Administrative

Adjudication
 Meaning of Administrative adjudication
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 is the process by which administrative agencies make decisions

in specific cases, such as disputes between private parties or enforcement actions against
individuals or companies. Administrative adjudication is an important aspect of
administrative law and is governed by specific rules and procedures.

Administrative adjudication is usually performed through the machinery of Tribunals and

Inquiries. Many administrative bodies have a standing administrative adjudicatory body, or
do set up an administrative adjudicatory body, from time to time, to meet for instance their
in-house need for regulation, standard and discipline and so forth as the case may be.
 Characteristics of the Administrative tribunal

-An administrative tribunal is the creation of a statute and thus, it has a statutory origin.

-It has some of the trappings of a court but not all.

-An administrative tribunal is entrusted with the judicial powers of the State and thus, performs judicial and quasi-
judicial functions, as distinguished from pure administrative or executive functions and is bound to act judicially.

-Even with regard to procedural matters, an administrative tribunal possesses powers of a court; e.g. to summon
witnesses, to administer oath, to compel production of documents, etc.

-An administrative tribunal is not bound by strict rules of evidence and procedure.
 Continued……
-The decisions of most of the tribunals are in fact judicial rather than administrative inasmuch as they have to record
findings of facts objectively and then to apply the law to them without regard to executive policy. Though the discretion
is conferred on them, it is to be exercised objectively and judicially.

-Most of the administrative tribunals are not concerned exclusively with the cases in which Government is a party; they
also decide disputes between two private parties, e.g. Election Tribunal, Rent Tribunal, Industrial Tribunal, etc. On the
other hand, the Income Tax Tribunal always decides disputes between the Government and the assesses.

-Administrative tribunals are independent and they are not subject to any administrative interference in the discharge
of their judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

-The prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition are available against the decisions of administrative tribunals.
 Reasons for the growth of Administrative adjudication

• Increasing governmental functions and activities overloaded courts with cases that they were unable to deal with
effectively. The system of administrative tribunals has positively contributed to the preservation of ordinary judicial system.

• The traditional courts are slow, costly, inexpert, complex, formalistic; and it was not possible to expect speedy disposal of
even very important matters, like disputes between employer and employee, lockout, strikes, etc. Therefore, industrial
tribunals and labour courts were established which possessed the technique and expertise to handle these complex
problems.

• In modern society, the complex problems cannot be decided on objective legal principles, pure and simple. They are to be
solved by keeping in mind policy considerations and public interests. Administrative tribunals can play an effective role in
that direction. It explores new public law standards based on moral and social principles away from the highly individualistic
norms developed by courts.
Continued…..

• The traditional courts are manned by persons having knowledge of law but in modern society the issues
require the expert knowledge on a particular subject which is necessary over and above the legal knowledge,
so instead of one-man court, a mixed panel of administrative tribunal can solve the problem in a better way.

• The administrative tribunals are not bound by the laws of evidence and procedures and these can solve the
problems by taking a practical view of the matter, which makes these tribunals more realistic and practical to
decide the complex problems with an ease.

• Administrative authorities can take preventive measures such as suspension, revocation or cancellation of
licences, destruction of contaminated articles, etc. which are not generally available through the ordinary
courts of law.

• Administrative tribunals function more rapidly, cheaply, more efficiently than ordinary courts.
 An administrative tribunal is similar to a court in certain aspects. Both of them are constituted by the
State, invested with judicial powers and have a permanent existence. Thus, they are adjudicating
bodies. They deal with and finally decide disputes between parties which affect the rights of subjects.
Distinction As observed by the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma, “the basic and the
between fundamental feature which is common to both the courts and the tribunals is that they discharge
Administrative judicial functions and exercise judicial powers which inherently vest in a sovereign State”. All courts are
tribunals and tribunals, but the converse need not necessarily be true.

courts Following are main points of difference-

-The main point of difference between administrative adjudication and administration of justice by the
courts is that administrative justice is administered by administrative agencies instead of regular courts.

-The administrative courts follow the principles of natural justice and common good whereas the courts
of law follow the settled principles of law and evidence.

-The administrative courts are manned by officers belonging to the executive branch whereas the
judges are the members of the judiciary independent of executive control
 -A court of law is a part of the traditional judicial system. Where judicial powers are derived from the
State and the body deals with King's justice it is called a ‘court.’ On the other hand, an administrative
tribunal is an agency created by a statute and invested with judicial powers. Primarily and essentially,
Continued…. it is a part and parcel of the Executive Branch of the State, exercising executive as well as judicial
functions. As Lord Greene states, administrative tribunals perform ‘hybrid functions.’

-Whereas ordinary civil courts have judicial power to try all suits of a civil nature, excepting those
whose cognizance is expressly impliedly barred, tribunals have power to try cases in special matters
statutorily conferred.

-The mere lack of general jurisdiction to try all cases of a civil nature does not necessarily lead to an
inference that the forum is tribunal and not a court. A court can also be constituted with limited
jurisdiction.

-Judges of ordinary courts of law are independent of the executive in respect of their tenure, terms
and conditions of service, etc. On the other hand, members of administrative tribunals are entirely in
the hands of the Government in respect of those matters.
 -A court of law is generally presided over by an officer trained in law, but the president or a member of a
tribunal may not be trained as well in law.

Continued… -In a court of law, a Judge must be an impartial arbiter and he cannot decide a matter in which he is
interested. On the other hand, administrative tribunal may be party to the dispute to be decided by it.

-A court of law is bound by all the rules of evidence and procedure, but an administrative tribunal is not
bound by those rules unless the relevant statute imposes such an obligation.

-A court must decide all the questions objectively on the basis of the evidence and materials produced
before it, but an administrative tribunal may decide the questions taking into account the departmental
policy or expediency and in that sense, the decision may be subjective rather than objective. ‘The real
distinction is that the courts have an air of detachment.’

-While a court of law is bound by precedents, principles of res judicata and estoppel, an administrative
tribunal is not strictly bound by them.

-A court of law can decide the vires of a legislation, while an administrative tribunal cannot do so.
 Distinction between Tribunal and Executive authority
• The administrative tribunal is entrusted with the powers of quasi-judicial; and not purely administrative in nature.

• It cannot delegate its quasi-judicial functions to any other official or authority.

• It cannot give decisions without observing the principles of natural justice. The administrative tribunal must record findings
of the facts, apply legal rules to them correctly and give its decision.

ADVANTAGES OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION

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. Robson opines that 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.
 Continued……
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.

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 program, ordinary courts would be completely misfit. All the
disputes arising out of such programs will get struck, thus giving a setback to the program
itself unless we switch over to the Administrative Courts.
 Continued…….
Fixing of Standards: The disputes which come for adjudication before the Administrative
Tribunals are 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

Flexibility: 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 work.
 Disadvantages of Administrative Adjudication
(i) Number and complexity– A large number of adjudicative bodies have come up in recent
times; every statutory scheme contains its own machinery for decision-making. A large
number of parallel bodies adjudicating on the same kind of disputes give diverse decisions
and adopt a variety of procedures. Because the principles of natural justice are not rigid and
do not apply uniformly in all situations, the consequent results at times in arbitrary actions.

(ii) Unsystematic system of appeal: No uniform system of appeal is there. Sometimes,

decisions are made appealable before an independent tribunal as in tax cases, and
sometimes before a higher administrative agency. Some acts do not provide for any appeal.

(iii) Invisibility and anonymity of decisions: Not all the administrative agencies exercising
judicial power publish their decisions; their decisions thus go beyond the Pale of public
criticism. Also, often the decisions are made in a ‘hole and the corner’ fashion. No one
knows where the decision comes.
 Continued…….
(iv) Unpredictability and anonymity of decisions: Administrative agencies do not follow the
doctrine of precedent, hence they are not bound to follow their decisions. This ad-hocism not
only makes the development of law incoherent but also violates the principles of the rule of law.

(v) Combination of functions: Except in the case of civil servants, in all disciplinary proceedings,
the functions of a prosecutor and the judge are either combined in one person or in the same
department, in such a situation bias is inevitable.

(vi) No evidence rule: In India, the technical rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to
administrative adjudications. The gap is filled, true inadequately, by the judge-made rule of ‘No
Evidence’.

(vii) Official perspective and official bias: In administrative justice, an official prospective is
inherent. In any disciplinary proceedings of presumption is of guilt rather than innocence. The
actions are taken on the basis of expediency and various other extra-legal considerations. Official
or departmental bias is very common e.g. Strong and sincere conviction as to public policy or bias
results due to pecuniary interest.
 Continued…….
(viii) Plea bargaining: It means the bargaining of ‘plea of guilt’ with lesser charges and
punishment. A poor employee is bullied by an overbearing superior to accept the charge
against him on a promise that a lesser punishment will be awarded.

(ix) Reasoned decisions: Generally there is no requirement for the administrative authority
to give reasons, which undermines the faith in administrative justice.

(x) Legal representation and cross-examination: There is no general requirement for

administrative authority to allow legal representation and cross-examination in every case.

In order to create confidence among the people in administrative justice, a code prescribing
a minimum procedure of Administrative agencies must be adopted; till this is done, judicial
review must be enlarged by using the test of reasonableness of Administrative findings of
the fact and law.
Constitutional Recognition of Administrative
Tribunals
• Article 136 and 227 – expressly mentions Tribunals

• Part XIV –A has been inserted in the Constitution- 42nd Amendment

Act 1976
• Article 323-A and Article 323-B
• Art 323-A- Administrative Tribunals
• Art 323-B- Other Tribunals
 Article 323 A
(1) Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect
to recruitment and conditions of service 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 under the control of the Government of India or of
any corporation owned or controlled by the Government.
(2) A law made under clause (1) may—
(a) provide for the establishment of an administrative tribunal for the Union and a separate administrative tribunal for each State or
for two or more States;
(b) specify the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each of
the said tribunals;
(c) provide for the procedure (including provisions as to limitation and rules of evidence) to be followed by the said tribunals;
(d) exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 136, with respect to the disputes
or complaints referred to in clause (1);
(e) provide for the transfer to each such administrative tribunal of any cases pending before any court or other authority immediately
before the establishment of such tribunal as would have been within the jurisdiction of such tribunal if the causes of action on which
such suits or proceedings are based had arisen after such establishment;
(f) repeal or amend any order made by the President under clause (3) of article 371D;
(g) contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to fees) as Parliament may deem
necessary for the effective functioning of, and for the speedy disposal of cases by, and the enforcement of the orders of, such
tribunals.
(3) The provisions of this article shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any
other law for the time being in force.
 Article 323B
323B. Tribunals for other matters

(1) The appropriate Legislature may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by tribunals of any disputes, complaints, or offences with respect to all or any of the matters specified in clause (2) with respect to which such Legislature has power to
make laws.

(2) The matters referred to in clause (1) are the following, namely

(a) levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of any tax;

(b) foreign exchange, import and export across customs frontiers;

(c)industrial and labour disputes;

(d) land reforms by way of acquisition by the State of any estate as defined in article 31A or of any rights therein or the extinguishments or modification of any such rights or by way of ceiling on agricultural land or in any other way;

(e) ceiling on urban property;-

(f) elections to either House of Parliament or the House or either House of the Legislature of a State, but excluding the matters referred to in article 329 and article 329A;

(g) production, procurement, supply and distribution of foodstuffs (including edible oilseeds and oils) and such other goods as the President may, by public notification, declare to be essential goods for the purpose of this article and control of prices
of such goods;

(h) rent, its regulation and control and tenancy issues including the rights, title and interest of landlords and tenants--,

(i) offences against laws with respect to any of the matters specified in sub-clause (a) to (h) and fees in respect of any of those matters;

(j) any mailer incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clause (a) to (i).

(3) A law made under clause (1) may--

(a) provide for the establishment of a hierarchy of tribunals;

(b) specify the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each of the said tribunals;

(c) provide for the procedure (including provisions as to limitation and rules of evidence) to be followed by the said tribunals;

(d) exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 136 with respect to all or any of the matters falling within the jurisdiction of the said tribunals;

(e) provide for the transfer to each such tribunal of any cases pending before any court or any other authority immediately before the establishment of such tribunal as would have been within the jurisdiction of such tribunal if the causes of action on
which such suits or proceedings are based had arisen after such establishment;

(f) contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to fees) as the appropriate Legislature may deem necessary for the effective functioning of, and for the speedy disposal of cases by, and the enforcement
of the orders of, such tribunals.

(4) The provisions of this article shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.
Establishment of Administrative Tribunal
• Administrative Tribunals Act 1985

• Central Administrative Tribunal

• State Administrative Tribunal
• Joint Administrative Tribunal

• Composition: Chairman, Vice Chairmen, Judicial members (President on

consultation with CJI) and Administrative Members
• Other members appointed in consultation with the president or Governor
• Tenure: 5 years or 65 years of Age
Administrative Tribunal And Judicial Review
• SP Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987)

• Constitutional Validity of the Act was Challenged

• S. 28 excluded power of judicial review by High Courts under art 226
and 227.
• Power of Supreme Court not excluded

• Held: The exclusion of HC does not totally bar Judicial Review and
Hence Valid
• Union of India v. Deep Chand Pandey (1993)

• The Services of the typist were terminated. The employee

approached HC.
• HC decided in favour.
• Appeal: SC held- HC do not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim as
it is the matter covered by the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 and
thus only CAT can entertain such claim
L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
• Held: Article 2(d) of Art 323A and 3(d) of Art 323 B unconstitutional to
the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court
• Judicial Review- A basic feature of the Indian Constitution
• Power of HC and SC to test the constitutional validity of legislations
cannot be ousted or excluded.
Scope of Administrative Tribunal
• Union of India v. SL Abbas
• Held: Jurisdiction of CAT is akin to that of HC under Art 226 in service
matters.

• JB Chopra v. UOI:
• Held: Administrative Tribunals have jurisdiction, power and authority
to decide the constitutional validity of a statute, rule, regulation or
notification.
Principles of Natural Justice
• The Courts have evolved the principles of natural justice as a potent
safeguard against abuse of administrative power.

• ‘How the work is done’ and ‘ what the work is done’.

• Natural justice is the best instrument to promote individual interest;

ensures participation of common men in administrative process and
to further state’s legitimate purpose
Applicability to Administrative Law
• Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning
• It would be erroneous to import the considerations of administrative
order the principles of natural justice

• Kishan Chand v. Commissioner of Police

The compulsion of hearing before passing an order applied only to
judicial or quasi judicial proceedings.
• Ridge v. Baldwin
• Principles of natural justice are applicable to almost the whole range
of administrative powers

• Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union

• It does not matter if whether the functions are described as judicial or
quasi judicial or administrative, there is a duty to act fairly
When can Natural Justice be claimed
a) Administrative Action

AK Kraipak v. Union of India (1970)

Recommendations were made by the selection committee- impugned
by the principles of natural justice.

The requirement to act judiciously is nothing but the requirement to

act fairly and no arbitrarily or capriciously.
• Infant K (H) case (1967)
• Whether the function being discharged by administration be regarded
as quasi judicial or administrative, it must nevertheless be discharged
with fairness
b) Civil Consequences

It is a settled principle that an action that has civil consequences must

follow principles of natural justice

Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)

Civil consequences cover infractions of not merely property or personal
rights but of civil liberties, material depriviations and non pecuniary
damages
• SL Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1981)
• The requirement for principles of natural justice shall apply only
where administrative action caused some prejudice to the person.

• SL Kapoor v. Jagmohan
Separate showing of a prejudice is not necessary
• C) Effect of Expectations

• It is necessary to follow the principles of Natural Justice, where there is

infraction or legitimate expectation of a person.

• Eurasian Equipment and Co. Ltd v. State of West Bengal (1975)

• The Executive engineer blacklisted the contractor from taking any further
contracts under the government building and road division.
• Held: The fundamentals of fair play require that the person be given
opportunity to represent his case before he is put on blacklist
d) Disciplinary Proceedings
Master Vibhoo Kapoor v. Council of Indian School Certificate Examination.
Copy case in the exam- He was punished.
HC set aside the punishment because the principles of natural justice were
not followed.
Board of High School and Intermediate Education , UP v. Chittra Srivastava
Petitioner appeared for exam and answered all papers. Board cancelled the
exam on grounds of shortage of attendance. The SC held: not followed
principles of Natural Justice.
Principles of Natural Justice
Union of India v. PK Roy(1968)
The extent and application of the doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned
within the straight jacket of a rigid formula. The application of a doctrine depends
upon the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the administrative authority, upon
the character of the rights of the person affected, the scheme and policy of the
statute and other relevant circumstances disclosed in the particular case.

Principles
• Audi Alterum Partem
• Nemo Judex Causa Sua
• Reasoned Decision
Audi Alterum Partem
• No one should be condemned unheard
• It embraces fair procedure or due process

2 ingredients
• i. Notice
• ii. Hearing
Notice
• A basic principle that the affected person shall be given notice to
show cause
• Sine qua non for fair hearing.
• Order passed without notice is void ab initio.
• Notice must be clear, specific, unambiguous.

• A) Adequacy of Notice
• B) Reasonable opportunity
Adequacy of Notice

Include:
Time place and venue of hearing
Legal authority and jurisdiction of hearing
Matters of facts and law related to charges

J. Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (1978)

The EE gave notice to the contractor for blacklist.
The Supreme Court held the notice to be inadequate as it did not clearly
mention that the person shall be debarred from taking future contract
• Bhagwan Datta v. Ram Ratanji (1960)
• The object of notice is to give an opportunity to the person concerned to
present his case and therefore, if the party is conversant with the charges,
a formal defect would not invalidate the notice unless the prejudice is
caused to the individual.
• Reasonable Opportunity
• Notice must give a reasonable opportunity to comply with the
requirements mentioned in it.

• Annamuthado v. Oilfields Workers (1961)

• Where a notice of one charge has been given, the person cannot be
punished for a separate charge for which he had no notice.
Hearing
• Being heard before any adverse action is taken against him

• Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1863)

• The board issued order to demolish the house of the plaintiff.
• No opportunity of hearing provided
• The court held that the court’s order is subject to the qualification
that no man can be deprived of his property without having an
opportunity of being heard
• Ridge v. Baldwin (1964)
• Declared as magna carta of principles of natural justice.
• Chief constable prosecuted but acquitted of the charges of conspiracy.
While delivering the judgment, the judge made some adverse
comments against the plaintiff. Due to this, the watch committee
dismissed the plaintiff.

• Watch committee- functioning as an Administrative Authority or Judicial

Authority?
• Whether principles of Natural Justice will apply?
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

• The passport was impounded

• No opportunity of being heard.
• Violative of Principles of Natural Justice

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986)

• Enabling provision in statute. Empowered the commissioner to demolish construction
without notice
• It was not a command.
• Exercise of discretion by following principles of natural justice.
• Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and HS Education v. Paritosh
(1984)

• The SC Held that the principles of natural justice cannot be carried out
to such length as to make it necessary that the candidates appearing
in the examination should be allowed to participate in the process of
evaluation of their performance or to verify the correctness of the
evaluation made by the examiners by conducting an inspection of the
answer sheets and determine if the paper was fairly evaluated or not.
• Hearing does not necessarily mean oral hearing.

• Union of India v. JP Mitter(1971)

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner judge had been afforded an
opportunity to submit his case in writing. Thus denial of an opportunity
of personal hearing, even after request does not violate the principles
of natural justice.
Fair Hearing
• The Hearing must be Fair.

• Mohinder v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)

• It can be fair even without following the rule of evidence or forms of
trial. It cannot be fair if apprising the affected and appraising the
representation is absent.
• Fair Hearing consists of:
1. Adjudication authority must receive all relevant material of the case
2. Disclosure of all facts and evidence
3. Afford an individual with the opportunity to rebut to such facts and
material
Fair Hearing Consists of
• A. Cross Examination
• B. Legal Representation
• C. Right to Know Evidence
Cross Examination
• Most efficacious method of establishing truth and exposing falsehood.

• State of Kerala v. KT Shaduli (1977)

Returns filed by him- appeared incorrect to sales tax officers.
He applied for an opportunity for Cross examination- rejected
Held: denial of fair hearing.
SC Held: it was only through cross examination that the assessee could
establish that what was mentioned in his account books was incorrect.
• Town Area Committee v. Jagdish Prasad (1978)

• The department submitted the chargesheet, got an explanation, and

thereafter passed a dismissal order.
• The court set aside the order stating that fair hearing includes the
right to cross-examine.
• State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammed (1967)

• The state of J& K appointed a commission of inquiry to inquire into

the corruption charges and maladministration against the ex Cm of
the State.
• The request of Bakshi to cross-examine the witnesses was denied.
• Held: Where no oral hearing is held and only statements were called
from the affected party, there is no right of cross examination.
Legal Representation
• Not a minimia of fair hearing
• Pett v. Greyhound Racing Assn (II) (1969)
• I find it difficult to say that legal representation before a tribunal is an elementary
feature of the fair dispensation of Justice. It seems to me that it arises only in a
society which has reached some degree of sophistication in its affairs.

• R v. St Mary Assessment Committee (1891)

Where there is a right to appear in person or a techninal matter of law and fact is
involved, denial of legal representation by counsel is considered as antithesis of fair
hearing.
• In simple matters like
• Whether the amount in question is paid or not – HC Sarin v. Union of
India (1976)
• Whether the assessment orders were correct or not – Krishna
Chandra v. Union of India (1978)

• Legal representation may be disallowed

• In situations like

• The person being illiterate- James Bushi v. Collector of Ganjam (1959)

• Question of law being involved- JJ Mody v. State of Bombay (1962)

• Denial of legal representation may amount to denial of fair hearing.

• MH Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra(1978)
• Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981)

• Right to legal aid- under Article 21

• Nandini Sathpathy v. PL Dani

• Legal representation in custodial interrogation and reasonable time to
the lawyer to arrive.
Right to Know Evidence
• Right to know the material which is going to make a part of the
decision and the right to defend oneself

• Non-disclosure of evidence may be fatal to fair hearing

• Stafford v. Minister of Health (1945)

• It would be violative of natural justice to take the evidence behind the
back of the concerned person. If the written evidence is given it must
be made available to the other party to rebut.
• Ceylon University v. Fernando (1960)

Privy counsel upheld the order of the university under the circumstances where
the evidence of the witness was taken at the back of the student charged with
misconduct but he was informed of the statements of the witness. There is no
violation of natural justice.

Hiranath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College (1973)

Inquiry against some male students in charge of entering the girls' hostel and
indulging in indecent behavior towards some girls.
The inquiry committee recorded the statement of the complainant girls in the
absence of the appellants. Expelled the boys.

The court held that there was no denial of natural justice as the gist of evidence
were provided to boys and chance to rebut was given.
Nemo Judex Causa Sua
• Rule against Bias
• Deciding authority to be unbiased and neutral
• 2 principles:
• No one should be a judge of his own cause
• Justice should not only be done but also seen to be done.

• A decision which is a result of bias is a nullity and the trial is corum

non judicie
Types of Bias
• Pecuniary Bias
• Personal Bias
• Subject Matter Bias
• Departmental Bias
• Policy Bias
Pecuniary Bias
• A pecuniary bias, however slight, will disqualify even though it is not
proven to have affected the decision.

• Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal(1852)

• Public limited company filed a suit against a landowner.
• Lord Chancellor was the shareholder in the Company
• He gave the company relief
• Decision was quashed on grounds of pecuniary bias
• Manak Lal v Dr. Prem Chand (1957)

• It is obvious that pecuniary interest howsoever small, may be a

subject matter of the proceedings, would wholly disqualify a member
from acting as a judge.

• Visakhapatanam Co-op Motor Transport Ltd v. Bengaruraju (1953)

• A cooperative society wanted a permit. The collector was the
president of the society and also the chairperson of the road
transport authority.
• Granted permit in the favour of the society
• Decision quashed
Personal Bias
• Arising from relationship equations.
• May be a relative, friend, business associate, having some personal
affection or grudge.

• Meengless Tea Estate v. Workmen (1963)

• The Manager conducted and enquiry against a workman that he has
beaten the manager.

• The supreme court held that the inquiry is vitiated.

• AK Kraipak v. UOI (1970)

• Naquishbund was a candidate for selection in the Indian Foreign Service and
was also a member of the selection board. He did not sit on the selection
board. Naquishbund was selected by the board in public service.

• SC Held: It is against all canons of justice to make a man a judge of his own
cause. It is true that he did not participate in deliberations of the committee
when his name is considered, but the very fact that he was a member of the
board must have impacted the decision of the selection board. The real
question is not whether he was biased. It is difficult to prove the state of mind
of a person. Therefore what we have to see is whether there is a reasonable
ground to believe that he was likely to be biased.
• J Mohapatra and co. v. State of Orissa (1984)

• State of Orissa has constituted an assessment committee in order to

recommend and select books of various authors and publishers for various
school subjects. Some of the members of the committee were themselves
authors of the books which were to be considered for selection.
• The books of the members of the assessment committee got approved.
• SC: the possibility of bias cannot be ruled out.
Subject Matter Bias
• When the judge has a general interest in the subject matter

• Gullapalli Nagershwar Rao v. APSRTC (1959)

• scheme for nationalization of motor transport notified by State Govt.-

quashed since the Secretary who initiated scheme and who heard
objections was the same
Departmental Bias

Chartered Accountants v. LK Ratna

A member of the institute was removed on grounds of misconduct.
Chairman and vice chairman of the disciplinary committee were ex
officio chairman and vice chairman of the council.

The court held it vitiated on ground of departmental bias

• State of UP v. RS Sodhi (1994)

• The question was whether state police should investigate alleged fake
encounters.
• The allegations were against local police.

• The court held it must be given to an independent agency. Directed

CBI to investigate.
Policy Bias
• T Govindraj Mudaliar v. State of Tamil Nadu (1973)

• The government decided to nationalize road transport and appointed

a committee to frame the scheme.

• It was finalized and objections were heard by the home secretary,

• The court held that policy bias is inherent in administrative policy and
cannot be eliminated
Reasoned Decision
• To keep a check on arbitrary powers.
• A decision supported by reason is much less likely to be capricious or
arbitrary.

• Lord Denning: Giving of reason is one of the fundamentals of good

administration

• If the statute requires a reasoned decision, the reason must be given; if

the statute does not mandate reason, the judiciary has advised the
judicial and quasi-judicial bodies to give a speaking order.
• MP Industries v. Union of India (1966)

• It was contended that the obligation to give reasons might involve

delay. Rejected
• Court observed, “The least a tribunal can do is to disclose its mind.
The compulsion of disclosure guarantees consideration. The condition
to give reasons minimise arbitrariness, gives satisfaction to the party
against whom the order is made and also enables an appellate or
supervisory court to keep the tribunals in bounds
Implied Statutory Requirement
• Mahabir Prasad v. State of MP (1970)

• If a quasi-judicial decision is subject to appeal, the law necessarily

implies the requirement of reasons; otherwise, the right to appeal
shall become an empty formality.

• Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (1972)

Where a severe penalty is imposed, the absence of appeal rather
makes it essential to give reasons.
Reasons by Appellate Authority
• MP Industries v. UOI (1966)
• The state government giving orders need to give a reason but if the
central government is just confirming the order, no requirement to
give the reason.

• Bhagat Raja v. UOI (1967)

• Even if the appellate authority is confirming the order, reasons must
be given.
Disclosure of Reasons
• Union of India v. ML Kapoor (1974)

• Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain

conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how
the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision, whether it is
purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal the nexus
between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in
this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be
manifestly just and reasonable.
Principles of Natural Justice
• SN Mukherji v. Union of India (1976)

• Keeping in view the expanding horizon of principles of natural justice,

we are of the opinion that the requirement to record reasons can be
regarded as one of the principles of natural justice that governs the
exercise of power by the administrative authorities.
Post decisional Hearing
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

• The court held that if in the public interest, immediate action was
indispensable and it was impracticable to give a hearing, a post-
decisional hearing could be given.

• Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (1981)

A void administrative order can be validated by post decisional hearing
• Bari Doab Bank v. Union of India (1997)
• The government passed an order of moratorium under the Banking
Regulations Act of 1949 on the petitioner bank. It was held that the
petitioners were not entitled to pre-decisional hearing before passing
of such an order and post-decisional hearing at the stage of filing
objections are sufficient.
Exclusion of Principles of Natural Justice
• Statutory Exclusion
• Legislative Exclusion
• Emergency
• Public Interest
• Impracticable
• Academic Evaluation
• Interim Disciplinary Action
• Contractual Transaction
• Useless formality Throy
Statutory Exclusion
• Where the statute expressly excludes the application of principles of
natural justice

• Union of India v. JN Sinha

• For compulsory retirement- the statute did not provide for any opportunity
to be given to the government servant against the said decision
• SC- upheld the decision

• However parliament is not supreme and such statute are not saved from
being reviewed against constitutional provisions
Legislative Function
• Legislative function, be it plenary or subordinate, is not subject to rules of
natural justice.

• Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990)

• Constitutionality of Bhopal Gas Disaster (processing of claims) Act, 1985 was
challenged as it took away rights of the victims to establish their own rights .

• Court held- State has taken over the rights and claims of the victim in the
exercise of the sovereign power.
• For legislations- no PNJ are attracted.
Emergency
• Nathubhai v. Municipal Corporation (1959)
• A dangerous building is required to be demolished to save human lives

• Josef v. Reserve Bank of India (1962)

• Banking company is required to be wound up to save the interest of
the depositors

• Babulal v. State of Maharashtra (1961)

• A person dangerous to peace is required to be detained
Public Interest
• Requirement of notice and hearing can be excluded when a prompt
action is necessary for public safety etc.

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Impracticability
• Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra

• Students indulged in mass copying

• Examination canceled for all exams, and students were permitted to
appear in supplementary exams.

• No opportunity to show cause was given.

• Held: it would be impractical for the board to conduct a detailed
inquiry of a vast majority of students
Academic Evaluation
• Jawahar Lal Nehru University v. BS Narwal (1980)

• A student was removed from the roll for unsatisfactory academic

performance.

• Academic authorities are the best to judge the academic performance

of the student. Academic evaluation is negative to right to hearing
Interim disciplinary action
• Abhay Kumar v. K Srinivasan (1981)

• A student was barred to attend the classes and enter the campus till
criminal charges on him of stabbing a co-student is under
consideration.
• Court- compared such order to an order of suspension pending an
inquiry. It is preventive in character and does not attract principles of
natural justice
Contractual transactions
• State of Gujarat v. MP Shah Charitable Trust (1994)

• Principles of natural justice are not attracted in case of termination of

contractual arrangement. As termination of contractual arrangement
is neither quasi-judicial nor administrative
Useless Formality Theory
• Where on admitted and undisputed facts, only one conclusion is possible and only one
penalty is permissible, it would be futile to observe the principles of natural justice.

• Dharmarthmakara Rai Bahadur Acrot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v.

Education Appellate Tribunal
• Leave granted to a lecturer for doing an [Link], in violation of the leave condition joined
PhD.
• A notice was served and in reply she admitted joining the PhD Course.- Terminated.

• Court Held: opportunity to show cause was not necessary when the facts are
undisputed and the affected person cannot put any valid defense even if an opportunity
of hearing is given.