Types Of Administrative Adjudication
Now two countries have a similar type of administrative adjudication. Administrative adjudication is a matter of necessity and growth of history affected by numerous factors that came in the way of a progressive society. Each country has designed its administrative adjudication in such a way so that it fits into the political institutions, the social set up the customs and traditions of the country and the way of life in the society. Broadly we can identify two different types of administrative adjudication.
- The Anglo American type
- The Continental type
The Anglo American Type:
The Administrative tribunals of the Anglo American type are not organised into a system. The administrative judicial functions are often performed by the government departments, wherein regulatory, administrative and judicial functions lie in one agency. These courts do not follow any set procedures and neither have a definite system of hierarchy of appeals.
The system of Great Britain is the best example for the Anglo American type where the extension of governmental activities into new fields has liked to the entrustment of judicial duties to the executive authorities. For example, The Roads Act, 1920 empowers the Minister of Transport to decide appeals from parties who have been refused licenses, to run buses. India also follows the Anglo-American model.
Continental Type:
Administrative courts of the continental type are organised into a definite system arranged in hierarchical order in respect to appeals, possessed of a well defined procedure, manned by trained judges and experienced administrators secure in their tenure; and free from control of the ordinary courts, so that the judgments of the highest appeal courts are final.
France is an excellent example of the continental type wherein there are two sets of courts, i.e. ordinary courts administering and interpreting the law governing the relation of one private citizen to another, and the administrative courts which interpret and apply on the law when acts of public administration have been attacked and the citizens’ complaints against administrative abuses or excesses.
Advantages Of Administrative Tribunals
Administrative Tribunals claim a number of advantages which the ordinary courts of law do not posses. Some of the significant advantages of the tribunals are:
1. Inexpensive Justice:
Administrative justice is cheaper. In many administrative suits lawyers do not appear, nor is it necessary to pay fees. Thus, many of the administrative tribunals involve negligible expenditure in contrast to the ordinary courts of law which involve significant expenditure.
2. Flexibility:
Administrative tribunals perform their functions with greater flexibility. the tribunals are not precedent bound. In fact they are not bound even by their own previous decisions. More over the technical rules of evidence are considerably waived in order that all relevant facts may be brought out. The fact, circumstances and merits of each case decide the interpretation and application of the rules and the end results.
3. Informality and Simplicity:
The procedure followed by the administrative tribunals is characterized by informality and simplicity in sharp contrast to the formal and complex procedure followed by the common courts of law.
4. Facilitates Quicker Decisions:
The administrative tribunals are quicker that the ordinary courts because the procedures they follow is less complicated and less cumbersome than the ordinary courts of law.
5. Facilities dealing with Technical Situation:
Technical and complex situations of certain nature make it difficult for the ordinary courts to decide them and for such cases expert bodies like tribunals are ideally suited. As the tribunals are manned by men of specialised experience, they facilitate a correct and appropriate appreciation and under-standing of the case and enable quick results.
6. Relief to Ordinary Courts:
Another merit of the tribunals is that they provide relief to the ordinary courts. The administrative courts relieve the ordinary courts of their great bulk of their work, thus facilitating quicker disposition of justice in other cases by common courts. Frederick F. Blachly and Mirriam E. Oatman have said administrative courts not only relieve the ordinary courts of the great bulk of work but also serve purposes foreign to the latter.
Disadvantages Of Administrative Tribunals
Despite the above advantages, the administrative tribunals have been subjected to severe criticism. The main points of criticism are:
1. Violates Rule of Law:
Critics argue that administrative tribunals are the negation of the rule Oi law, which means that every one should be equal before law and that no man should be privileged to have a separate code of law. for his conduct. The Times of India, in its editorial which was published subsequent to the passing of the Administrative Tribunals Act said Administrative law with its creature administrative tribunals, is, like martial law – the negation of ίαω.
2. Violation of the Principle of Natural Justice:
Administrative tribunals have been criticised on the grounds that, in practice, they violate the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are: No man should be a judge in his own cause; no party should be condemned unheard; and reasons for every judicial decision must be disclosed to the party involved. The administrative tribunals do not always follow these principles. The quality of investigation into the question of facts is very poor as these tribunals rely on unsworn written statements, even unsupported by verbal testimony. The parties may not be heard in person and the reason for taking decisions may not be disclosed under the so-called on puon interest”.
3. Lack of Publicity:
The rules of procedures of Administrative tribunals may not provide the publicity of proceedings; their reports of the decided cases may not be published and where published they may not state the reason for taking the decision. “Without publicity”, as Robson has said ” it is impossible to predict the trend of their decisions, and an atmosphere of autocratic bureaucracy is introduced by the maintenance of secrecy which in the ordinary course of event is quite unnecessary….”
4. Lack of Impartiality:
The tribunals do not award fair and impartial justice. Neither the person constituting tribunals are trained judicially nor do they have the cold neutrality of judge. Arbitrary and Inconsistent Decisions: The Administrative tribunals do not observe uniform procedures, thereby making way standards of conduct results in variable justice, which is verily the negation of justice.
5. Finality of Decisions:
The greatest draw back of administrative adjudication is the finality attached to their decisions with no right to appeal to the ordinary courts. And even if sometimes appeals are allowed, they are from the lower tribunals to the higher one and not to the public law courts. This is manifestly unfair as the practice does not create confidence and faith of the public in the working of these tribunals. Appeals within the hierarchy, as a high courts declared are appeals from one Caesar to another Caesar – equally untrained, inexperienced and partial.
Administrative tribunals because of their inherent limitations are under heavy fire from many directions. It is an accepted fact that they suffer from many shortcomings and abuses, but, like delegated legislation they are an inescapable necessity in the modern society. The answer to the limitations is not in ending the system but in designing adequate safeguards to prevent misuse and abuse of the authority by the tribunals. Appointment of competent individuals, a common code of procedures, easy accessibility of judicial review can be some of the safeguards to overcome to the limitation of the tribunals.