Unit - 3

The need for devolution of adiudicatory authority on administration with case law is not
explicitly mentioned in the provided information about the Indian Constitution. However,
it is important to note that the Indian Constitution does provide for the separation of
powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. The judiciary, which is
independent of the executive, has the authority to interpret and apply the laws enacted by
the legislature
The Indian Constitution also establishes a hierarchical structure of courts, with the
Supreme Court at the apex and various High Courts and subordinate courts at the state
and district levels. These courts have the power to adiudicate on disputes and enforce
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The concept of devolution of adjudicatory authority on administration refers to
empowering administrative bodies or authorities to make decisions on certain matters and
resolve disputes without the involvement of courts. This can help in reducing the burden
on the judiciary and ensuring efficient and timely resolution of disputes.
However, it is important to strike a balance between devolving adjudicatory authority on
administration and safeguarding the principles of natural justice, fairness, and
accountability. The Indian legal system has recognized the importance of this balance,
and there have been instances where specialized tribunals or administrative bodies have
been established to adjudicate on specific matters, such as tax disputes, environmental
issues, and labor disputes
Case law plays a crucial role in interpreting and applying the provisions of the Indian
Constitution. The decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts in various cases help
in clarifying the scope and meaning of constitutional provisions and guiding the
interpretation of laws by lower courts and administrative bodies.
Overall, while the need for devolution of adjudicatory authority on administration with
case law may not be explicitly mentioned in the

Overall, while the need for devolution of adiudicatory authority on

administration with case law may not be explicitly mentioned in the provided
information, it is a topic that is relevant to discussions on governance and administration
in India.
There are several cases in Indian jurisprudence that have dealt with the devolution of
adjudicatory authority on administration. Some
notable cases include:
1. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010): This case dealt with the
establishment of tribunals for adjudicating on disputes related to service matters of
government employees. The Supreme Court held that the establishment of tribunals is a
valid exercise of legislative power, as long as certain principles such as independence,
expertise
and fairness are maintained.
2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): In this case, the
Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which established administrative
tribunals to adiudicate on disputes related to recruitment and conditions of service of
public servants. The Court held that while
administrative tribunals can be established, the jurisdiction of the
High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be
completely ousted.
3. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987): This case dealt with the constitutionality of
the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which
was established to adiudicate on disputes related to recruitment and service conditions of
central government employees. The Supreme
Court upheld the validity of CAT but emphasized the importance of
maintaining independence and impartiality in the functioning of such tribunals.
4. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987): This case further
clarified the role of administrative tribunals in adjudicating on service matters. The
Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of
administrative tribunals is exclusive and that the High Courts should refrain from
entertaining writ petitions in service matters covered by
the jurisdiction of such tribunals.
These cases highlight the evolving jurisprudence surrounding the devolution of
adiudicatory authority on administration in India and

These cases highlight the evolving jurisprudence surrounding the devolution of

adiudicatory authority on administration in India and provide guidance on the
establishment and functioning of specialized tribunals or administrative bodies for
efficient dispute resolution.
Problems of Administrative Decision Making
Some other problems of administrative decision making in India include:
1. Delay in decision making: Administrative authorities in India are often criticized
for their slow and inefficient decision-making process. Delays in decision making can
lead to a lack of justice for individuals and can hinder economic development.
2. Lack of accountability: There is often a lack of accountability among
administrative authorities in India. This can lead to corruption, favoritism, and misuse of
power. The lack of proper mechanisms to hold administrative authorities accountable for
their actions undermines the trust of the public in the administrative system.
3. Lack of expertise: Administrative authorities in India often lack the necessary
expertise and knowledge to make informed decisions.
This can result in poor-quality decisions that do not take into account the complexities of
the issues at hand.
1. Political interference: Administrative decision making in India is often
influenced by political considerations. This can lead to biased decision making and
undermine the independence and impartiality of administrative authorities.
2. Inadequate public participation: There is often a lack of meaningful public
participation in the decision-making process in India. This can result in decisions that do
not adequately consider the needs and concerns of the affected individuals and
communities.
Addressing these problems requires reforms in the administrative system, including
strengthening procedural fairness, ensuring impartiality and accountability, improving
efficiency, enhancing expertise, reducing political interference, and promoting
meaningful public participation.

Some problems of administrative decision making in India can be seen in the following
cases:
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): In this landmark case. the Supreme
Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness in administrative decision
making. The Court held that the principles of natural justice, including the right to be
heard and the right to a fair hearing, must be followed by administrative authorities. This
case highlighted the problem of arbitrary decision making by administrative bodies and
the need for transparency and accountability.
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970): This case dealt with the issue of bias in
administrative decision making. The Supreme Court held that administrative authorities
must be impartial and unbiased in their decision making. The Court emphasized that
decision makers should not have any personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome of the
decision and should act fairly and objectively. This case highlighted the problem of bias
and the need for decision makers to act in a neutral manner.
3. Ram Jawaya Kapoor v. State of Punjab (1955): In this case. the Supreme Court
discussed the problem of arbitrary exercise of power by administrative authorities. The
Court held that administrative authorities must act within the limits of their statutory
powers and should not act arbitrarily or unreasonably. The Court emphasized the need for
administrative authorities to provide reasons for their decisions and to exercise their
powers in a rational and fair manner.
These cases highlight some of the problems associated with administrative decision
making in India, including lack of procedural fairness, bias, and arbitrary exercise of
power. They emphasize the need for administrative authorities to act transparently,
impartially, and within the limits of their statutory powers

Nature of Administrative Tribunals: Constitution, Powers, Procedures, Rules of Evidence

Administrative tribunals in India are specialized bodies that handle disputes and
grievances related to administrative decisions. They are created under specific laws and
have the power to adiudicate cases within their jurisdiction. The nature of administrative
tribunals in India is defined by their constitutional framework, powers. procedures, and
rules of evidence
Constitutional Framework: Administrative tribunals in India are established under Article
323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution. Article 323-A allows for the creation of
tribunals for the adjudication of disputes related to specific matters, such as taxation, land
reforms, labor, and environment. Article 323-B allows for the establishment of tribunals
for public service matters, such as recruitment, promotion, and disciplinary actions of
government employces.
Powers: Administrative tribunals have the power to hear and decide cases within their
jurisdiction. They have the authority to interpret and apply relevant laws, rules, and
regulations. They can issue orders. judgments, and directions to enforce their decisions.
However, their powers are limited to the matters specified in the laws that establish them.
Procedures: Administrative tribunals follow their own procedures, which are generally
less formal than those of regular courts. They have the flexibility to adopt procedures that
are more suitable for the nature of the disputes they handle. These procedures are aimed
at providing a fair and expeditious resolution of disputes.
Rules of Evidence: Administrative tribunals have the power to determine their own rules
of evidence. They are not bound by strict rules of evidence followed by regular courts.
Instead, they have the discretion to admit any relevant evidence that may assist in the
resolution of the dispute. This allows for a more flexible and informal approach to the
presentation of evidence

Overall, administrative tribunals in India play a crucial role in ensuring access to justice
and resolving disputes related to administrative decisions. Their nature is defined by their
constitutional framework, powers, procedures, and rules of evidence which are aimed at
providing a fair and efficient resolution of disputes.
One case that exemplifies the role and nature of administrative tribunals in India is the
case of Union of India v. R. Gandhi. In this case, the Supreme Court of India discussed
the importance of administrative tribunals and their constitutional framework
The case involved a challenge to the validity of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005,
which established a specialized tribunal for the adjudication of tax-related disputes. The
petitioners argued that the Act violated the basic structure of the Constitution by
encroaching upon the powers of regular courts.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the validity of the Act and emphasized the
significance of administrative tribunals in providing an effective and efficient mechanism
for resolving disputes. The Court held that administrative tribunals are an essential
component of the constitutional scheme and are necessary for ensuring access to justice.
The Court further explained that administrative tribunals, being specialized bodies,
possess expertise in specific areas of law and can provide quick and expert adjudication
of disputes. They have the power to interpret and apply relevant laws and regulations,
which is crucial for resolving complex administrative matters.
Additionally, the Court highlighted that administrative tribunals operate under their own
procedures, which are generally less formal than those of regular courts. This allows for a
more expeditious resolution of disputes, as administrative tribunals have the flexibility to
adopt procedures that are more suitable for the nature of the cases they handle

In this case, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional framework, powers,
procedures, and rules of evidence of administrative tribunals in India. It acknowledged
their importance in ensuring access to justice and providing specialized expertise in
resolving administrative disputes.
Rule against bias
The rule against bias in administrative law refers to the principle that decision-makers in
administrative tribunals and other administrative bodies must be impartial and unbiased
when making decisions. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice and procedural
fairness that ensures fair and just decision-making in administrative processes.
The rule against bias requires decision-makers to approach their responsibilities with an
open mind and without any preconceived notions or prejudices. They must base their
decisions solely on the evidence and arguments presented before them and apply the
relevant laws and regulations objectively. Bias can arise in various forms, such as actual
bias, perceived bias, or unconscious bias.
Actual bias occurs when a decision-maker has a personal interest or a direct connection to
the subject matter of the decision, which may unduly influence their judgment. Perceived
bias, on the other hand. arises when there is a reasonable apprehension or suspicion that
the decision-maker is biased, even if there is no actual bias present.
Unconscious bias refers to implicit biases that people may hold unconsciously due to
their background, experiences, or societal influences, which can unknowingly affect their
decision-making process.
The rule against bias serves to protect the rights of individuals or parties involved in
administrative proceedings. It ensures that decisions are made in an objective and fair
manner, free from any personal or prejudiced influences. If bias is found to exist, it can
undermine the legitimacy of the decision and may render it invalid.
Administrative law provides mechanisms to address allegations of bias. Parties who
believe that bias exists or has affected a decision can seck remedies through processes
such as secking a review or appeal of the decision, requesting a different decision-maker,
or making an application for judicial review in a court.

Actual bias occurs when a decision-maker has a personal interest or a direct connection to
the subject matter of the decision, which may unduly influence their judgment. Perceived
bias, on the other hand, arises when there is a reasonable apprehension or suspicion that
the decision-maker is biased, even if there is no actual bias present.
Unconscious bias refers to implicit biases that people may hold unconsciously due to
their background, experiences, or societal influences, which can unknowingly affect their
decision-making process.
The rule against bias serves to protect the rights of individuals or parties involved in
administrative proceedings. It ensures that decisions are made in an objective and fair
manner, free from any personal or prejudiced influences. If bias is found to exist, it can
undermine the legitimacy of the decision and may render it invalid.
Administrative law provides mechanisms to address allegations of bias. Parties who
believe that bias exists or has affected a decision can seek remedies through processes
such as seeking a review or appeal of the decision, requesting a different decision-maker,
or making an application for judicial review in a court.
Overall, the rule against bias in administrative law is crucial to maintaining the integrity
and fairness of administrative decision-making processes, ensuring that individuals are
treated fairly and that decisions are bas
Porter v. Magill (2001) - This case, decided by the House of Lords (now the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom), set out the test for perceived bias. It held that the test is
whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would
conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The case emphasized the importance of
maintaining public confidence in the impartiality of decision-makers.
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999) - In this Canadian
Supreme Court case, the court examined the duty of fairness and the impact of bias on
administrative decisions. It held that the presence of a reasonable apprehension of bias
could undermine the legitimacy of a decision and violate the principles of natural justice.
Re Medicines Act (1968) (1969) - In this case, the English Court of

Rule against bias

The rule against bias in administrative law refers to the principle that decision-makers in
administrative tribunals and other administrative bodies must be impartial and unbiased
when making decisions. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice and procedural
fairness that ensures fair and just decision-making in administrative processes.
The rule against bias requires decision-makers to approach their responsibilities with an
open mind and without any preconceived notions or prejudices. They must base their
decisions solely on the evidence and arguments presented before them and apply the
relevant laws and regulations objectively. Bias can arise in various forms, such as actual
bias, perceived bias, or unconscious bias.
Actual bias occurs when a decision-maker has a personal interest or a direct connection to
the subject matter of the decision, which may unduly influence their judgment. Perceived
bias, on the other hand, arises when there is a reasonable apprehension or suspicion that
the decision-maker is biased, even if there is no actual bias present.
Unconscious bias refers to implicit biases that people may hold unconsciously due to
their background, experiences, or societal influences, which can unknowingly affect their
decision-making process.
The rule against bias serves to protect the rights of individuals or parties involved in
administrative proceedings. It ensures that decisions are made in an objective and fair
manner, free from any personal or prejudiced influences. If bias is found to exist, it can
undermine the legitimacy of the decision and may render it invalid.
Administrative law provides mechanisms to address allegations of bias. Parties who
believe that bias exists or has affected a decision can seek remedies through processes
such as seeking a review or appeal of the decision, requesting a different decision-maker,
or making an application for judicial review in a court.
Overall, the rule against bias in administrative law is crucial to maintaining the integrity
and fairness of administrative decision-making processes, ensuring that individuals are
treated fairly and that decisions are bas
Porter v. Magill (2001) - This case, decided by the House of Lords

Porter v. Magill (2001) - This case, decided by the House of Lords (now the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom), set out the test for perceived bias. It held that the test is
whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would
conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The case emphasized the importance of
maintaining public confidence in the impartiality of decision-makers.
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999) - In this Canadian
Supreme Court case, the court examined the duty of fairness and the impact of bias on
administrative decisions. It held that the presence of a reasonable apprehension of bias
could undermine the legitimacy of a decision and violate the principles of natural justice
Re Medicines Act (1968) (1969) - In this case, the English Court of Appeal considered
the issue of bias in relation to a pharmaceutical company seeking a license. The court
found that the chairman of the licensing authority had a financial interest in a competitor
company, which created an appearance of bias. The decision highlighted the need for
decision-makers to be free from any direct or indirect pecuniary interests.
Audi Alteram Partem
Audi alteram partem is a Latin phrase that translates to "hear the other side" or "let the
other side be heard." In administrative law, it refers to the principle of natural justice that
requires decision-makers to give all parties involved in a case an opportunity to present
their arguments, evidence, and perspectives before making a decision. It ensures that
affected individuals or entities have a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard and
participate in the decision-making process.
Here are a few important case laws that highlight the application of the Audi alteram
partem principle in administrative law:

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) - This Indian Supreme Court case expanded the
scope of the Audi alteram partem principle. The court held that the right to be heard is not
merely a procedural formality but encompasses the right to a meaningful hearing. It
emphasized that the opportunity to be heard must be fair, reasonable, and not illusory.
North Eastern Railway Company v. Berriman (1946) - In this British case, the court
highlighted the importance of providing notice to affected individuals. It held that a
railway worker's widow was entitled to compensation because the railway company
failed to provide adequate notice of a particular task that was dangerous and resulted in
her husband's death. The case underscored the significance of notice as an essential
component of the right to be heard.
These cases demonstrate that the Audi alteram partem principle is a fundamental aspect
of administrative law. It ensures fairness and procedural justice by requiring decision-
makers to provide affected parties with notice, an opportunity to present their case, and a
fair hearing before making a decision that could adversely affect their rights or interests.
The principle helps safeguard the principles of natural justice and upholds the integrity of
administrative decision-making processes
Speaking order
A speaking order reasoned decision refers to a decision made by a court or administrative
tribunal that provides detailed explanations and justifications for the ruling. It involves a
thorough analysis of the facts, evidence, applicable laws, and any relevant precedents or
legal principles.
In a speaking order reasoned decision, the court or tribunal carefully considers the
arguments presented by both parties and evaluates their merits. It provides a clear and
transparent record of the decision-making process, allowing the parties involved to
understand the rationale behind the ruling.
This type of decision is important as it promotes accountability and transparency in the
judicial system. It ensures that the reasoning behind the decision is clearly articulated,
making it easier for the parties to assess the fairness and legality of the ruling.
Additionally,

This type of decision is important as it promotes accountability and transparency in the

judicial system. It ensures that the reasoning behind the decision is clearly articulated,
making it easier for the parties to assess the fairness and legality of the ruling.
Additionally, a speaking order reasoned decision provides a solid foundation for any
potential appeals or further legal actions
The case of Union of India v. R. Gandhi is an example of a speaking order reasoned
decision by an administrative tribunal in India. In this case, the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT) was tasked with deciding on a dispute between the Union of India and R.
Gandhi, who was seeking relief from his transfer order.
The CAT, in its speaking order reasoned decision, carefully analyzed the facts and
evidence presented by both parties. It considered the relevant laws and regulations, as
well as any precedents or legal principles that were applicable to the case
The CAT provided detailed reasons for its decision, explaining the basis for its findings
and conclusions. It discussed the arguments put forth by both parties and evaluated their
merits. The tribunal also considered any mitigating factors or extenuating circumstances
that may have influenced the outcome.
The speaking order reasoned decision of the CAT demonstrated transparency and
accountability in its decision-making process. It allowed the parties involved to
understand the rationale behind the tribunal's decision and provided a clear record for any
potential appeals or further legal actions
Overall, this case exemplifies the role of administrative tribunals in India as impartial
adiudicators that provide fair and reasoned decisions. Their decisions are based on a
careful analysis of the facts. evidence, and applicable laws, ensuring that justice is served
in administrative disputes