Unit 4 – Administrative Adjudication,

Maladministration And Alternative Remedies

Presented by: Shruti Nag (9BA LLB)
ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUDICATION
MEANING & DEFINITION

 The determination of questions of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature by an administrative

department or agency.
 Prof. White – “Administrative adjudication means the investigation and settling of a
dispute involving a private party on the basis of a law and fact by an administrative
agency.”
 Prof. Dimock – “Administrative Adjudication as the process by which administrative
agencies settle issues arising in the course of their work when legal rights are in
question.”
 Administrative adjudication is the process by which an administrative agency issues an
order, such order being affirmative, negative, injunctive, or declaratory in form.
 Most formal proceedings before an administrative agency follow the process of either
rule-making or adjudication.
REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUDICATION

1. Expansion of State Activities

2. Demand for Informal, Cost-Effective, and Swift Adjudication
3. Court Litigation as an Expensive and Lengthy Process
4. Need for New Public Law Standards Based on Social and Moral Principles
5. Emphasis on Preventive Justice
6. Functional Approach to Law through Administrative Adjudication
7. Holistic Approach in Welfare State Adjudication
8. Relieving Overburdened Courts
ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

 The first law commission set way back in 1955 felt the necessity of setting up a tribunal.
 The Commission had recommended that appeals from quasi-judicial bodies on facts should lie
to an independent Tribunal.
 Such tribunals ought to be presided over by a person qualified to be a judge of the High Court
and be assisted by a person or persons having administrative and technical knowledge.
 In 1969, Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice Shah, addressed the issue of pending
service cases. Recommended – set up an independent Tribunal
 Administrative Reforms Commission – Chairmanship of Morarji Desai recommended the
setting of Civil Services Tribunals – deal with appeals of government servants – against
disciplinary action.
 Swaran Singh Committee (1976) – Recommended setting up of separate administrative
tribunals for certain matters.
 Finally, Clause 46 of 42nd Amendment 1976 introduced Articles 323A and 323B under
Part XIV-A to the Constitution – new chapter relating to tribunals.
S.P. SAMPAT KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA.

 The constitutional validity of Article 323A came up for adjudication before the Supreme
Court. Along with the contention of the petitioner that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court
could not be taken away by any constitutional amendment.
 Held – While upholding the constitutional validity of Article 323A as well as the impugned
Act, (as amended) the Supreme Court observed that, the Constitution permits Parliament
to abrogate the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227, provided the
same happens to be exercised effectively and efficiently by a closely comparable
institution or body.
 It has to be ensured “that the substitute institution, the Tribunal must be a worthy
successor in all respects.”
DEFINITIONS

 Peter Johnson – “Administrative tribunals are bodies established under a statute (Act of
Parliament), outside the ordinary court system, to hear and settle disputes between
government agencies and individuals or citizens, employers and employees, landlords and
tenants, buyers and sellers or between other individuals.”
 L. B. Curzon – “Administrative Tribunals are adjudicative bodies constituted, manned and
operated by the Executive.”
 Blachly and Oatman – Administrative tribunals or Administrative Courts as, “authorities
outside the ordinary court system which interpret and apply the laws when acts of public
administration are attacked in formal suits or by other established methods.”
 Administrative tribunals are often referred to as “Commission”, “Authority”, “Quasi-judicial
Body”, “Statutory Tribunal”, or “Board”.
CHARACTERISTICS

1. Independent Authorities Outside Ordinary 7. Exemption from Formal Rules of Evidence

Courts and Procedure
2. Interpret and Apply Laws in Public 8. Hybrid Role - Not a Court or Executive
Administration Cases Body)
3. Created by Specific Acts of Parliament 9. Judicial and Administrative Characteristics
4. Adherence to Prescribed Procedures and 10. Freedom from Government Interference
'Natural Justice'
11. Statutorily Defined Composition, Powers,
5. Fact-Finding and Policy Application and Functions
6. Subject to Limited Judicial Review 12. Specialization in Various Dispute Areas
CASE LAWS

 P. Sambamurthy v. State of A.P. (1987) SCC 386

 J.B. Chopra & Ors. v. Union of India (AIR 1987 SC 357)
 MAL-ADMINISTRATION
&
ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES
VINEET NARAIN & OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA &
ANOTHER, (1 SCC 226)

 This case concerns the historic Hawala scandal in India, which

uncovered possible bribery payments to several high-ranking Indian
politicians and bureaucrats.
 The Court agreed and held that the CBI had failed in its responsibility to
investigate allegations of public corruption.
 It laid down guidelines to ensure independence and autonomy of the CBI
 Ordered CBI be placed under the supervision of the Central Vigilance
Commission (CVC), an independent governmental agency intended to
be free from executive control or interference.
OMBUDSMAN

 Ombudsman - independent institution to look into the maladministration and the

public grievance - sine qua non (absolutely necessary)
 An ‘Ombudsman’ is a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between an
organization and some internal or external constituency and represents mostly the
broad scope of constituent interests.
 Garner - “Ombudsman is an officer of Parliament, having as his primary function, the
duty of acting as an agent for Parliament, for the purpose of safeguarding citizens
against abuse or misuse of administrative power.”
 H.W.R Wade - Ombudsman is “an important adjunct to the machinery of
government” calling him “an ally of an independent judiciary and legal profession”
and declares that “he can be fitted into almost any term of democratic Constitution.”
OMBUDSMAN - HISTORY

 The Ombudsman in India - referred to as Chief Vigilance Officer or CVO.

 The CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) was set up on the recommendation of the
Santhanam Committee (1962–64).
 In India, the Ombudsman is more commonly known as the Lokpal or Lokayukta.
 An Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) was set up on 5 January 1966 under the
Chairmanship of Shri Morarji Desai – recommended a two-tier machinery:- Lokpal at the
Centre and one Lokayukta each at the State level for redress of people's grievances.
 The Central Government introduced the first Lokpal Bill, Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill in 1968,
and further legislation was introduced in 2005, but it has been enacted only in 2013.
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION (CVC)

 Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is an apex Indian governmental body

created in 1964 to address governmental corruption.
 An autonomous body, free of control from any executive authority –
monitoring all vigilance activity – advising in planning, executing,
reviewing and reforming vigilance work.
 It was set up by the Government of India in February, 1964 on the
recommendations of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption, headed
by Shri K. Santhanam
 To advise and guide Central Government agencies in the field of vigilance.
APPOINTMENT & REMOVAL OF CVC

 The Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners are

appointed by the President after obtaining the recommendation of a Committee
consisting of:
 The Prime Minister — Chairperson
 The Home Minister — Member.
 The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha — Member

 The Central Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance Commissioner can be

removed from his office only by order of the President on the ground of proved
misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by
the President, has, on inquiry, reported that the Central Vigilance Commissioner
or any Vigilance Commissioner, as the case may be, ought to be removed.
FUNCTIONS OF CVC
1. Exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
(CBI) insofar as it relates to the investigation of offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988; or an offence under the Cr.P.C for certain categories of public
servants – section 8(1)(a)
2. Give directions to the DSPE in Special Police Establishment (CBI) for superintendence
insofar as it relates to the investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 – section 8(1)(b)
3. To inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made on a reference by the Central
Government – section 8(1)(c)
4. To inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint received
against any official belonging to such category of officials specified in Sub-section 2 of
Section 8 of the CVC Act, 2003 – section 8(1)(d)
5. Review the progress of investigations conducted by the DSPE into offences alleged to
have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or an offence under
the Cr.P.C – section 8(1)(e)
6. Review the progress of the applications pending with the competent authorities for
FUNCTIONS OF CVC
1. Tender advice to the Central Government and its organizations on such matters as may be referred to
it by them – section 8(1)(g)
2. Exercise superintendence over the vigilance administrations of the various Central Government
Ministries, Departments and organizations of the Central Government- section 8(1)(h)
3. Shall have all the powers of a Civil court while conducting any inquiry – section 11
4. Respond to Central Government on mandatory consultation with the Commission before making any
rules or regulations governing the vigilance or disciplinary matters relating to the persons appointed
to the public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or to members of the All
India Services – section 19
5. The Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) is also the Chairperson of the two Committees, on whose
recommendations, the Central Government appoints the Director of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment and the Director of Enforcement –section 25 and section 26
6. The Committee concerned with the appointment of the Director CBI is also empowered to
recommend, after consultation with the Director (CBI), appointment of officers to the posts of the
level of SP and above in DSPE – section 26
7. The Committee concerned with the appointment of the Director of Enforcement is also empowered to
recommend, after consultation with the Director of Enforcement appointment of officers to the posts
CASE LAWS

 Centre for PIL & Anr v. Union of India & Anr. (WRIT PETITION (C) No. 348 of 2010)
 Md. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of A.P. (AIR 1979 SC 677)
THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA ACT, 2013

 The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 mandated for the establishment of Lokpal at
the Union level and Lokayukta at the State level.
 Lokpal and Lokayuktas are statutory bodies - do not have any constitutional
status.
 These institutions perform the function and role of an “Ombudsman” (an official
appointed to investigate individuals’ complaints against a company or
organization, especially a public authority).
 They inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public
bodies/organizations and for other related matters.
STRUCTURE OF THE LOKPAL

 Lokpal is a multi-member body consisting of one chairperson and a maximum of 8

members. The person to be appointed as the chairperson of the Lokpal must be either:
 1. The former Chief Justice of India; or
 2. The former Judge of the Supreme Court; or
 3. An eminent person with impeccable integrity and outstanding ability, who must possess
special knowledge and a minimum experience of 25 years in matters relating to:
 Anti-corruption policy
 Public administration
 Vigilance
 Finance including insurance and banking
 Law and management
THE RIGHT INFORMATION ACT, 2005

 RTI Act came into force on the 12th October, 2005.

 Objective of the Act – An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of
right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control
of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the
working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information
Commission and State Information Commissions.
 Who is covered under RTI?
 The Central RTI Act extends to the whole of India.
 All bodies are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Government are covered.
 Central Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers.
EXEMPTIONS UNDER RTI

 Affects the sovereignty and integrity of India.

 Forbidden by any court of law or tribunal.
 Breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.
 Information related to agencies mentioned in the Second Schedule of the Act.
 Commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property.
 Information from a foreign government.
 Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers,
Secretaries or prosecution of offenders.
 Information which relates to personal matters, the disclosure of which has no
bearing on any public activity or interest.
THANK YOU