CHAPTER II

Meaning and general conspectus of administrative adjudication

Administrative adjudication is the process by which an administrative agency issues an

affirmative, negative, injunctive, or declaratory order. The formal proceedings before an
administrative agency adopt the process of rule making or adjudication. In rule making
process, the policies are formulated by setting rules for the future conduct of persons
governed by that agency. While in adjudication process, the agency's policies are applied to
the past actions of a particular party, and it results in an order for or against that party. Both
these methods are regulated by the law of administrative procedure.

The term administrative adjudication has been used synonymously with administrative
justice. In a socialist society, bulks of cases are not decided by the ordinary courts. When a
dispute arises between an administrative agency and a private person it is settled by the
administration, this is called administrative adjudication.

Jural postulates play a vital role in administrative adjudication. This is so because

administrative adjudication is based on the assumption that when liberty is substracted,
justice has to be added. It is necessary to make the people conscious of the view that
administrative powers will be exercised according to their notion of good behavior and good
administration. When the government is given more and more powers, public opinion
becomes more and more sensitive of the abuse and misuse of such powers. The judiciary has
established certain legal standards in this respect. It has its own weaknesses, but has great
strength as well. Administrative adjudication has come into existence as a result of the
philosophy of welfare State and consequential socialization of law. Today the State exercises
not only sovereign functions, but as a progressive democratic State, it also seeks to ensure
social security and social welfare for the common masses. It regulates industrial relations,
exercises control over production and starts many enterprises. The issues arising there from
are socioeconomic issues. It is not possible for the ordinary Courts of law to deal with all the
issues of socio-economic policies. As Wade and Philips rightly observe: Modern
government gives rise to many disputes which cannot appropriately be solved by applying
objective legal principles or standards and depends ultimately on what is desirable in the
public interest as a matter of social policy.1 For example industrial relations between the
workers and the management must be settled as soon as possible. It is not in the interest of
the parties to the disputes but of the society at large. It is not possible for the ordinary Courts
to decide these disputes expeditiously. At the same time, it is necessary that such disputes
should not be determined in arbitrary or autocratic manner. Administrative Tribunals are,
therefore, established to decide various quasi judicial issues in place of ordinary Courts of
law. Tribunals are recognized even by the Constitution of India.

CHAPTER III

Reasons for growth of administrative adjudication and its need

According to Dicey's theory of rule of law, the ordinary law of the land must be administered
by ordinary law courts. He was opposed to the establishment of administrative tribunals.
According to the classical theory and the doctrine of separation of powers, the function of
deciding disputes between the parties belonged to ordinary courts of law. But the
governmental functions have increased and ordinary courts of law are not in a position to
meet the situation and solve the complex problems arising in the changed socio-economic
context.

The complexities of intensive form of government and synthetic structure of present society
have given rise to new problems requiring new solutions. One aspect of post independence
era is that the drive against poverty, illiteracy and disease has started. The government
embarked on massive plans of dispensation of benefits, public health, education, planning,
social security, transport, agriculture, industrialization and redistribution of nation's wealth.
In these circumstances, administrative tribunals are established for the following reasons:
(i) Policy considerations

(ii) Inadequacy of Judicial system

(iii) Merits of the System of Administrative Adjudication

(iv) Functional approach to socio-economic problems

(v) Need for expertise

1
Constitutional Law, 1965, p. 699; See also the Reports of the Franks Committee 1957, pp. 8-9.
(vi) Preventive measures

(vii) Policing of preventive measures

(viii) Functioning of Tribunals

CHAPTER IV

Problems/disadvantages of administrative adjudication

Even though administrative adjudication is essential and useful in modem day administration,
we should not be blind to the defects from which it suffers or the dangers it poses to a
democratic polity. Some of the main drawbacks are mentioned below.

(i) Administrative adjudication is a negation of Rule of Law. Rule of Law ensures equality
before law for everybody and the supremacy of ordinary law and due procedure of law over
governmental arbitrariness. But administrative tribunals, with their separate laws and
procedures often made by themselves, puts a serious limitation upon the celebrated principles
of Rule of Law.

(ii) Administrative tribunals have in most cases; no set procedures and sometimes they
violate even the principles of natural justice.

(iii) Administrative tribunals often hold summary trials and they do not follow any
precedents. As such it is not possible to predict the course of future decisions. (iv)The civil
and criminal courts have a uniform pattern of administering justice and centuries of
experience in the administration of civil and criminal laws have borne testimony to the
advantages of uniform procedure. A uniform code of procedure in administrative adjudication
is not there.

(iv) Administrative tribunals are manned by administrators and technical heads who may not
have the background of law or training of judicial work. Some of them may not possess the
independent outlook of a judge.

CHAPTER V
ADVATAGES OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION

Administrative adjudication is a dynamic system of administration, which serves, more

adequately than any other method, the varied and complex needs of the modem society. The
main advantages of the administrative tribunals are:

1) Flexibility

2) Adequate Justice

3) Less Expensive

4) Relief to Courts

CHAPTER VI

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Defination

Tribunal is an administrative body which exercises the power to adjudicate. In the Franks
Committee Report, Tribunals are not regarded as ordinary Courts But they are not accepted
even as appendages of Government Departments". The view of the Committee is that
tribunals should be regarded as machinery provided by parliament for adjudication rather
than as part of the machinery of administration. The essential point is that all these cases,
Parliament has deliberately provided for a decision outside and independent of the
Department concerned and intention of Parliament to provide for independence of Tribunals
is clear and unmistakable.'2 According to Wade3 Tribunal are administrative only because
they are part of an administrative scheme for which a Minister is responsible to Parliament,
and because the reasons for preferring them to the ordinary Courts are administrative
reasons. Even in America the system of Administrative adjudication has been developed. In
this country administrative agencies discharge the functions of Tribunals e.g., Commissions,
Boards or Officers.4

2
Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquries, 9 (1957).
3
Wade, Administrative Law, 1988, p. 900.
4
William A. Robson, Justice and Administrative Law, 1951, p. 315.
CHAPTER VII

Tribunals are largely classified into two categories i.e. domestic tribunal and statutory
tribunal. This classification is based on the nature of the subject matter they adjudicate.

1) Domestic Tribunals.

2) Statutory Tribunal

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COURT AND A TRIBUNAL

Some differences between a Courts and a Tribunal are:

1. Tribunals are set up to be less formal, less expensive, and a faster way to resolve disputes
than by using the traditional court system.

2. Tribunals may not allow people to be represented by a lawyer, may not allow
crossexamination of witnesses where as the court always allows this.

3. Tribunals often specialise in resolving disputes in a particular area where as the courts
generally have the power to hear a much broader range of cases.

4. The nature of tribunal is ad hoc, and the court is a permanent body.

5. The tribunal will be governed by chairmen that will have a special knowledge about the
issue or level of legal training but, a judge in courts has general knowledge about many areas
of law.

6. Courts follow well defined procedures detailed in their Rules, whereas tribunal procedures
are more flexible.

7. The doctrine of precedents applied in particular superior courts whereas tribunals will not
follow the strict rule of precedent.

CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSIONS

In practice there are a number of tribunals functioning in the country. Very few of them,
however, have been able to inspire confidence in the public. The tribunals have shown a
singular lack of competence and objectivity in determining disputes. Another reason for their
failure is the constitution of the tribunals and the method of appointment of the personnel.
Persons with expertise and the right qualifications do not want to sit on these tribunals thus
leading to the unsatisfactory functioning of these tribunals. The uncertainty of tenure,
unsatisfactory service conditions, interference by the executive and political interference have
further impeded the proper development of tribunals in India. Tribunals are supposed to
provide specialised adjudicatory services but the type of people appointed lack the requisite
expertise and are on the tribunals merely because of political pressure and executive
interference.