Classification of Administrative Action | Administrative Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

Classification of Administrative Action is crucial for effective governance.
Halsbury's Laws of England explains that the terms 'the Executive' or 'the Administration' do not limit the executive's functions to just administrative tasks. Today, the executive carries out a range of activities, including:

• Administrative tasks like investigating and issuing licenses.
• Legislative tasks like making rules and fixing prices.
• Judicial tasks like adjudicating disputes and imposing penalties.

Schwartz points out that rule-making (quasi-legislative) and adjudication (quasi-judicial) are now central to administrative functions.

Need for Classification

• Determining whether executive functions are purely administrative, quasi-judicial, or quasi-legislative is challenging due to the lack of a precise test for differentiation.
• Administrative and quasi-judicial decisions often overlap with legislative activities, making classification difficult.
• Courts have not established a clear test for this classification, yet it is essential due to the different legal implications that arise from each category.
• For example:
  • Judicial or quasi-judicial functions must follow natural justice principles and are subject to writs like certiorari or prohibition.
  • Legislative or quasi-legislative actions do not require natural justice and have specific publication and procedural requirements.
  • Administrative functions allow for delegation, while judicial functions do not.
  • Legislative actions can be challenged for unreasonableness, unlike administrative decisions.
• Therefore, it is crucial to identify the type of function being performed by the administrative authority.

Classification of Administrative Actions

(a) Legislative Functions

• Legislative functions involve making rules, regulations, and bye-laws, known as Delegated Legislation in administrative law.
• Despite the difficulty in distinguishing between legislative and administrative functions, it is necessary due to the different legal rights and consequences involved.
• For example, in the case of Bates v. Lord Hailsham, it was established that the rules of natural justice do not apply in the context of legislation, whether primary or delegated.
• Examples of legislative functions include:
  • Fixation of price
  • Declaration of a place as a market yard
  • Imposition of tax
  • Establishment of a Municipal Corporation
  • Extension of town area committee limits
• Rule-making actions by the administration exhibit characteristics similar to legislative processes, such as generality, prospectivity, and policy-based considerations that confer rights or disabilities, although exceptions exist.

Judicial Function

• A pure judicial functioninvolves resolving a dispute between parties and includes four key steps:
  • Presentation of cases by the parties involved.
  • Fact determination through evidence and arguments.
  • Legal arguments if the dispute is about law.
  • A decision that resolves the matter based on facts and law.
• A quasi-judicial function has some judicial traits but not all. It involves aspects like dispute resolution but may lack strict adherence to legal procedures.
• For instance, a Minister making a decision based on certain facts has a judicial element but also significant administrative discretion.
• Critics argue that the traditional view of judicial and quasi-judicial functions oversimplifies the reality where discretion plays a role in both.
• Quasi-judicial decisions are more flexible than judicial ones, blending administrative discretion with procedural fairness.
• Administrative decisions today often come from agencies with adjudicatory roles, reflecting a shift from traditional judicial processes to meet the demands of a welfare state.In Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court highlighted that executive functions are what remains after legislative and judicial functions are accounted for.

Administrative Functions

• Administrative functions are those that are neither legislative nor judicial in nature. They typically involve the following characteristics:
  • Decisions are usually based on government policy or expediency.
  • There is often no legal obligation to adopt a judicial approach, making decisions more subjective.
  • Authorities are not bound by rules of evidence and procedure unless specifically required by statute.
  • Decisions can be made with or without statutory provision, as long as they do not violate any laws.
  • Administrative functions can be delegated or sub-delegated unless prohibited by statute.
  • Authorities may consider evidence from parties involved but also have the discretion to use other factors.
  • Principles of natural justice may not apply unless explicitly stated in law or required to act fairly.
  • Decisions can be deemed unreasonable and invalid.
  • Administrative actions do not become quasi-judicial just because they involve forming an opinion on objective facts.
  • Writs of certiorari and prohibition are not always applicable against administrative actions.

Distinctions Between Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Functions

• A quasi-judicial authority possesses some characteristics of a court but not all, yet is still required to act judicially.
• In a judicial function, a dispute between parties is essential, whereas this may not be the case in a quasi-judicial function.
• A court must adhere to strict rules of evidence and procedure, while a quasi-judicial authority does not have this obligation.
• Courts are bound by legal precedents, whereas quasi-judicial authorities are not.
• Unlike a court, which cannot be a party to its own case (except in contempt situations), an administrative authority with quasi-judicial powers can be involved in the controversy it decides

Distinctions Between Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Functions

• Actions by an administrative authority can be purely administrative, legislative, or judicial in nature. Purely administrative decisions are fundamentally different from judicial and quasi-judicial decisions, making it challenging to distinguish between them.
• The distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions hinges on the presence of a lis(dispute) between parties. When an administrative authority is required to adjudicate a dispute between parties, it is acting in a quasi-judicial manner.
• Certain administrative authorities, such as Rent Tribunals, Election Tribunals, Industrial Tribunals, and Licensing Tribunals, are considered quasi-judicial when they decide disputes between parties.
• In some cases, an administrative authority may decide a dispute not between contesting parties but between itself and another party. If the decision adversely affects the rights of a person, it is considered quasi-judicial.
• Examples of quasi-judicial decisions include granting legal aid, dismissing an employee, revoking or suspending a licence, cancelling a student's examination result, or rusticating a pupil.
• In these cases, even though there are no two parties before the administrative authority, the decision resembles a lis because it affects the rights of individuals. The authority must decide the matter objectively, and if it exceeds or abuses its powers, a writ of certiorari can be issued against it.
• The key distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative acts is the duty to act judicially. To determine whether a statutory authority is quasi-judicial or administrative, it is essential to ascertain if the authority has the duty to act judicially.
• The duty to act judicially may arise in various circumstances, and when a statute explicitly requires an administrative authority to act judicially, its action is considered quasi-judicial. However, this is often a tautology.
• In the absence of explicit provisions in statutes, the duty to act judicially can be inferred from factors such as the nature of the rights affected, the manner of disposal, the objective criterion, the phraseology used, and the nature of the power conferred.
• The trend has shifted from duty to act judicially to duty to act fairly, which is a broader concept applicable even in cases without a lis. This shift has led to doctrines like fair play in action, legitimate expectations, and proportionality.

Cases Illustrating the Distinction

• In the case of Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani, the Supreme Court held that the governmental function of requisitioning property under the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance was not quasi-judicial, as it was based on the subjective satisfaction of the Government and did not require judicial action.
• Similarly, in R. v. Metropolitan Police Commr., ex p. Parker, the revocation of a cab driver's licence was upheld on the grounds that the licence was a permission that could be revoked at any time by the grantor without the need for judicial action.

Test for Distinguishing Functions

• No definitive formula exists to distinguish quasi-judicial functions from administrative functions. The line between the two is thin and gradually blurring.
• To determine whether a power is administrative or quasi-judicial, one must consider the nature of the power conferred, the persons on whom it is conferred, the legal framework, the consequences of exercising the power, and the expected manner of exercise.
• The requirement to act judicially essentially means to act justly, fairly, and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The procedures inherent in quasi-judicial power are those that ensure a just and fair decision.
• The concept of quasi-judicial power is evolving, with functions once deemed administrative now recognized as quasi-judicial. The classification of a function as administrative or quasi-judicial depends on the examination of relevant statutes, rules, and the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
• Prerogative remedies like certiorari and prohibition, once limited to judicial functions, are now applicable to administrative and legislative functions as well. The focus is on the quality and attributes of the decision rather than its label.
• The test of justiciability has replaced the classification of function as the determinant for judicial review, emphasizing the appropriateness of a decision for judicial scrutiny.