THEORITICAL OVERVIEW
Administrative justice refers to the principles and processes that ensure fairness and accountability in the decisions and actions of administrative bodies. While the specific problems associated with administrative justice can vary depending on the jurisdiction and context as people doubt the independence of administrators as judges and also fear their non-legal approach.
Some common issues that may arise in administrative justice are-
1. Lack of transparency: Administrative bodies may lack transparency in their decision-making processes, making it difficult for individuals to understand the basis for decisions or challenge them effectively. This can lead to a lack of trust in the system and perceptions of unfairness.
2. Bias and discrimination: There may be instances of bias or discrimination in administrative decision-making, where certain individuals or groups are treated unfairly or disadvantaged based on factors such as race, gender, or socioeconomic status. This undermines the principle of equal treatment and can perpetuate systemic injustices.
3. Delayed and lengthy proceedings: Administrative processes can be time-consuming and prolonged, causing significant delays in resolving disputes or addressing grievances. Lengthy proceedings can create frustration for individuals seeking justice and may prevent timely resolution of issues.
4. Limited access to legal representation: Individuals involved in administrative proceedings may face challenges in accessing legal representation, particularly if they cannot afford legal services. This inequality in access to legal expertise can undermine the ability of individuals to effectively present their case and defend their rights.
5. Inadequate remedies and enforcement: Even if administrative decisions are found to be unfair or unlawful, the available remedies may be insufficient or ineffective in addressing the harm suffered. Additionally, there may be challenges in enforcing administrative decisions, which can further undermine trust in the system.
6. Insufficient accountability mechanisms: Administrative bodies may lack robust accountability mechanisms, making it difficult to hold decision-makers accountable for errors, misconduct, or maladministration. This can result in a lack of consequences for unjust or unlawful actions.
7. Complexity and lack of clarity: Administrative processes and regulations can be complex and difficult to navigate, particularly for individuals without legal expertise. This complexity can create barriers to accessing justice and understanding one’s rights and obligations.
RELEVANT SECTIONS/ARTICLES OF THE CONSTITUTION
Article 32 and 226 were amended and Articles 323A and 323B were introduced to transfer jurisdiction from the High court and Supreme court.
- Article 32: Article 32 of the Indian Constitution gives the right to individuals to move to the Supreme Court to seek justice when they feel that their right has been ‘unduly deprived’. The apex court is given the authority to issue directions or orders for the execution of any of the rights bestowed by the constitution as it is considered ‘the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights’.
- Article 226: Article 226 gives High Courts the ability to issue instructions, orders, and writs to any person or authority, including the government. Whereas, Article 227 gives High Courts the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals in the territory over which they have jurisdiction.
- Articles 323A: Article 323A provides the establishment of administrative tribunals by law made by Parliament for the adjudication of disputes and complaints related to the recruitment and conditions of service of Government servants under the Central Government and the State Government.
- Article 323B: Article 323B empowers the Parliament and the State Legislature to establish tribunals for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the matters specified under clause (2) of Article 323B. Some of the matters given under clause (2) are a levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of any tax; foreign exchange and export; industrial and labour disputes; production, procurement, supply and distribution of foodstuffs; rent and it’s regulation and control and tenancy issues etc.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS
1. Kamal Kanti Dutta vs. Union of India: In the said case the writs against the public authorities which were to be taken up by tribunals was suggested that an administrative tribunal should be the apex body for adjudication of such matters that were related to the service of public officials
2. Board of Education v. Rice: In the said case the issue was Whether the Board of Education is justified in exercising its powers? The court was not able to reach a conclusion regarding whether or not the managers had efficiently managed the school but asserted that when a decision-making body like the Board is given such power, they are under an obligation to act in good faith, giving both sides a fair and equal opportunity to be heard. Any controversial matter between the parties must be decided only after listening to them carefully and allowing them to contend on those issues.
3. Local Government Board v. Arlidge : In the case, the decision of the local authority to destroy the house of the appellant was challenged in court. It was held that authority of the Government when adjudicating on a housing appeal is not required to give notice to the appellant. Additionally, it was stated that when a householder has been deemed to be unfit for habitation the legal right to be heard orally does not exist. The court further clarified that the right to be heard does not necessarily mean the right to be heard orally.
4. Nakkuda Ali v. Jayaratne: This case justified deviance from natural justice. In this case, the license of a textile owner is revoked by the Controller of Textiles. He seeks to challenge this decision before the court seeking to quash the revocation on the grounds that he was not heard and did not have the opportunity to make a fair case. It was held by the Court that there was no existing duty of the Controller to comply with the principles of natural justice as the issue in the case is not of those regarding rights. The action of the Controller was a part of his executive duty.
5. R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner exp. Parker, 1953: In this case, the driver’s license of a cab driver is revoked by the Commissioner of Police. An inquiry was conducted where the cab driver wanted to present a witness but this was not allowed. It was argued by the driver that the decision of the Commissioner based on the inquiry was wrong and opposed to the principles of natural justice. The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence that proved that the driver indulged in immoral activities like allowing his cab for intercourse or even for carrying wrongful trades. There were provisions which allowed for the revocation of a license if the license holder is found to be unfit to possess such a license. Also, the court stated that the commissioner took disciplinary action against the driver and he does not act as a judicial body This implies that the provision to quash such an order cannot be granted and hence natural justice cannot apply in this case.
IMPORTANT LEGAL MAXIMS
1. NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA: This principle translates to “No man shall be the judge in his case”. It essentially means that a person cannot judge his cause of action as it could result in severe injustice. It is also known as the rule of biases, as it attempts to eliminate any partiality or bias that could be caused by the judge.
2. AUDI ALTEREM PARTEM: No man shall be condemned unheard. This principle means “Hear the other side”, which in effect implies that each party must be given the opportunity of a fair hearing. It includes two rights: Right to proper notice before the case, which gives the party enough time to prepare a strong case. The right to be heard fairly, in front of an unbiased panel/body and present their case.
OTHER IMPORTANT CONCEPT
‘Right First-time’ decision: Under this principle, a focus is made on initial decision making under administration to foresee the possible consequences of a wrong decision and making changes accordingly. Administration of justice could be made more effective by eliminating the redundancy of errors if there is proper decision making done by the administration. A report by the Administrative Justice and Tribunal Council showed the poor decision making by public bodies and highlighted the low level of learning from effective feedback and appeals. The government by making proper initial decisions could reduce a lot of unnecessary costs, speeding up the delivery of justice and also reduce the work of tribunals, thereby smoothening the entire process.
POINTS TO REMEMBER
- Enhanced quality of administrative justice is essential to open 21st-century democracy and a strong administrative justice system is equally important if the government is to maintain the trust of the public in its ability to deliver quality public services.
- There must be serious efforts to provide fair access to administrative justice and eliminate the obstacles that work against it.
- The Government must work on analysing and recognising their poor decision-making in the past which resulted in failed attempts to provide administrative justice to the people.
- Addressing these problems requires ongoing efforts to improve the transparency, accountability, and efficiency of administrative justice systems. This can involve reforms in legislation, procedures, and training to promote fair and accessible decision-making, enhance remedies, and strengthen mechanisms for oversight and accountability
- The Government must look into the enactment of a statute like the Promotion of Justice Act, 2000 which would define and monitor fair administration of justice.
- There need to be reforms that are to be made regarding the functioning of tribunals. It is about time they are accessible online.
- The importance given to the quasi-judicial bodies must also be increased as they play a crucial role in a democracy in the making and reviewing of administrative decisions.
