Judicial Control of Administrative Authorities | Administrative Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Judicial Control

Quasi-Judicial Overview

• Quasi-judicial refers to actions that are not entirely judicial but involve an executive body or authority following judicial procedures in certain executive functions.
• When an administrative body performs an adjudicatory function in a dispute between two parties, it is acting in a quasi-judicial manner. However, the presence of a dispute is not always necessary to characterize an action as quasi-judicial.
• The case of Ridge v. Baldwin established that the duty to act judicially can stem from the nature of the function performed by the authority.

Authority and Guidelines

• An authority exercising quasi-judicial power is not bound by guidelines from a higher authority and must make independent decisions.
• A departmental proceeding, where an enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, is an example of such authority.

Principles of Natural Justice

• Quasi-judicial functions are characterized by two key aspects:
• Principles of Natural Justice: The authority must adhere to principles of natural justice.
• Review of Decisions: Once a decision is made, the authority cannot review it unless granted statutory authority.

Determining Character of Decisions

• The nature of a decision—whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial, or executive—depends on the specific rules, the scope of power exercised, and the circumstances of each case.
• When a statute is silent, the nature of the decision can be inferred from the act's general scheme, provisions, or objectives.
• Subjective phrases like 'is of the opinion' or 'reasonable grounds to believe' indicate an executive decision, even if there is an appeal provision.
• If a decision involves determining issues between opposing parties' rights, it is considered quasi-judicial.

Distinction between Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Functions

• Administrative acts can be purely administrative, legislative, or judicial in nature. Differentiating between purely administrative and judicial or quasi-judicial decisions is challenging.
• As administrative powers expand, guidelines may be necessary to prevent abuse of power and ensure fairness.
• Understanding the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions involves the concepts of 'lis' (dispute between parties) and 'quasi-lis' (dispute involving the authority and another party).

Administrative Authorities as Quasi-Judicial

• Some administrative authorities are considered quasi-judicial when they decide disputes between parties, such as Rent Tribunals, Election Tribunals, Industrial Tribunals, and Licensing Tribunals.
• Quasi-lis occurs when an administrative authority makes a decision affecting a person's rights without contesting parties, such as granting legal aid, dismissing an employee, or revoking a license.

Duty to Act Judicially

• The key factor distinguishing quasi-judicial from administrative acts is the duty to act judicially. Determining whether a statutory authority is quasi-judicial involves assessing this duty.
• The duty to act judicially can arise in various circumstances, and when explicitly stated in a statute, the authority's action is considered quasi-judicial.
• In the absence of explicit provisions, the duty to act judicially can be inferred from the nature of rights affected, disposal manner, objective criteria, and other statutory indications.

Duty to Act Fairly

• The concept of 'duty to act fairly' has gained prominence over 'duty to act judicially.' This broader notion applies even in cases without a dispute and has led to doctrines like 'fair play in action' and 'legitimate expectations.'

Cases Illustrating Quasi-Judicial Principles

• In the case of Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani, the Supreme Court ruled that the government's decision to requisition land under the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance was not quasi-judicial as it was based on subjective satisfaction 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 as the grantor was not obligated to act judicially in revoking the permission.

Determining Administrative vs. Quasi-Judicial Functions

• No strict formula exists to distinguish between administrative and quasi-judicial functions. The thin line between the two is gradually being blurred.
• Nature of power conferred, the persons involved, the legal framework, consequences of power exercise, and expected manner of exercise are key considerations.
• Acting judicially essentially means acting justly, fairly, and not arbitrarily. Procedures associated with quasi-judicial power aim to ensure fair decisions.
• The concept of quasi-judicial power is evolving, with former administrative powers now being viewed as quasi-judicial in nature.
• Whether a function is administrative or quasi-judicial is determined case by case, considering relevant statutes, rules, and the specific facts and circumstances.

Evolution of Judicial Review

• Prerogative remedies like certiorari and prohibition were once limited to judicial functions of public bodies. Now, they apply to administrative and even legislative functions.
• The focus is on the quality and attributes of the decision rather than its classification. The test of justiciability has replaced the classification of function as a determinant for judicial review.

Considerations Observed by the Supreme Court of India

• Lis inter parties: Dispute between two parties, as seen in cases like Associated Cement Companies v. P.N. Sharma and the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case.
• Nature of rights affected: Whether fundamental, civil, or legal rights are impacted, as in the case of Metropolitan Commissioner.
• Express or implied provision in the statute: Statutory mandates, such as the revocation of land allotted by a cooperative society.
• Statutory authority's power to act prejudicially: Cases like Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India where authority is required to act judicially.
• Authority with court-like powers: Authorities with powers to summon witnesses, examine documents, and pass orders with reasons.
• Adverse effects on rights or interests: Decisions that disadvantage parties or the public, as seen in Manish Dixit & Others v. State of Rajasthan.
• Nature of intended function: Functions like adjudicating professional misconduct cases by Bar Council of India members require a judicial mindset, unlike public policy matters such as issuing caste certificates.
• Departmental enquiries: Requiring a judicial approach, whereas functions like price fixation and license issuance may not be quasi-judicial.
• Winding up proceedings: Auction sales during company winding up, involving creditors and auction purchasers.
• Emergent situations: Postponement of examinations during urgent situations, requiring fair and just actions by authorities.

Quasi-Judicial Decision

• The English Courts consider every administrative action as judicial if it negatively impacts a person's rights or involves a penalty, as stated by Lord Parker.
• Courts require a 'duty to act judicially' from the body performing the act when granting writs of certiorari or prohibition.
• The term 'quasi-judicial' refers to powers that, although administrative, must be exercised with judicial characteristics, such as following natural justice principles.
• Quasi-judicial decisions involve finding facts and applying administrative policy, as opposed to strictly applying law.
• Decisions are deemed quasi-judicial or executive based on the statute's terms, regardless of the body's function.
• Quasi-judicial decisions should be objective, evidence-based, and made by a determinate authority without delegation rights.

Principles of Natural Justice

• Natural Justice aims to ensure fairness and prevent miscarriages of justice in administrative decision-making.
• In India, there is no specific statute outlining the procedures administrative agencies must follow, but courts emphasize the need for a minimum fair procedure, which aligns with the principles of natural justice.
• Natural justice is rooted in common law and is similar to the American concept of "Due Process" and civil law's "proportionality."
• The principles of natural justice are flexible and context-dependent, requiring a case-by-case approach.
• Natural justice is based on common sense and the intrinsic human understanding of right and wrong, aiming to improve administrative decisions and uphold the rule of law.
• Natural justice principles are not rigid rules but are ingrained in human conscience and aim to prevent miscarriages of justice.
• The two main principles of natural justice are:
  • Nemo judex in re sua: No one should be a judge in their own cause, ensuring impartiality.
  • Audi alteram partem: Everyone affected by a decision has the right to be heard, ensuring fairness.
• These principles are now integrated into Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing fairness in administrative actions.
• Judicial interventions based on natural justice principles are valid only when prejudice is caused due to non-observance.

Situations Attracting Principles of Natural Justice

• Natural justice principles come into play when an individual faces severe consequences or prejudice due to administrative actions.
• Civil consequences include infringement of personal or property rights, violation of civil liberties, material deprivation, or non-pecuniary damages. Loss of legitimate expectation can also trigger these principles.
• In cases where a person suffers prejudice or adverse consequences without a legal basis for their claim, they are entitled to the benefits of natural justice principles.
• Essentially, any administrative action causing harm or adverse effects in an individual's civil life invokes civil consequences.
• In Dev Dutta v. UOI, the Supreme Court ruled that even a positive entry in a confidential report should be communicated if it affects a person's promotion. This illustrates that natural justice, a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution, takes precedence over conflicting rules.
• Mere violation of natural justice principles is insufficient for judicial intervention unless it also causes avoidable prejudice to the individual.
• The applicability of natural justice principles is not contingent on statutory provisions; they are invoked whenever prejudice occurs.

Nemo Judex in Re Sua
The first principle of natural justice is the rule against bias or interest, encapsulated in three maxims:

• 'No man shall be the judge in his own case.'—This maxim emphasizes that an individual should not adjudicate a matter in which they have a personal interest.
• 'Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.'—This principle underscores the importance of transparency and the public's perception of fairness in the judicial process.
• 'Judges, like Caesar's wife, should be above suspicion.'—This maxim highlights the necessity for judges to maintain an image of impartiality and integrity, free from any suspicion of bias.