Administrative Adjudication: Meaning, Features and Growth

Introduction

'Administrative decision-making' or 'Administrative Adjudication' emerged as a result of the growing role of government in people's lives and the increasing need for legal decisions that align with social policies. This need arose because the traditional court system, with its highly individualistic and formal methods, cannot provide the level and quality of justice required in a welfare state.

Natural justice, a principle rooted in common law, offers essential procedural rights in administrative decision-making. This principle is now widely applied by courts to almost all statutory powers. However, courts have also acknowledged that natural justice can be excluded if legislation clearly states so. Today, natural justice is often seen as synonymous with fairness in justice and is widely recognized as a key method for ensuring fair government actions.

It's well established that the rules of natural justice are flexible and cannot be rigidly defined; they are linked to fairness and common sense. Natural justice is essentially common-sense justice, and the key question to ask in any case is whether the authorities acted fairly [Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725].

The main goal of following natural justice principles is to prevent injustice [Bharat Ratna Indira Gandhi College of Engineering v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2011 SC 1912]. Today, most decisions affecting personal or property rights come from administrative bodies, not courts. Sometimes, adjudication is just a part of administration, and at other times, it closely resembles the work typically done by the judiciary.

'Administrative decision-making' or 'Administrative Adjudication' is a by-product of an intensive form of government and the socialization of law. The traditional judicial system, with its highly individualistic and formalistic approach, cannot provide the level and quality of justice needed in a welfare state.

Need for Administrative Adjudication

• Informal, Affordable, and Quick: Administrative adjudication offers a system that is less formal, more affordable, and faster compared to traditional courts.
• New Standards Based on Social and Moral Principles: Unlike courts that often rely on individualistic norms, administrative adjudication helps establish new public law standards based on moral and social values.
• Focus on Preventive Justice: Today, there is a stronger focus on preventing issues rather than just punishing them. Administrative agencies, with their adjudicatory powers, are well-suited to this preventive approach.

However, some argue that administrative adjudication was developed more for government convenience than for public need. There are concerns about the independence of administrators acting as judges and worries about their potential bias against legal norms.

Problems in Administrative Adjudication

Administrative justice in India faces several challenges, and some common problems in the adjudicative process are as follows:

• Number and Complexity: There are many adjudicative bodies, each with its own decision-making system. This can lead to inconsistent decisions and procedures.
• Lack of a Systematic Appeal Process: There is no uniform system for appeals. Some decisions can be appealed to an independent tribunal, while others go to a higher administrative agency.
• Invisibility and Anonymity of Decisions: Many administrative agencies do not publish their decisions, making them immune to public scrutiny.
• Unpredictability and Lack of Precedent: Administrative agencies don't follow the doctrine of precedent, leading to inconsistent decisions.
• Combination of Roles: In many disciplinary proceedings, the roles of prosecutor and judge are combined, leading to bias.
• No Evidence Rule: The strict rules of evidence that apply in courts do not apply to administrative adjudications in India.
• Official Perspective and Bias: There is an inherent official perspective in administrative justice, with a presumption of guilt rather than innocence in disciplinary proceedings.
• Plea Bargaining: Employees are sometimes pressured into pleading guilty to lesser charges in exchange for reduced punishment.
• Political Interference: Administrative justice is often subject to political interference, which can undermine its fairness.
• Lack of Reasoned Decisions: Administrative authorities are generally not required to provide reasons for their decisions, weakening public trust.
• Limited Legal Representation and Cross-Examination: There is no general requirement for administrative authorities to allow legal representation and cross-examination in every case.

Rules of Natural Justice in Administrative Adjudication

The rules of natural justice, which apply to administrative adjudication, include the following principles:

• Notice: Every person whose rights are affected must receive reasonable notice of the matter they need to address.
• Right to Be Heard: The person must have a reasonable opportunity to present their case and defend themselves.
• Impartial Hearing: The hearing should be conducted by an impartial person who is not directly or indirectly involved in the case and has no personal interest in the matter.
• Good Faith and Reasonableness: The authority hearing the case must act in good faith, making decisions fairly and reasonably, without any arbitrary actions.

Key Features of Natural Justice

• Clear Allegations: The charges against an individual should be specific, precise, and presented in writing.
• Adequate Time: The individual should be given enough time to respond to the charges and prepare their defense before an inquiry is conducted.
• Impartial Inquiry Officer: The inquiry officer conducting the investigation should be completely unbiased and not involved in the incident.
• Fair Examination: All witnesses for the prosecution should be examined one by one in the presence of the accused person, with their statements recorded.
• Right to Cross-Examine: The accused or their representative should be given ample opportunity to cross-examine each witness.

Reasons for the Growth of Administrative Adjudication

Administrative adjudication has grown significantly as it plays a crucial role in protecting citizens' rights while managing state authority. Here are some key reasons for this growth:

• Preventive Measures: Administrative authorities can take precautionary steps before any legal violations occur.
• Effective Enforcement: Administrative bodies have the power to enforce preventive measures, such as suspending or revoking licenses and destroying harmful products.
• Judicial Overload: The Indian judicial system is overburdened with cases, leading to slow, costly, and complex legal proceedings.
• Inadequate Legislative Process: The legislative process in India is often slow and outdated, leading to delays in justice.