bias; and his decision
should be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the texts. A judge who performs his judicial duties in this
manner achieves the same spiritual merit as a person performing a Yajna." Further, the judges and counsellors guiding
the king during the trial of a case were required to be independent and fearless and prevent him from committing any
error or injustice. If the king wants to inflict upon the litigants an illegal or unrighteous decision, it is the duty of the
judge to warn the king and prevent him. This is how independence and impartiality of judiciary is to be maintained by
judiciary, even king was to adhere to the rules of dharma and he must above the worldly detachments in deciding the
cases.

Procedures relating to conduct of proceedings are also well established in ancient India and there was little chance to
misuse the provision and decide the matter without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard, a cause of action
arises when a person, being harassed in a way contrary to the rules of Smriti and usage, lodges a complaint. The
judicial proceedings usually comprise four parts, namely complaint, reply, evidence and judgment. Replies can
probably be of four kinds, and these are admission, denial, a special plea, relating to a former judgment. Three types
of evidences are mentioned namely document, possession and witness. As regards the rules for summoning: Smritis
were there
● It is evident that the opponent or the defendant against whom the suit is filed, must be summoned to the Court.

● Even other persons connected with the defendant (in the suit) may also be summoned.

● When, however, some persons like soldiers, Agriculturists, cowherds etc. are fully occupied with their work,
their representative may be allowed to appear before the Court, as held by the Narada Smriti.
● In serious matters, however, the persons are allowed to appear in person before the Court, particularly with
proper safeguards,
● in more serious matters like Murder of Woman, Adultery with her, as held in the Mitakashara on the
Yajanvalkay Smriti no representative is allowed. But in such matters, the concerned must appear before the
Court,
● it should be noted that the presence of some persons like the deceased, very old (more than Seventy years
old), persons in calamities, engaged in religious rites, in king’s duties, a woman whose family is in bad
condition, is actually condoned. The same is done even now
● If, however after serving the summons defendant fails to come before the Court the King should wait for 30
days or 15 days and pass the Judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
● But if there is an invasion by enemy or famine, or epidemic, than the King should not fine the defendant who
is thus prevented from coming to the Court
● However agents can be allowed to represent on behalf of his disabled Master.

Representation by lawyer - The views of Narada and Brahaspati show that the skilled help was required in the
litigations. The commentary on the Narada Smrti indicates that those who are well-versed in the Smriti literature could
afford help for monetary consideration to the parties that have appeared before Court. Fees of such skilled persons
were also fixed and he was appointed by parties not by Court. Accordingly principles of natural justice i.e. principle of
fair hearing and rule against bias were practiced in India quite early than Rome and Greek.

The Principles were accepted as early as in the days of Adam and of Kautilya’s Arthashastra. According to the Bible,
when Adam & Eve ate the fruit of knowledge, which was forbidden by God, the latter did not pass sentence on Adam
before he was called upon to defend himself. same thing was repeated in case of Eve. Later on, the principle of natural
justice was adopted by English Jurist to be so fundamental as to over-ride all laws

11
By : Sagar Jain
One of the object behind establishment of United Nation Organization is to secure respect to Human Rights within
its member States, this objectives of UN compelled to enact several international convention on the Subject of Human
Rights which consists ‘Principles of Natural Justice within their ambit. Especially UDHR 1948, International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Geneva Convention on Refugees Right, 1951 and European Convention
on Human Right, 1998 gave new meaning to principles of natural justice.

● Ancient Roots: The principles of natural justice have ancient origins, rooted in the legal and philosophical
traditions of civilizations such as ancient Greece and Rome. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle discussed
notions of justice and fairness, which laid the groundwork for later legal developments.
● Medieval and Feudal Period: During the medieval period, concepts of justice were often intertwined with
religious and feudal structures. However, the idea of fairness in legal proceedings began to gain traction,
particularly in the context of English common law. Magna Carta in 1215, while not explicitly addressing
natural justice, laid down principles that contributed to the development of procedural fairness, such as the
right to a fair trial.
● Development of Common Law: The English common law system played a significant role in shaping the
evolution of natural justice. Over time, common law courts recognized the importance of procedural fairness,
establishing principles such as the right to be heard and the rule against bias. Landmark cases like Ridge v.
Baldwin (1964) and Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) contributed to the clarification and
expansion of these principles.

● Modern Legal Systems: The principles of natural justice have been codified and incorporated into modern
legal systems around the world. Many countries have enshrined these principles in their constitutions, statutes,
and legal codes. Additionally, international human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, emphasize the importance of
procedural fairness and due process.
● Judicial Interpretation: Courts and tribunals play a crucial role in interpreting and applying the principles of
natural justice. Through their decisions, courts have refined and clarified the scope and application of these
principles in various contexts, including administrative law, criminal justice, and employment disputes.
● Globalization and Human Rights: The globalization of legal norms and the proliferation of human rights
discourse have further reinforced the importance of natural justice. International bodies and organizations,
such as the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights, have emphasized the right to a fair trial
and procedural fairness as fundamental human rights.
● Adaptation to Contemporary Challenges: The evolution of natural justice continues as legal systems adapt
to contemporary challenges, such as advancements in technology, changes in societal values, and emerging
issues related to globalization and access to justice. This ongoing evolution underscores the dynamic nature of
procedural fairness and its relevance in ensuring just and equitable legal processes.
● Ancient Legal Traditions: India has a long history of legal and philosophical traditions that emphasize
principles of justice and fairness. Concepts such as dharma (duty or righteousness) in Hindu philosophy and
niti (ethics or justice) in ancient Indian texts provided early foundations for ideas related to fairness and just
governance.
● Colonial Influence: The British colonial period had a significant impact on India's legal system. While British
colonial rule introduced elements of common law and procedural fairness, it also imposed certain legal
structures that were perceived as unjust by many Indians. The Indian legal community, influenced by
12
By : Sagar Jain
 nationalist movements, began advocating for reforms that emphasized principles of natural justice and
fairness.
● Constitutional Framework: India's Constitution, adopted in 1950, enshrines fundamental rights and
principles of justice, equality, and fairness. Articles 14 and 21, in particular, have been interpreted by the
Indian judiciary to include the principles of natural justice. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law,
while Article 21 ensures the right to life and personal liberty, which has been expansively interpreted to
include the right to fair procedure.
● Judicial Interpretation: The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has played a pivotal role in
interpreting and applying the principles of natural justice. Landmark cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India (1978) and A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970) have expanded the scope of procedural fairness
and highlighted the importance of fair procedures in administrative actions and decision-making
● Administrative Law: The principles of natural justice have significant implications in administrative law in
India. The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for administrative bodies to adhere to principles such as
audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) and the rule against bias in their decision-making processes.
Administrative tribunals have been established to ensure fair adjudication of disputes involving administrative
actions
● Evolution in Contemporary Contexts: In recent years, natural justice has evolved to address contemporary
challenges in Indian society, such as issues related to access to justice, corruption, and the protection of
human rights. Efforts have been made to streamline legal procedures, enhance transparency, and promote
accountability in both the public and private sectors
● Global Influences: India's engagement with international human rights norms and global legal developments
has also influenced the evolution of natural justice. Indian courts often draw upon international human rights
standards and judicial precedents from other jurisdictions to interpret and apply principles of fairness and
procedural justice.
● Technological advancements

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

According to traditional English law natural justice classified into two principles i.e.
1. Nemo judex in causa sua (rule against bias)
2. Audi alteram partem (rule of fair hearing)

RULE AGAINST BIAS

It is the first principles of natural justice which says no man shall be judge in his own cause or a deciding authority
must be impartial and neutral while deciding any case. Thus the principle signify that in a circumstances where a
judge or deciding authority is suspected to be bias and partial then he/she shall be disqualify from determining any
case before them. It formulates that justice should not only be done but seen to be done. Proceedings before any
adjudicating authority must be according to the principles of natural justice. Where it is found that a judge who is
deciding any dispute has its own interest or some outcome derived from such case then the decision given by the
authority shall not be execute or it remains void. It is said that impartiality is the best characteristics for good
administration. Human nature is such that a person ordinarily cannot take an objective decision in a case when he
himself found an interest, as very rarely can person take decision against his own interest. A person can apply his
mind effectively when he follows impartiality. The rule against bias thus avoids possibility of partial decisions.
Different types of Bias:

13
By : Sagar Jain
 ● PERSONAL BIAS: This is a most common bias that arises out of certain relationship between decision
making authority and the parties. Here a judge may be a friend, relative or business associate of a party. He
may have an enmity or rivalry against one of the party. In view of these factors there is likelihood that judge
may be biased towards one party or prejudiced toward other. In Cottle v. Cottle, the chairman of the bench
was a friend of the wife’s family who had instituted matrimonial proceedings against her husband. The wife
had told the husband that chairman would decide the case in her favour. The divisional court ordered
rehearing. It later turned out that the chairman was a friend of wife’s family. In Mineral Development
Corporation limited v. State of Bihar the petitioner were granted mining lease for 99 years. A few years
later, the Secretary of revenue board issued a notice to the petitioners to show cause within 15 days as to why
the license should not be cancelled for violation by the petitioner of section 10, 12 and 14 of Mining Act. The
petitioner submitted a written reply denying the allegations. However, two years later, Government quashed
the license. The petitioner brought an action against the minister passing this order on the behalf of
government, on the ground that, the petitioner in 1952 opposed the minister in general election. Therefore, on
the account of political rivalry, the minister passed such an order, and hence order was suffered from personal
bias. Supreme Court found the allegation to be true and thus quashed the said order.

● PECUNIARY BIAS: Pecuniary bias arises when the adjudicator has monetary or financial interest in the
subject matter of the dispute. Least pecuniary interest in the subject matter of litigation will disqualify any
person from acting as a judge. In Jeejeebhoy v. Collector, the Chief Justice reconstituted the bench when it
was found that one of the members of the bench was a member of cooperative society for which the land had
been acquired. Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal, this case regarded as a classic example of pecuniary bias. In
this case a public limited company filed a suit against a land owner in matter largely involving the interest of
the company. The Lord Chancellor who was a shareholder in the company decided the case and gave relief to
the company. His decision was quashed by the House of Lords because there was a pecuniary interest of the
Lord Chancellor in the Company. It is obvious that pecuniary interest however small it may be in a subject
matter of the proceedings wholly disqualify a member from acting as a judge.
● SUBJECT MATTER BIAS: Subject matter simply means the “issue in question” or “the issue in
controversy” or “issue before the Judge”. Bias as to subject matter may arise when the Judge has general
interest in the subject matter in dispute. It may arise also when the deciding authority is directly or otherwise
involved in subject matter of the case. In Muralidhar v. Kadam Singh, the court refused to quash the
decision of Election Tribunal on the ground that the wife of the chairman was a member of the Congress party
whose candidate the petitioner defeated.

TEST FOR BIAS

Cases from different jurisdiction currently apply two tests for apparent bias i.e.
“The reasonable suspicion of bias” test and “the real likelihood of bias” test. These two tests apply in case of personal
bias. In order to challenge administrative action successfully on the ground of personal bias, it is necessary to prove
that there is a reasonable suspicion of bias or a real likelihood of bias. The former test look mainly to the outward
appearance that means justice must be seen to be done. The rule for the judges of all kinds was that they must be free
from even unreasonable suspicion of bias. The real likelihood of bias mainly focuses on the courts own evaluation of
the probabilities. The Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Test:
• This test asks whether a reasonable and informed person would perceive a significant possibility of
bias in the decision-maker.
• It is often articulated as whether there is a “reasonable apprehension of bias” from the perspective of a
reasonable observer.
• This test is highly fact-specific and considers the particular circumstances of each case.
2. The Actual Bias Test:
• This test requires proof that the decision-maker was actually biased in the particular case.

14
By : Sagar Jain
 • Demonstrating actual bias is challenging, as it requires clear evidence that the decision-maker’s
judgment was influenced by prejudice or partiality.
3. The Structural Bias Test:
• This involves examining the institutional or procedural arrangements to determine if they inherently
create a risk of bias.
• Factors such as the decision-maker’s relationship to the parties, financial interests, or previous
involvement in related matters might be scrutinized.
4. Personal Interest Test:
• Evaluates whether the decision-maker has a personal interest in the outcome of the case.
• Personal interest can include financial stakes, familial relationships, or any other direct benefit from a
specific decision.
5. Prejudgment Test:
• This test assesses whether the decision-maker has formed a fixed opinion on the matter before hearing
the case.
• Statements or actions indicating a closed mind or preconceived conclusions can be used as evidence
of prejudgment.
6. Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice:
• Ensuring that the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice are upheld can prevent bias.
• Key principles include the right to a fair hearing and the rule against bias (nemo judex in causa sua).

Case Law Examples

1. R. v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy (1924):

• A landmark case where the principle of reasonable apprehension of bias was established. The
presence of a clerk who was a solicitor in a related civil case was enough to taint the fairness of the proceedings.
2. R. v. Gough (1993):
• This case refined the test for bias in the UK, emphasizing the perspective of a fair-minded and
informed observer in assessing the possibility of bias.
3. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999):
• The Supreme Court of Canada stressed the importance of procedural fairness and examined bias
within the context of immigration decisions.

Practical Steps to Assess Bias

• Review Background Information: Examine the decision-maker’s background, including previous

statements, affiliations, and financial interests.
• Analyze Procedural Conduct: Assess whether the procedures followed were fair and transparent,
including whether all parties had an opportunity to present their case.
• Examine Relationships: Investigate any connections between the decision-maker and the parties
involved in the case.
• Observe Behavior and Statements: Look for any statements or behavior by the decision-maker that
suggest preconceived opinions or favoritism.

AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM (RULE OF FAIR HEARING)

It means “hear the other side” or “let the other side be heard as well”. This is the second most fundamental rule of
natural justice that says no one should be condemned unheard. In a circumstances where a person against whom any
action is sought to be taken and his right or interest is being affected, shall be given an equal opportunity of being
heard and defend himself. It gives right the party to respond to the evidence against them and to choose legal
representative of their own choice. Any adjudicating authorities while deciding a dispute between parties the
principles of natural justice forms a fundamental fair procedure among the parties. It is the duty of every person or

15
By : Sagar Jain
body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions to act in good faith and to listen fairly both the sides before passing
any order.

No party will made to suffer in person without giving not only fair opportunity of being heard but to correct any
relevant statement made, which is prejudicial to any of them. While deciding any case fairly it is not mandatory for
any decision making authority to follow the same procedure as that followed by a Court. In case if the Legislature
specifically authorizes an administrative authority to proceed without giving an opportunity of heard, then except in
case of recognised exceptions, the law would be violative of the principles of fair hearing which is now read into
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The sole purpose of rule of fair hearing as to the Apex Court was to avoid the
failure of justice. Thus, the essence of this principle is “the right of fair hearing” or “the right to be heard”. Therefore
any decisions which violate the principle of audi alteram partem such can be quashed by court as against the principles
of natural justice. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the passport of the petitioner was impounded by the
Government of India in public interest. No opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before taking the impugned
action. The Supreme Court held that the order was violative of principles of Natural justice. Components of fair
hearing:

● Notice:
The term notice is derived from the Latin word “notifia” which means “being known”. It thus means knowledge of
circumstances or to make something known, of what a man was or might be ignorant of before. In order to constitute a
legal proceeding against any person the first requirement of fair hearing is to serve notice to the affected person to
show cause against the proposed action and seek his explanation. Hearing starts with the issuance of notice to the
affected person. Any order passed without giving notice to the person is against the principles of natural justice and is
void ab initio. Even if the Statue does not provide any provision about giving of notice, and if such order adversely
affects the rights of an individual, in such cases also the notice is required to be given. A notice must be adequate and
contain: the time, place and nature of hearing a statement of specific charges or grounds and proposed action which
the person has to meet, must be clear and unambiguous, must afford the party sufficient time, to prepare his case, not
only provide the sufficient information relating to the case, but he must also be informed of the penalty proposed to be
imposed in case of his failure to meet the case against him legal authority under which hearing is to be held.

The manner in which the notice is to be served is prescribed under statute. Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 requires
that if a cheque is dishonoured proper notice must be given by post or courier. Notice can be served by delivering to
him, or sending it to him by registered post. If the above two modes does not fulfil then by affixing it on the outer door
of the residence. The mode of giving notice is a procedural matter. If the notice is to be given to a large class of
persons, who are educated, it may be given in newspaper. Individual notice is this case is not insisted. A vague or
imprecise notice does not afford the party the desired reasonable opportunity. A notice would be vague if it is based
on no material or if it is vitiated by non-application of mind. Exceptions:
● When the affected person suo motto makes the representation without receiving the notice.

● Where the knowledge of the matter in dispute is imputable to the concerned person.

● Where no prejudice caused to the party

RIGHT TO KNOW THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM:

The principle of fair hearing requires that there must be full disclosure of evidential facts and of all documents. It
means to know the materials on which the authority is going to make a decision. It is a part of right to defend oneself.
The general principle is that the adjudicating authority must base its decision on the material known to the parties. No
evidence can be taken into consideration which has not material known to the party concerned. It would be violative
of natural justice to take evidence behind the back of the concerned person. In S.P Paul v. Calcutta University, the
Calcutta High Court held that there was violation of natural justice in so far as evidence of witnesses had been heard
behinds the candidate’s back which was not known to him.
16
By : Sagar Jain
CROSS EXAMINATION: Cross examination is one of the effective methods of establishing truth and exposing
falsehood. While in administrative adjudications it is not necessarily mean that the right of cross examination of
witness should be given to the person concerned. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case i.e. unless
the circumstances demand that in the absence of the right to cross examination, the party cannot put up an effective
defence in his favor. Where in circumstances evidence is given viva voce against a person, he must have opportunity
to hear it and to put the witnesses in cross examination. Refusal to allow such cross examination would amount to
violation of principles of natural justice.

REPRESENTATION BY A LAWYER: Everyone should be given a chance to represent himself or herself in the
court of law through lawyer of their own choice. In administrative proceedings the right of representation by a lawyer
is not ordinarily considered as an important part of natural justice and as such is not claimable as a matter of right ,
unless the said right is conferred by the statute. In cases where statute is silent, the courts have in certain situations
recognized that some professional assistance must be given to the party to make his right to defend himself
meaningful. Such situation may arise when the affected party is illiterate or a question of law is involved or the matter
is complicated or technical or where expert evidence is on record. In M.H Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, the apex
court ruled that right to free legal aid at the cost of the state to an accused, who could not afford legal services by
reasons of poverty, indigence or inability to communicate the situation, was part of fair, just and reasonable procedure
implicit in Article 21. Free legal aid to the poor person has been declared to be a state’s duty and not governmental
charity. This right not only arises at the commencement of trial but also attaches when he is for the first time produced
before the Magistrate.

RIGHT TO KNOW EVIDENCE: In the matter of administrative adjudication, the party must have a right to know
the materials upon which the authority is going to make a decision. No evidence should be taken at the back of other
party. There are so many judicial or quasi-judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of evidence to the affected
person has been held to be fatal to hearing proceedings. Adjudicating authority must base its decisions on the material
known to the parties. It would be violative of natural justice to take evidence behind the back of the concerned person.
Sometimes before initiating an action against an individual, a preliminary inquiry may be made into the matter.
Natural justice will not violated as the substance of the reports had been given in the show cause notice which was
issued to the panchayat.

When Natural can be claimed?

Natural justice can be claimed where the proceedings is judicial or quasi-judicial like panchayat and tribunals etc. It
envisaged the concept of fairness, just and basic moral principles. In a present welfare state with complex socio
economics problems the functions of the government has been increase and in the same manner administrative
authorities has acquired vast powers which might affect private rights without any adequate safeguards or some
protection. Due to this factor procedural fairness is regarded as an integral part of administrative authorities.

REASONED DECISIONS: A reasoned decision means a decision which must contain reasons in support of it.
Natural Justice required that the party has a right to know not only the decision but also the reasons. This is not a
universally established law although it might provide in statute. Where the duty is required by the statute then the
authority is bound to give reasoned decisions in all cases to which the provision applies. But in absence of statutory
requirement, the courts advise the judicial or quasi-judicial bodies to assign reasons, so that it justify the order. It is
called as speaking orders Basically, it has three grounds on which it relies:

1. The aggrieved party has the chance to demonstrate before the appellate and revisional court that what was the
reason which makes the authority to reject it.
2. It is a satisfactory part of the party against whom the decision is made.
3. The responsibility to record reasons works as obstacles against arbitrary action by the judicial power vested in
the executive authority.

17
By : Sagar Jain
 APPLICATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE
There are three types of administrative functions:
● Executive,

● Quasi-judicial, and

● Quasi-legislative
The classification of administrative functions into these three types is a very difficult task. There are no clear cut
guidelines available as to which functions of the administrative bodies would amount to executive and which would
amount to quasi-judicial. These functions cannot be separated into water-tight compartments. All administrative
functions are a mixture of executive, quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions.

In the case of King v. Electricity Commissioner, Lord Atkin described a quasi-judicial function of an administrative
body as the one where a body of persons has legal authority to determine certain questions that affect the rights of the
subjects and the body has a duty to act judiciously. The Supreme Court of India has also attempted to decide that
when does an authority have the duty to act judiciously through various cases by stating that it would depend on the
express provisions of the statute read with the nature of the rights affected, the manner of disposal provided, the
objective criteria to be adopted, the effect of the decision on the person affected and other indicia afforded by the
statute. The principles of natural justice are not applied strictly to administrative actions. The extent of the
applicability of principles of natural justice depends largely on the type of function and the type of power that is being
wielded. The extent of applicability of natural justice is more in quasi-judicial functions as compared to administrative
functions. But, even in quasi-judicial
functions, these rules and principles are not applied strictly.

SC observed that if the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice, one fails to see why
those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative inquiries. In this case, the Supreme Court stated that
whenever any actions of an administrative authority are likely to result in any disadvantage to a person, then that
authority is bound to act judiciously and follow the rules of natural justice. If it appeared that an authority or a body
had the power to determine questions affecting the rights of citizens, then the nature of such a power itself imposed a
duty on the authority to act in conformity to the principles of natural justice.

1. SPEED OF JUSTICE
Administrative authorities are known for providing speedy justice. The reason behind not applying the principles of
natural justice to such administrative bodies is to ensure such speedy disposal of cases. To be able to dispose the cases
swiftly, the principles of natural justice are dispensed with in administrative proceedings. So, here, the question that
needs to be heard and deliberated upon is whether speedy disposal is more important or providing justice is more
important. Just for the sake of speedy disposal, many principles of natural justice, such as the rule against bias, or the
principle of audi alteram partem are dispensed with. When cases are disposed in such hasty manner, there are chances
of justice not being served. Just disposing cases swiftly, without serving true justice amounts to no justice. It said that
not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. When a judge who has a probability of being biased sits
on a bench and decides the case, then justice is not seem to be served, even if it actually is served. Or, if a party is not
given an opportunity to be heard, then he feels wronged, and it seems to him as if his right was stripped away from
him. Thus, the priority of the administrative authority and the whole justice system needs to be questioned as to
whether it desires just speed or true justice. there's a concern that overly strict adherence to these
principles could lead to delays and inefficiencies in the administrative process. From this perspective,
administrative bodies may seek to balance the requirements of natural justice with the need for
timely decision-making to ensure effective governance and administration.

2. DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY

18
By : Sagar Jain
This doctrine is used in situations where the person who has exclusive or statutory authority to decide is likely to be
biased. Here the only two available options are either a biased judge or no judge, then in such a case, according to this
doctrine, a biased judge should be allowed to take the decision. This is done to promote decision making process, and
to ensure that the offender has to face justice and is not allowed to go scot-free. Moreover, bias is only a presumption
and it is not necessary that the judge will actually be biased, even though there is a likelihood of bias. So, by
following this doctrine, one of the basic principles of natural justice is dispensed with. In such a situation, it is possible
that the judge is actually biased and will give a biased decision, thus affecting the rights of the parties in an adverse
manner.

But even if the judge was not biased and only appeared to be so, it sends out a wrong message. When biased judges
are allowed to take decisions, then the citizens fear all forms of authority and assume that they will have to suffer the
same biased attitude. For instance, following this doctrine of necessity, the disciplinary proceedings in universities
comprise of the faculty members of the university itself, where there is a high probability of bias. Now, every
student who faces such a committee feels that injustice has been served to him by the biased judge. So, the
consideration must be regarding the message that the justice system seeks to send out to the public.

3. CONCEPT OF FAIRNESS
The concept of fairness necessitates that even if principles of natural justice are not followed strictly, still the
proceedings should be fair and no prejudice must have been caused to the parties. It postulates that the touchstone to
determine whether the principles of natural justice have been sufficiently applied or not, is to check whether the
procedures were fair and that any prejudice was not caused to the parties. If sufficient fairness was practiced then the
strict appliance of the principles of natural justice can be dispensed with according to this concept. Fairness of
procedure is an important element for the elimination of arbitrariness, and it is also essential for good administration.
In administrative functions, the rules of natural justice are not applicable in the strict sense and the rules of procedure
are also not followed strictly. It is essential, however, that the procedure is fair and no prejudice is caused to the
parties. Fairness in itself is ambiguous and subjective in nature. So, this touchstone of justice is not clear in itself.
Non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of
denial of natural justice is unnecessary. In this case, the importance of natural justice was appreciated. It was held that
non application of the principles of natural justice is in itself prejudice and unfair, and hence the whole concept of the
touchstone of fairness is futile in nature. Thus, non-application of the principles of natural justice in itself results in
prejudice against the parties, and hence it is a problem in itself.

● Resource Constraints: Administrative bodies often operate within limited resources, including time
and budgetary constraints. This can pose challenges in fully implementing natural justice principles,
such as providing extensive opportunities for hearings or ensuring comprehensive disclosure of
information. Administrators may need to make pragmatic decisions about how to allocate resources
while still upholding the core principles of fairness and transparency.
● Expertise and Specialization: Administrative decisions often involve complex technical or
specialized knowledge. In some cases, decision-makers may need to rely on their expertise or the
expertise of others in making decisions. While natural justice principles emphasize the right to be
heard and the disclosure of information, there may be situations where decisions are based primarily
on technical expertise rather than adversarial processes.
● Flexibility and Adaptability: Administrative law operates in a dynamic environment, where laws,
regulations, and societal expectations may evolve over time. From this perspective, the application of
natural justice principles should be flexible and adaptable to accommodate changing circumstances
and emerging challenges. Administrators may need to interpret and apply natural justice principles in
a manner that reflects the evolving nature of administrative decision-making.
19
By : Sagar Jain
 ● Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): In some cases, administrative bodies may use alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation or negotiation, to resolve disputes outside of
formal adjudicative processes. While natural justice principles traditionally emphasize adversarial
hearings and formal decision-making procedures, there may be opportunities to promote fairness and
accountability through alternative approaches that prioritize collaboration and consensus-building.
● Public Confidence and Legitimacy: The application of natural justice principles in administrative
law is closely linked to public confidence in the integrity and legitimacy of administrative decision-
making. From this perspective, administrative bodies may prioritize transparency, accountability, and
public participation to foster trust and confidence in their actions. This can include measures such as
public consultations, disclosure of decision-making criteria, and opportunities for public scrutiny and
feedback.

EXCLUSION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

1. Doctrine of necessity and absolute necessity

Doctrine of necessity is an exception to the rule of bias under natural justice. It allows authorities to do certain things
which are necessary to be done at the moment, and those acts which would in a normal situation not be allowed by the
law. It is invoked in situations where there is no definite authority to decide on a matter. If there is a choice to whether
let a biased person act on a matter or whether to stop the matter itself, the preference will be given to the biased person
to act on it to get definite decisions, although which may be affected by the bias of that particular person or authority,
but nonetheless, the decision of that biased authority is necessary to come to a conclusion under a said matter.
In Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, it was decided by the court that a member of Public Service
Commission can’t exclude himself from the selection process completely just because they might be related to some
of the candidates, and may exclude themselves only during the selection process of those candidates to whom he
might be related. In doctrine of necessity, there are options to decide whether a biased person should be allowed or
not. Under the doctrine of absolute necessity, it is absolutely necessary to let the case of a biased person be decided. In
the modern times, there is not much difference between the two and are overlapped in many circumstances.

2. Statutory exceptions to the rule of natural justice

The principle of natural justice can be excused by certain acts of the parliament. Parliament may through its powers
get rid of the procedures that are otherwise necessary for any administrative action. It must also be noted here that any
action of the parliament which does not permit the individuals certain rights during the time period of the act, such act
is bound to come under the scrutiny of the courts and may be challenged under Article 14 of the Constitution. A
statute may exclude natural justice either expressly or by necessary implication. In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of
India, the central government, under the Bhopal Gas Disaster Act (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, authorized itself
to represent all the victims. This was challenged on the fact that the govt. held 22% share in the Union Carbide
Company, and the interests of the government and the company overlapped while there was a conflict of interests
between the victims and the government. The court said that even though the agreement might be true, no other body
can represent the victims. Statutory exception to natural justice might not be expressed but it is implied in the
application, along with the doctrine of necessity.
3. Exception during situations of emergency

India has witnessed its share in situations of emergencies. It is generally observed in India that during a situation of
emergency, in those cases where the right to be heard will affect the government process, it will be excluded by the
law for the time being. This means that any hearing or any process which may jeopardize the interest of the public at
large would not be needed under the principle of natural justice and any such right would be obviated for the time

20
By : Sagar Jain
being. It is necessary in those situations where the process of fair hearing may take too much and in consequence put
the society in trouble either due to any external force, natural force or any internal troubles. In Mohinder Singh Gill
v. CEC, there were constituency elections going on in Ferozpur, which were interrupted by mob violence, which
caused some ballot papers and boxes to be destroyed, while the elections were still underway in some places. The ECI
ignored the right to be heard and without any notice ordered re-elections. The court did not interrupt the work of
the ECI and dismissed the claims for notice by saying that the said act was necessary in an emergency situation
and Audi alteram partem can be ignored can be excluded in this situation.
4. Exception where no right of an individual has been infringed

Where a person does not have any right, and neither can he derive any right from any statute or any common law
provision, he cannot ask for a remedy in that case under the principles of natural justice, and he may in such case
forfeit procedural fairness. The Latin principle Ebi Jus ebir emedium stands for where there is a right, there is a
remedy. So naturally, in cases where there arises no right, no remedy can be granted. In Vohra v. Indian Export
House (P) Ltd, the SC upholding the validity of these warrants, said that once the term of tenancy is over, the said
person has no right to possession over that particular place and that such a warrant will not affect any of the rights
conferred on him. Hence, in this case the exception is explained very well by the court, that no right can be infringed
if it was not available to a particular individual or an office in the first place.
5. Exception in cases where public interest is of importance

In those situations, considering the welfare of the public at large, it is important to not dispense any such information
which may put the safety of the public at threat. State must make sure that it should not compromise the security of its
territory, and that it should protect all the information that it has which is of public importance. In Balco Employees
Union v. UOI, the Supreme Court established that the principles of natural justice had no role to play in those
situations where policies considering the public at large were to be undertaken. It was held by the court in this case
that unless any action of the government is arbitrary, illegal or unenforceable due to any valid reason, the decision of
the government cannot be challenged as a violation of the principles of natural justice. In this particular case, the
employees had challenged the decision of the government regarding disinvestment in PSUs. The petition was
dismissed on the basis of the reasoning given above.
6. Exception in cases of impracticality

This is one of the simplest exceptions to the rule of natural justice. Natural justice can be applied only when it is
practical in nature to apply it. But natural justice can be excluded when there is no practicality to the situation in it.
In Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra, the examination board conducted class X board exams.
But it was alleged that there was mass copying in the exams, and during the checking it was on first view found that
there has been mass copying. Following this, the board issued a fresh notice which directed the students to appear for
fresh exams again, without giving any chance to the students to have themselves heard. This was challenged in the
High Court by students, and the High Court quashed the boards’ notice saying that the principle of Audi Alteram
Partem has been violated and the students have not been heard. In response to this decree, the board approached the
Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court struck down the order of the High Court, saying that it is impractical to hear
issues of all students in such a small time and it was held that on the grounds of impracticality, the principle can be
excluded in this particular case. This case may also be read in the context of another exception, i.e. exception in case
of academic evaluation.
7. Exception in cases of academic evaluation

In cases where the authority involved is academic in nature, or if the authority is of complete administrative nature, in
such cases, their evaluations may be excluded from the ambit of the rule of natural justice. The student was removed
from the university on the basis of his academic performances, without being given any hearing prior to the notice.
The case reached the Supreme Court where the court observed that the nature of the decision is academic authority in
nature and that decisions from such an authority automatically declines any right to be heard, and it was held that if
the assessment of the authority is competent and it decides that the work of the particular student is unsatisfactory,
then the rule of natural justice may not be applied.

21
By : Sagar Jain
 L. CHANDRA KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

It is the landmark case which establishes the validity of Articles 323A and 323B, which dealt with the exclusion of
High Court jurisdiction in service affairs.

Facts
The Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, in view of the authority provided in Clause 1 of
Article 323A of the Constitution, and accordingly, the Central Administrative Tribunal was established on November
1, 1985, which consists of five (5) benches. However, before the establishment of Tribunal, several petitions for the
order were filed before the various High Court as well as the Supreme Court, as the case may be, challenging the
Constitutional validity of subclause (d) of Clause 2 of Article 323A and subclause (d) of Clause 3 of Article 323B of
the Constitution of India, 1950 and also relating to the Constitutional effect of the provision of the Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985 as well , on the grounds that it contradict the spirit of the Constitution because it excludes the
jurisdiction of the High Court as provided in Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution as well as the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court as provided in the Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Issue In The Case

● Is it possible to say that the Tribunals established and operating under the Act are effective substitutes for the
High Courts in exercising the power of judicial review? If not, what changes must be made to bring the
tribunals into compliance with their basic goals?
● Is it true that the Tribunals have the authority to examine the constitutional legality of statutory rules enacted
under Article 323-A or 323-B of the Indian Constitution?
● Whether the power conferred on State Legislatures or Parliament by Article 323-B 3(d) or by Article 323-A
2(d) excludes the jurisdiction of all courts (except the Supreme Court under Article 136) in respect of
complaints and disputes referred to in clause 1 of Article 323-A, and runs counter to the power of judicial
review conferred on High Courts and Supreme Courts, respectively, by Article 226/227 and Article 32

Judgement of the Case

● The central topic of the entire decision was that the Tribunals cannot and will not serve as a substitute for
the High Courts' judicial review power granted by the Constitution. While the High Court performs its job, the
Tribunals will serve as auxiliary institutions to support it. Furthermore, the Tribunals will be supervised by the
High Courts and cannot be regarded as independent organizations.
● Articles 32 and 226 confer judicial review power on the Supreme Court and the High Courts, respectively, as
part of the Constitution's basic framework.
● The fact that these Tribunals are supervised by the Supreme Court and the High Court is also part of the
Constitution's core framework.
● The High Courts and the Supreme Court cannot be excluded from judicial review of legislative action taken in
the exercise of power by subordinate judges or Tribunals established under regular legislation. They can,
however, play a complementary – rather than a replacement – role in this regard.
● It is not necessary to stop appointing administrative members to the tribunals.

22
By : Sagar Jain
 ● Until a truly autonomous body for the administration of all such Tribunals can be established, it is preferable
that all such Tribunals be placed under the supervision of a single nodal ministry. That ministry should be
called the Ministry of Law for several reasons.
● Tribunals established under Articles 323A and 323B have the authority to investigate the legality of
subordinate legislation, but they are not permitted to investigate the legality of their parent laws. Under
Articles 226/227, all tribunal rulings would be reviewed by a Division Bench of their respective High Courts.
Article 136 prohibits a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. This strategy would be implemented in the future.

MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA

Facts of the case

The petitioner Maneka Gandhi's passport was issued as per the Passport Act. A few years later, the Regional Passport
Office (New Delhi) ordered her to surrender her passport. The petitioner was also not given any reason for this
arbitrary and unilateral decision of the External Affairs Ministry, citing public interest. The petitioner approached the
Supreme Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction and contending that the State's act of impounding her passport was a
direct assault on her Right to Personal Liberty as guaranteed by Article 21. The authorities, however, answered that
the reasons are not to be specified in the "interest of the general public". In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition
under Art 32 for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution alleging
that Section 10(3)(c) of the Act was ultra vires the constitution.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioners stated that the State has infringed upon the Petitioner's fundamental rights of freedom of speech &
expression, right to life & personal liberty, right to travel abroad, and the right to freedom of movement. The
procedure established by law should be fair and just, reasonable, and not arbitrary. Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport
Act violates Article 21 insofar as it violates the right to life & personal liberty guaranteed by this Article.

Audi Altrem Partem i.e. the opportunity of being heard is invariably acknowledged as a vital component of the
principles of natural justice. Even if these principles of natural justice are not expressly mentioned in any of the
provisions of the Constitution, the idea behind the spirit of Fundamental Rights embodies the very crux of these
principles.

On the other hand, the respondents stated that the passport was confiscated since the petitioner had to appear before a
government committee for a hearing. The respondent asserted that the word 'law' under Article 21 couldn't be
understood as reflected in the fundamental rules of natural justice. Article 21 contains the phrase "procedure
established by law" & such procedure does not have to pass the test of reasonability and need not necessarily be in
consonance with Articles 14 & 19. The marked absence of the due process of law from the provisions of the Indian
Constitution clearly indicates the constitution-makers intentions.

Judgement

The court said that section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 is void because it violates Article 14 of the Indian
constitution because it confers vague and undefined power to the passport authority. it is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution since it doesn't provide for an opportunity for the aggrieved party to be heard. It was also held
violative of Article 21 since it does not affirm the word "procedure" as mentioned in the clause, and the present
procedure performed was the worst possible one. The Court, however, refrained from passing any formal answer on
the matter and ruled that the passport would remain with the authorities till they deemed fit.

23
By : Sagar Jain
This judgement widened Article 21's scope immensely and it realized the goal of making India a welfare state, as
assured in the Preamble. The unanimous judgement was given by a 7-judge bench. Before the enactment of the
Passport Act 1967, there was no law regulating the passport whenever any person wanted to leave his native place and
settle abroad. Also, the executives were entirely discretionary while issuing the passports in an unguided and
unchallenged manner.

Further, clause (c) of section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 provides that when the state finds it necessary to seize
the passport or do any such action in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of the nation, its security, its friendly
relations with foreign countries, or for the interests of the general public, the authority is required to record in writing
the reason of such act and on-demand furnish a copy of that record to the holder of the passport.

The fundamental rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution are not distinctive nor mutually exclusive." Any law
depriving a person of his personal liberty has to stand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred
under Article 19. When referring to Article 14, ex-hypothesis must be tested. The concept of reasonableness must be
projected in the procedure. The phrase used in Article 21 is "procedure established by law" instead of due process
of law which is said to have procedures that are free from arbitrariness and irrationality. There is a clear infringement
of the basic ingredient of principles of natural justice i.e., audi alteram partem and hence, it cannot be condemned as
unfair and unjust even when a statute is silent on it.

24
By : Sagar Jain