Admin law unit 3 notes

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.

Natural justice is the common law doctrine that provides important procedural rights in
administrative decisions- making. The doctrine now has a wide application and is presumed by the
courts to apply the exercise of virtually all statuary powers. But the courts have also accepted that
natural justice can be excluded by legislation that is expressed in sufficiently clear terms. The doctrine
(natural justice) is now termed as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the
most accepted methodology of governmental action.

It is a settled position of law that the rules of natural justice have many sides and cannot be put in a
straitjacket formula; in other words, they are flexible.

Rules of natural justice are synonymous to fairness in the backdrop of common sense. Natural justice
is another name for common-sense justice.

The purpose of following principles of natural justice is to prevent the miscarriage of Justice [Bharat
Ratna Indira Gandhi College of Engineering v State of Maharashtra AIR 2011 SC1912].

NeeD FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION

1. Administrative decision-making is a by-product of an intensive form of government. The

Government has plans of public health, education, planning, social security, transport, agriculture and
industrialization. It was impossible to carry out these programmes and determine the legal questions
involved therein with the assistance of the law courts because of their highly formal and ritualistic
approach.

2. Informal, cheap and quick adjudication: Litigation is time consuming and expensive. The case
Mahabir Jute Mills v. Shibban Lal Saxena was finally decided after a period of twenty- five years, when
most of the 400 persons who claimed justice on the ground of wrongful dismissal had died and the
new appointees in their place had completed twenty-five years of service.

3. Scope of expertise, specialization and experimentation: Developing new standards to prevent

environmental hazards arising out of industrialization requires the knowledge of an environmentalist.
Therefore, the need to develop new standards and to apply them has led to the growth of
administrative adjudication.

4. There is a growing importance on preventive justice rather than punishing: If it is necessary that
the injury done to the person is to be remedied, it is equally necessary that the chances of injury must
be eliminated. Therefore, it is necessary that any spurious drink or rotten article of food must be
destroyed before being offered for public sale. This can be done only by administrative agencies
exercising adjudicatory powers.

5. Fair Disposition of cases: Justice lies not in disposal of the case according to law but in fair
disposition. In cases like licensing, nationalisation, fixing priorities in planning and action the decision
is to be reached not according to law as such but on the ground of policy considerations. Therefore,
such matters are either unfit for courts' decision or courts, with their inherent limitations, are ill-
equipped to make such decisions.

6. Sympathetic attitude: Instead of concentrating on isolated facts in a dispute, the whole area is to
be concentrated upon coupled with an awareness of social context of the problem. While deciding
any labour dispute, the whole spectrum of industrial harmony necessary for national development is
to be kept in view.
Problems in Adjudication by Administrative

Administrative justice has been a host of controversies in India. A few common problems the
adjudicative process occurs are as follows:

(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.

(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’.

Principles of natural justice?

 Principle of Natural Justice is derived from the word ‘Jus Natural’ of the Roman law and it is
closely related to Common law and moral principles but is not codified.
 It is a law of nature which is not derived from any statute or constitution.
 The principle of natural justice is stick to by all the citizens of civilised State with Supreme
importance.
 In the ancient days , at the time when industrial areas ruled with a harsh and rigid law to hire
and fire, the Supreme court gave its command with the passage of duration and establishment
of social, justice and economy statutory protection for the workmen.
 Natural justice simply means to make a sensible and reasonable decision making procedure on a
particular issue. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter what is the reasonable decision but in the end,
what matters is the procedure and who all are engaged in taking the reasonable decision.
 It is not restricted within the concept of ‘fairness’ it has different colours and shades which vary
from the context
 In India, the principle of natural justice can be traced from Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. Article 14 says about the equality before the law and Article 21 talks about the
protection of life and personal liberty. Article 21 was defined in the case of Maneka Gandhi v.
The Union of India [1]

Basically, natural justice consists of 3 rules.

The first one is “Hearing rule” which states that the person or party who is affected by the decision
made by the panel of expert members should be given a fair opportunity to express his point of view
to defend himself.

Secondly, “Bias rule” generally expresses that panel of expert should be biased free while taking the
decision. The decision should be given in a free and fair manner which can fulfil the rule of natural
justice.

And thirdly, “Reasoned Decision” which states that order, decision or judgement of the court given by
the Presiding authorities with a valid and reasonable ground.

 In India, this concept was introduced at an early time. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs.
Chief Election Commissioner, the court held that the concept of fairness should be in every
action whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative and or quasi-administrative work.

Purpose of the principle

 To provide equal opportunity of being heard.

 Concept of Fairness.
 To fulfil the gaps and loopholes of the law.
 To protect the Fundamental Rights.
 Basic features of the Constitution.
 No miscarriage of Justice.
The principles of natural justice should be free from bias and parties should be given fair opportunity
to be heard and all the reasons and decision taken by the court should be informed by the court to
the respective parties.

Supreme court said that arriving at a reasonable and justifiable judgement is the purpose of judicial
and administrative bodies. The main purpose of natural justice is to prevent the act of miscarriage of
justice.

A committee i.e. “Ministers Power” gave 3 essentials procedure related to the principles of natural
justice.

1. No one should be a judge in his own matter.

2. No one can be condemned unheard.
3. The party is entitled to know each and every reason and the decision taken by the
authority.

Rules of Natural Justice

 NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA

 AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM
 REASONED DECISION

1. Nemo judex in causa sua

 “No one should be a judge in his own case” because it leads to rule of biases.
 Bias means an act which leads to unfair activity whether in a conscious or unconscious stage in
relation to the party or a particular case. Therefore, the necessity of this rule is to make the
judge impartial and given judgement on the basis of evidence recorded as per the case.
 The rule against bias strikes against those factors which may improperly influence a judge
against arriving at a decision in a particular case.
 This rule is based on the premises that it is against the human psychology to decide a case
against his own interest.
 The basic objective of this rule is to ensure public confidence in the impartiality of the
administrative adjudicatory process, for as per Lord Hewart CJ, in R v. Sussex[1], justice should
not only be done, but also manifestly and undoubtedly seen to be done.

Types of bias:
Bias manifests itself variously and affects a decision in a variety of ways. It can broadly be classified
into 4 categories:

Personal Bias
Pecuniary Bias
Subject Matter Bias
Departmental Bias

1. Personal Bias:


It arises out of the personal or professional relationship of friendship or hostility between the
authority and the parties. Its the human nature that we try to give favorable decision to our
friends or relatives, whereas use the same as a weapon against the enemies.

Apex courts decision in Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. V. State of Bihar the petitioners
were granted a mining lease for 99 years in 1947. But in 1955, government quashed the license.
The petitioners 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 the order was suffered from personal bias. Supreme Court found the allegation to be true
and thus quashed the said order.

2. Pecunairy bias

 If any of the judicial body has any kind of financial benefit, how so ever small it may be will lead
to administrative authority to biases.
 But this rule is not applicable where the judge, though having a financial interest, has no direct
financial interest in the outcome of the case.

3. Subject matter bias

When directly or indirectly the deciding authority is involved in the subject matter of a particular case.

Muralidhar vs. Kadam Singh The court refused to quash the decision of Election tribunal on the
ground that the chairman’s wife was a member of Congress party whom the petitioner defeated.

4. Departmental bias

The problem or issue of departmental bias is very common in every administrative process and it is
not checked effectively and on every small interval period it will lead to negative concept of fairness
will get vanished in the proceeding.

The problem of departmental bias arises in different context- when the functions of judge and
prosecutor are combined in the same department. It is not uncommon to find that the same
department which initiates a matter also decides it, therefore, at times, departmental fraternity and
loyalty militates against the concept of fair hearing.

2. Audi Alteram Partem

 This maxim means “hear the other side” or no man should be unheard, both the parties have an
opportunity of being heard. Justice will be given to both parties.
 Audi alteram partem is from a latin phrase “audiatur et altera pars”. Its meaning is also the
same as hear the other side.
 This is a very strong rule which means no one will be judged without fair hearing.
 The motive of this maxim is to provide an opportunity to other party to respond to the evidence
against him.
 This maxim has been applied to ensure fair play and justice to the person who is affected. It is
mainly applicable in the field of administrative action. The procedure which is adopted should be
just and fair. The person should be given an opportunity so that he can defend himself before
the court of law. The person who decides anything without hearing the other side although he
says what is right but he would not have done what is right.
 The principle of hearing is basically a code of procedure and thus covers every stage through
which an administrative jurisdiction passes that is from notice to final determination.
 A person will not suffer unless and until he had an opportunity of being heard. This is the primary
rule of humanized statute and is acknowledged by the laws of men and god.
 Before any order is passed against any individual person, sensible chance of being heard must
be given to him. In this maxim two principles are considered that is fundamental justice and
equity.

Essential elements
The essential elements of this maxim are as follow:

 Notice
Before any action is taken against the party who is affected. A notice must be provided to them in
order to present a cause against the proposed action and pursue his application.

If any order is passed without giving notice then it is against the principle of natural justice and
is void ab initio which means void from the beginning.

It is a right of person to know about the facts before any action is taken and without knowing the
proper facts, a person cannot protect himself.

The right to notice means right to be known. The facts should be known by the party before the
hearing of the case.

Notice is essential to begin any hearing. Notice must contain the date, time, place of hearing and also
the jurisdiction under which a case is filed. It must also contain the charges and proposed against the
person. If any of the thing is missing in the notice then notice will be considered invalid.

Non issuance of notice does not affect the jurisdiction but affects the rules of natural justice.

Case – Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India[3]

The notice which is given to the parties should be clear and unambiguous. If it is ambiguous and it is
not clear then the notice will not be considered as reasonable and proper.
  Hearing
The second most essential element of audi alteram partem is fair hearing. If the order passed by the
authority without hearing the party or without giving him an opportunity of being heard then it will
be considered as an invalid.

The reasonable opportunity of hearing which is also well known as 'fair hearing' is an important
ingredient of the audi alteram partem rule. This condition may be complied by the authority by
providing written or oral hearing which is the discretion of the authority, unless the statue under
which the action being taken by the authority provides

 Evidence
Evidence is considered as a most important part which is brought before the court when both the
parties are present there and the judicial or quasi judicial authority will act upon the evidence which is
produced before the court.

Case – Stafford v Minister of Health

In this case, it was held that no evidence should be received in the absence of the other party and if
any such evidence is recorded then it is the duty of authority to make it available to the other party.


Cross examination
The court should not require to reveal the person concerned or material to be taken against him, but
an opportunity is provided them to deny the evidence. The question arises that will witness will be
cross examined

Case – Kanungo & Co. v Collector of Customs [5]

In this case, the business property of a person was investigated and some watches were seized by the
police who was in power under the Sea Customs Act. A person who gave the information was not
allowed for cross examination. The principle of natural justice was not violated and the court held
that principle of natural justice does not allow the concerned person to cross examine against the
witness in the matter where goods are seized under the Sea Custom Act.

 Legal Representation
the representation through a legal advisor in the authoritative arbitration isn’t considered as an
imperative piece of the reasonable hearing. Be that as it may, in specific circumstances in the event
that the privilege to legal representation is not rejected and at that point it adds up to infringement of
natural justice.

Case – J.J Mody v State of Bombay and Krishna Chandra v Union of India

In this case, it was held that refusal of legal representation amounts to the violation of natural justice
because the party was not able to understand the rules of law effectively and they should get a
chance of being heard once again.

Exceptions
The rule of audi alteram partem is held inapplicable not by method for a special case to “reasonable
play in real life”, but since nothing unjustifiable can be derived by not managing a chance to present a
case.

 Statutory exclusion
Natural justice is submitted by the Courts when the parent statutes under which an action is made by
the administration is quiet as to its application. Exclusion to make reference to one side of hearing in
the statutory arrangement does not reject the hearing of the other party.

 Impractibility
The concept of natural justice is involved when it is practicable to do so but it is not applied in the
case where it is impracticable to apply the rule and in such a situation it is excluded.

 Academic Evolution
Where nature of power are absolutely regulatory then no privilege of hearing can be asserted.

Case – Jawaharlal Nehru University v. B.S. Narwal, B.S Narwal,

In this case, a student of Jawaharlal Nehru University was expelled from the class because his
academic performance was not satisfactory and it was done without being given any pre decisional
hearing. The Supreme Court held that the idea of academic adjudication seems to be negative. In this
way, if the skilled scholarly experts look at work crafted by student over some duration and declare
his work unacceptable, principle of natural justice might be rejected.

 Inter-Disciplinary Action
The words like suspension etc. which is inter-disciplinary action in such cases there is no need of the
rule of natural justice.

Case – S.A. Khan v. State of Haryana

In this case, Mr. Khan was at the post of deputy inspector general haryana and was IPS officer. He was
suspended by the haryana government because many complaints were made against him. He filed a
suit in the Supreme Court that he does not get an opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court
held that suspension was because of interdisciplinary approach and there is no requirement of
hearing once.

3. Reasoned decision

 "Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa" and "Audi alterem partem" are two pillars of
natural justice. Speaking order or reasoned order is considered the third pillar of natural justice.
 A reasoned decision is called a reasoned decision because it contains reasons of its own in its
support. When the adjudicating body provides the reason behind their decision, the decision is
treated as the reasoned decision.
