Theoretical overview
- The term administrative decision making is used synonymous with administrative adjudication, it may be regarded as a new development. After India got independence in 1947, the government embarked on ambitious, massive plans of public health, education, planning, social security, transport, agriculture, industrialization and national assistance. It was impossible to carry out these programs and determine the legal questions involved therein with the assistance of law courts because of their highly individualistic and ritualistic approach. Therefore, if social control over this area of action was desirable, administrative decision making was the only answer.
- Another reason for the need of this system was the desire to provide a system of adjudication which was informal, cheap and quick. Litigation before a court of law is not only time consuming but is a luxury of the rich. Therefore, it became clear that the weight of social legislation would be intolerable, both for the people and the court, and the burden had to be shared by the administrative adjudicatory system.
- An even more important cause for the growth was the need to explore new public law standards based on moral and social principles away from the highly individualistic norms developed by the courts. The supreme court once said that leaving such technical matters to the decision of the court is like giving surgery to a barber and medicine to an astrologist. Therefore, the need to develop new standards and apply them has led to the growth of administrative adjudication.
- Decision in some areas is to be reached not merely according to strict principles of law but on the principle of mutual give and take. Here again administrative adjudication is the answer because courts, due to their limit, cannot adopt this approach. Courts are already groaning under the weight of pending cases which would virtually lead to the collapse of the judicial system. Therefore, administrative adjudication will be fruitful.
Important differences
Court of law | Administrative adjudicatory agency |
A court first ascertains facts and then applies law to these facts | It proceeds with controlled fact finding and uncontrolled application of policy |
Disposes matter by applying laws to facts | Disposes matter by applying policy to the facts |
Courts exercise only judicial functions | It exercises various other administrative functions also |
It follows a uniform, fixed statutory procedure | No uniform procedure is followed |
Important case laws
- Mahabir Jute Mills v. Shibban Lal Saxena – it was a long-drawn-out legal battle, the case was finally decided after a period of 25 years, when most of the 400 persons who claimed justice on the ground of wrongful dismissal had died. Therefore, it became clear that the burden is to be shared by the administrative adjudicatory system.
Important sections
- Article 217- the president of India discharges multifarious functions and also decides relating to the age of the judge.
- Article 323 A – related to tribunals
- ARTICLE 323 B – also related to tribunals
Points to remember
- Reason for the need for an administrative adjudication system was the desire to provide a system of adjudication which was informal, cheap and quick.
- There was the need to explore new public law standards based on moral and social principles away from the highly individualistic norms developed by the courts.
- Decision in some areas is to be reached not merely according to strict principles of law but on the principle of mutual give and take.
- Courts are already groaning under the weight of pending cases which would virtually lead to the collapse of the judicial system
- Administrative adjudication will be fruitful.