ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION
Administrative adjudication is a name give to the administrative exercise of judicial functions. It is a name given to the various ways of deciding disputes outside the ordinary courts. Administrative adjudication is constitutional, though it is a negation of the principle of Separation of Powers. Administrative adjudication is the participation or involvement of the executive arm of government (administrative agencies) in judicial function. Through the instrumentality of administrative adjudication, administrative agencies can pass authoritative and appealable decisions.
Administrative adjudication in india
In India, administrative adjudication increased after independence and several welfare lawswere promulgated which vested the power on deciding various issues in the hands of theadministration. The modern Indian Republic was born a Welfare State and thus the burden onthe government to provide a host of welfare Services to the people was immense. Thesequasi-judicial powers acquired by the administration led to a huge number of cases withrespect to the manner in which these administrative bodies arrived at their decisions.
Tribunals/”>Administrative Tribunals in India
In India Growth of administrative tribunals has been rather haphazard. They have come into existence as or when required. Though their number has been gradually multiplying, yet they have never been organized into a coherent system. Over 3,000 such courts exist in India. Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Railway Rates Tribunal, Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals, Wage Boards, Compensation Tribunals, Election Tribunals, Central Administrative Tribunal, Rent Tribunals are some of the examples of such Tribunals.
Administrative tribunals are constituted with amendment to Articles 323A and 323B of the Indian Constitution. These are constituted to exclusively deal with service matters of the civil servants. However, Administrative Tribunal is a substitute to High Court. These tribunals are quasi-judicial in nature but assigned with adjudicate the matters referred before them. It is a sign of welfare state. As many tribunals are working today, regulatory mechanism is very much needed. The tribunals are established to avoid regular court approach by civil servants. The only strict restriction imposed on them is to follow Justice/”>Principles Of Natural Justice, but the tribunals started to give their own construction to interpret the Principles of Natural Justice. This is because there are no settled definite principles to say these are the fundamental principles of Natural Justice.
Central Administrative Tribunal: ARTICLE 323 A added in the Constitution of India in 1985 provides for the setting up of Administrative Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes relating to service matters of persons employed to public services and posts in the Central Government and the States. In Pursuance of the above amendment the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was enacted. The CAT enjoys the status and powers of a High Court in respect of service matters Appeals against its orders He to The Supreme Court only. It has 17 regular Benches operating at the 
principal seats of High Court. These regular Benches also hold circuit sittings at other seats of High Courts.
The difference between CAT and ordinary courts is as follows:
- The Tribunal is free from the shackles of many of the technicalities of the ordinal courts in respect of hearing of evidence and pleading by the lawyers and the presentation of the case.
- The government can present its case through the departmental officers or legal practitioners.
- Only a nominal fee is to be paid by the petitioner for filing an application before the Tribunal.
The members of the Administrative Tribunals are drawn from the administrative stream also, whereas the judges of ordinary courts belong to the legal stream.
State administrative tribunal
Article 323 B empowers the state legislatures to set up tribunals for various matters. The matters to be covered by such tribunals are as follows:
Levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of any tax
Matters connected with Land reforms covered by Article 31A
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: Section 252 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that the Central Government shall constitute an Appellate Tribunal consisting of an many Judicial Members and Accountant members as it thinks fit to exercise the powers and functions conferred on the Tribunal by the Act. Under the Act, a judicial Member shall be a person, who has held a judicial office for at least ten years or has been a Member of the Central Legal Services and has held a post in Grade II of that service or any equivalent or higher post for at least three years or who has been an Advocate for at least ten years.
The powers and functions of the Tribunal are exercised and discharged by the Bench constituted from amongst the members of the Tribunal. A Bench consists of one Judicial Member and one Accountant Member. The Benches of the Tribunal have been constituted in different parts of the country presently there are 63 benches.
Advantages of Administrative Tribunals
- Administrative adjudication is a dynamic system of administration, which serves, more adequately than any other method, the varied and complex needs of the modern Society. The main advantages of the administrative tribunals are as follows:
- Administrative adjudication has brought about flexibility and adaptability in the judicial as well as administrative tribunals.
- In the fast changing world of today, administrative tribunals are not only the most appropriated means of administrative action, but also the most effective means of giving fair justice to the individuals.
- Administrative justice ensures cheap and quick justice. As against this, procedure in the law courts is long and cumbersome and litigation is costly.
- The system also gives the much-needed relief to ordinary courts of law, which are already overburdened with numerous suits.
Disadvantages of Administrative Tribunals
- 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.
- Administrative tribunals have in most cases, no set procedures and sometimes they violate even the principles of natural justice.
- 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.
,
Administrative Tribunals
Administrative tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies that are established by statute to adjudicate on disputes between individuals and the government. They are typically independent of the government and have their own procedures and rules of evidence.
Administrative tribunals have been established to provide a more efficient and less costly way of resolving disputes than the courts. They are also seen as being more specialized and expert in the areas that they deal with.
The jurisdiction of administrative tribunals varies, but they typically deal with disputes relating to social security, immigration, planning, and EMPLOYMENT.
Administrative tribunals are usually made up of a panel of three or five members, who are appointed by the government. The members are typically experts in the area that the tribunal deals with.
The procedures of administrative tribunals are usually less formal than those of the courts. Tribunals typically have their own rules of procedure, which are designed to be fair and efficient.
The decisions of administrative tribunals are usually binding on the parties to the dispute. However, there is usually a right of appeal to the courts.
Statutory Tribunals
Statutory tribunals are a type of administrative tribunal that is established by statute to adjudicate on specific types of disputes. For example, the Competition and Markets Authority is a statutory tribunal that is responsible for regulating competition in the UK.
Statutory tribunals are typically independent of the government and have their own procedures and rules of evidence. They are usually made up of a panel of three or five members, who are appointed by the government. The members are typically experts in the area that the tribunal deals with.
The jurisdiction of statutory tribunals varies, but they typically deal with disputes relating to competition, Consumer protection, and employment.
The decisions of statutory tribunals are usually binding on the parties to the dispute. However, there is usually a right of appeal to the courts.
Regulatory Tribunals
Regulatory tribunals are a type of administrative tribunal that is established by statute to regulate a particular Industry or sector. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority is a regulatory tribunal that is responsible for regulating the financial services industry in the UK.
Regulatory tribunals are typically independent of the government and have their own procedures and rules of evidence. They are usually made up of a panel of three or five members, who are appointed by the government. The members are typically experts in the area that the tribunal deals with.
The jurisdiction of regulatory tribunals varies, but they typically deal with disputes relating to the regulation of a particular industry or sector.
The decisions of regulatory tribunals are usually binding on the parties to the dispute. However, there is usually a right of appeal to the courts.
Quasi-Judicial Authorities
Quasi-judicial authorities are bodies that have some of the powers of a court, but are not courts in the strict sense. For example, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is a quasi-judicial authority that is responsible for investigating complaints about the use of surveillance powers by the UK government.
Quasi-judicial authorities are typically established by statute and have their own procedures and rules of evidence. They are usually made up of a panel of three or five members, who are appointed by the government. The members are typically experts in the area that the authority deals with.
The jurisdiction of quasi-judicial authorities varies, but they typically deal with disputes relating to the use of public power.
The decisions of quasi-judicial authorities are usually binding on the parties to the dispute. However, there is usually a right of appeal to the courts.
Here are some frequently asked questions and short answers about administrative tribunals:
-
What is an administrative tribunal?
An administrative tribunal is a body that is established by law to hear and decide cases involving administrative law. Administrative law is the body of law that governs the relationship between the government and individuals. -
What are the different types of administrative tribunals?
There are many different types of administrative tribunals, but some of the most common include:- Statutory tribunals: These are tribunals that are established by statute, or law. They are usually responsible for hearing cases involving specific areas of law, such as social security or immigration.
- Regulatory tribunals: These are tribunals that are established to regulate a particular industry or sector. They are usually responsible for hearing cases involving complaints about the conduct of businesses or individuals in that industry.
- Quasi-judicial authorities: These are bodies that have some of the powers of a court, but they are not courts. They are usually responsible for hearing cases involving disputes between the government and individuals.
-
What are the advantages of using administrative tribunals?
There are several advantages to using administrative tribunals, including:- They can provide a more informal and less expensive way to resolve disputes than going to court.
- They can be more specialized than courts, which can lead to better decisions.
- They can be more accessible to people who live in rural areas or who have difficulty accessing the courts.
-
What are the disadvantages of using administrative tribunals?
There are also some disadvantages to using administrative tribunals, including:- They may not be as independent as courts.
- They may not be as transparent as courts.
- They may not be as accountable as courts.
-
What is the future of administrative tribunals?
The future of administrative tribunals is uncertain. Some people believe that they will continue to play an important role in resolving disputes between the government and individuals. Others believe that they will be replaced by courts or other bodies.
-
Which of the following is not a type of administrative tribunal?
(A) Statutory tribunal
(B) Regulatory tribunal
(C) Quasi-judicial authority
(D) Judicial tribunal -
Which of the following is the most common type of administrative tribunal?
(A) Statutory tribunal
(B) Regulatory tribunal
(C) Quasi-judicial authority
(D) Judicial tribunal -
Administrative tribunals are established to:
(A) Hear appeals from decisions made by government agencies
(B) Review the decisions of government agencies
(C) Provide a forum for citizens to challenge government action
(D) All of the above -
Administrative tribunals are typically composed of:
(A) Judges
(B) Lawyers
(C) Experts in the area of law or regulation that the tribunal deals with
(D) All of the above -
Administrative tribunals have the power to:
(A) Issue orders
(B) Impose fines
(C) Grant injunctions
(D) All of the above -
Administrative tribunals are subject to Judicial Review. This means that:
(A) The decisions of administrative tribunals can be appealed to the courts
(B) The courts can overturn the decisions of administrative tribunals
(C) The courts can review the procedures of administrative tribunals
(D) All of the above -
The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that:
(A) Administrative tribunals do not exceed their powers
(B) Administrative tribunals follow the correct procedures
(C) Administrative tribunals make fair and reasonable decisions
(D) All of the above -
Which of the following is not a ground for judicial review?
(A) Error of law
(B) Error of fact
(C) Procedural impropriety
(D) Bias -
Which of the following is the most common ground for judicial review?
(A) Error of law
(B) Error of fact
(C) Procedural impropriety
(D) Bias -
Judicial review is a valuable tool for ensuring that administrative tribunals act fairly and within their powers. However, it is important to remember that judicial review is not a substitute for Democracy. The decisions of administrative tribunals should be respected unless there is a clear reason to overturn them.