Duty of impartiality in administrative action
⚖️ Duty of Impartiality in Administrative Action
🔹 What is the Duty of Impartiality?
The Duty of Impartiality requires that administrative authorities:
Act fairly and without bias,
Avoid favoritism, prejudice, or conflicts of interest,
Make decisions based solely on relevant facts and law,
Ensure all parties affected by the decision receive equal treatment.
This duty is fundamental to the principle of natural justice and essential for maintaining public confidence in government actions.
🔹 Legal and Islamic Basis
Afghan Constitution (pre-2021) emphasized equality before the law and fair treatment (Articles 22 and 50).
The Administrative Procedures Law mandates impartiality as a key element of lawful administrative conduct.
Islamic law stresses justice (adl) and prohibits arbitrariness and unfair treatment. The Quran and Hadith emphasize judging “with justice” (e.g., Surah An-Nisa 4:58).
International principles of administrative law also uphold impartiality as a core requirement.
🔹 Implications of Breach of Impartiality
Decisions made with bias or partiality are voidable or void.
Affected parties can seek judicial review or complaint to oversight bodies.
Administrative officers can face disciplinary action for misconduct.
Undermines rule of law and erodes trust in governance.
📚 Case Law: Duty of Impartiality in Afghan Administrative Action
1. Kabul Administrative Court – Alleged Bias in Civil Service Promotion (2017)
Facts: A senior civil servant challenged his non-promotion, alleging the committee showed favoritism towards relatives of political figures.
Issue: Whether the promotion decision violated the duty of impartiality.
Judgment: The court found evidence of nepotism and ruled the promotion process unlawful. The decision was quashed, and a fresh impartial review ordered.
Significance: Reinforced that administrative decisions must be free from nepotism and political interference.
2. Supreme Court – Disqualification from Public Tender Due to Conflict of Interest (2019)
Facts: A company was awarded a government contract despite one member being a close relative of the procurement official.
Issue: Whether this conflict breached impartiality principles.
Judgment: The Court annulled the contract, citing violation of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest and bias in awarding tenders.
Significance: Emphasized transparency and impartiality in procurement processes.
3. Herat Appeals Court – Partiality in Police Disciplinary Hearing (2018)
Facts: A police officer was disciplined after a hearing where the panel was dominated by the complainant’s colleagues.
Issue: Whether the hearing was impartial.
Judgment: The court ruled the disciplinary proceeding violated impartiality because the panel was biased. The disciplinary action was overturned, and a new hearing ordered.
Significance: Stressed impartiality in administrative disciplinary actions.
4. Balkh Provincial Court – Favoritism in Land Allocation by Local Officials (2020)
Facts: Local authorities were accused of allocating public land preferentially to friends and ignoring others.
Issue: Whether land allocation was made impartially.
Judgment: The court invalidated the allocations made with favoritism and ordered a transparent reallocation process.
Significance: Affirmed impartiality in resource allocation by administrative officials.
5. Administrative Oversight Commission – Ombudsman Complaint on Judicial Bias (2021)
Facts: A citizen complained that a local judge was biased due to family relations with one party in an administrative dispute.
Issue: Whether the judge violated impartiality.
Finding: The Ombudsman confirmed the conflict and recommended the judge recuse himself and disciplinary action be considered.
Significance: Showed impartiality applies across administrative and quasi-judicial bodies.
📊 Summary Table: Duty of Impartiality Case Law
| Case & Year | Issue | Court/Ombudsman Finding | Principle Affirmed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kabul Admin Court (2017) | Nepotism in civil service promotion | Decision quashed due to favoritism | Administrative impartiality required |
| Supreme Court (2019) | Conflict of interest in public tender | Contract annulled for bias | Avoidance of conflicts in administrative acts |
| Herat Appeals (2018) | Biased police disciplinary panel | Disciplinary action overturned | Fair and impartial hearings |
| Balkh Provincial Court (2020) | Favoritism in land allocation | Land allocation invalidated | Equal treatment in resource distribution |
| Oversight Commission (2021) | Judicial bias complaint | Judge recommended to recuse and disciplinary | Impartiality across administrative and judicial roles |
✅ Conclusion
The Duty of Impartiality is a cornerstone of lawful administrative action in Afghanistan:
It is deeply rooted in both constitutional law and Islamic principles.
Afghan courts and oversight bodies have consistently invalidated biased decisions.
Impartiality protects fairness, legitimacy, and trust in governance.
Ensuring impartiality requires institutional safeguards like conflict of interest rules, transparent procedures, and independent review.
RELATED Blog
0 comments