Judicial power of the administration: quasi-judicial functions and administrative adjudication
Administrative Law · Unit III · Topic 8 of 18 · 6 min read
On this page
Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.
Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.
1. Tests: when must an authority act judicially?
The detailed history is in the note on Classification of administrative action. In summary, the courts have looked at the following.
- A lis. A dispute between two parties with a claim and an opposition, which the authority must decide: Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani (1950).
- A duty to act judicially, found expressly or impliedly in the statute, even where there is no lis, if the decision prejudicially affects the subject. In Radheshyam Khare v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 107, the Court held that an order under the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act appointing an executive officer for an incompetent municipality was administrative, because the statute did not require an inquiry on evidence into specific charges.
- The nature of the right affected. After Ridge v. Baldwin (House of Lords, 1963) and A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969), the duty to act fairly is inferred from the fact that the decision affects rights or interests, without a separate search for a duty to act judicially.
- Civil consequences. State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei (1967) and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1977) treat any decision with civil consequences, meaning anything that affects a person's rights, property or legitimate interests, as attracting fairness.
The trait of a judicial body was examined in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Lakshmichand, 1962 INSC 267, AIR 1963 SC 677, where the Court listed the characteristics of a quasi-judicial decision: it is in substance a determination on the rights of parties on facts found on evidence, by an authority bound to act judicially, and binding on them; the authority may be under a duty to apply an objective standard. A conciliation officer deciding whether to permit the dismissal of workmen under a U.P. Government order was held not to be a tribunal for Article 136: though he had to act judicially, he was not invested with the judicial power of the State, and his permission did not finally settle the rights of the parties.
2. Administrative adjudication: meaning
Administrative adjudication is the determination of questions of fact and law, affecting the rights of private persons, by administrative agencies rather than by the ordinary courts. Examples in India: income-tax and GST appellate authorities, the Central Administrative Tribunal, rent controllers, Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, labour courts and industrial tribunals, consumer commissions, licensing authorities, and disciplinary authorities in the public services.
A tribunal in this sense is a body outside the hierarchy of ordinary courts but vested with the judicial power of the State. In Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd., 1950 INSC 16, AIR 1950 SC 188, an industrial tribunal was held to be a “tribunal” under Article 136: it had the trappings of a court, decided disputes between parties, followed a judicial procedure and was invested with the State's inherent judicial power, even though it was not a court in the strict sense.
3. Why it grew
- Expertise. Disputes on tax, labour, telecom or electricity tariffs need specialists.
- Speed and cost. Courts were slow and costly; tribunals are meant to be quicker and cheaper, with simpler procedure.
- Flexibility. Tribunals are not bound by the strict rules of evidence and procedure, and can take a policy view where the statute allows it.
- Volume of disputes created by welfare and regulatory legislation, which the ordinary courts could not absorb.
- Preventive and social justice. Labour and consumer law aim to adjust relationships, not merely to decide strict legal rights.
4. Forms of administrative adjudication
- Statutory tribunals with judicial members and appeals: CAT, NCLT, ITAT.
- Departmental authorities deciding disputes within their own field: assessing officers, collectors under land revenue law.
- Licensing authorities granting, refusing, suspending or cancelling licences.
- Domestic tribunals: disciplinary committees of professional bodies, and enquiry officers in employment.
- Ministers and Government hearing appeals or revisions under statutes.
5. The problems of administrative adjudication
January 2026 asked candidates to “define administrative adjudication” and “explain the problems”. These are the problems, with the remedy in each case.
- Lack of independence. Members are often civil servants under the control of the department whose decisions they review. The Supreme Court has repeatedly insisted on judicial members and on appointment and tenure free of executive control (the Madras Bar Association line, covered in the Constitutional Law II note).
- Combination of functions. The same department may investigate, prosecute and decide. The rule against bias and separation of functions within the department are the answer.
- No uniform procedure. Each statute lays down its own, and some lay down none. Natural justice fills the gap.
- No duty to give reasons in many statutes. Courts now require reasons for quasi-judicial decisions (see the note on Reasoned decisions).
- Denial of legal representation before some tribunals, which may be unfair where the other side is legally trained.
- No appeal on facts in many cases, leaving only writ review.
- Lack of publicity and precedent. Proceedings may be in private and decisions unreported, so like cases are not treated alike.
- Executive influence on members' service conditions, including short tenures and reappointment at the Government's discretion.
The English Franks Committee (Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Enquiries, 1957) proposed three standards for all tribunals: openness (public hearings and reasoned decisions), fairness (clear procedure, knowledge of the case to be met) and impartiality (freedom from departmental influence). It led to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958 and the Council on Tribunals. Indian writers use the three words as the test of a good tribunal, and they make a sound conclusion to any answer on the problems.
6. Judicial control of adjudicating authorities
- Article 136: appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court from any court or tribunal (except military tribunals), examined in the note on Reasoned decisions, exceptions and effect of breach.
- Article 226 and 227: writs (especially certiorari) and the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals in its territory.
- Statutory appeals, where provided.
How this is examined
A 10-mark essay on administrative adjudication and its problems (January 2026), or on the tests for when an authority must act judicially. A 6-mark note on “tribunal” or on the Franks Committee is possible. For the essay: definition, reasons for growth, forms, the problems with a remedy for each, and the Franks standards as conclusion.
Now try the real questions: Administrative Law past question papers.