Fairness in administrative process
I. Introduction to Fairness in Administrative Process
Fairness in administrative law is a fundamental concept based on the principles of natural justice. It refers to the legal requirement that administrative authorities act justly, fairly, and without bias when making decisions that affect the rights of individuals. Fairness is considered essential to prevent arbitrary use of power.
The two core principles of natural justice are:
Audi alteram partem – "Hear the other side" (Right to fair hearing)
Nemo judex in causa sua – "No one should be a judge in their own cause" (Rule against bias)
Administrative fairness ensures:
Opportunity to present one's case
Notice of charges or reasons
Impartial decision-maker
Reasoned decision-making
II. Detailed Case Laws on Fairness in Administrative Process
1. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262
Facts:
Selection for Indian Forest Service was made by a Selection Board.
One of the members of the Board, Mr. Kraipak, was also a candidate.
He did not participate in his own interview but took part in the interviews of others.
Issue:
Whether the selection process violated principles of natural justice due to potential bias.
Held:
Supreme Court held that even though the administrative action was not strictly judicial or quasi-judicial, it still required fairness.
The participation of a candidate in the Selection Board vitiated the process, violating nemo judex in causa sua.
Significance:
Drew a fine line between administrative and quasi-judicial functions.
Emphasized that fair play must govern even administrative actions.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded under the Passport Act, without giving her an opportunity to be heard.
Issue:
Was the impounding of the passport without hearing violative of Article 21 and natural justice?
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled that right to be heard (audi alteram partem) is integral to "procedure established by law" under Article 21.
Administrative action affecting rights must follow fair and just procedure.
Significance:
Reinforced procedural fairness even in administrative decisions.
Expanded the scope of fairness under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei (1967) 2 SCR 625
Facts:
The government unilaterally changed the date of birth of Dr. Binapani Dei, thereby affecting her retirement date, without giving her a chance to be heard.
Issue:
Was it fair for the government to take such an action without hearing her?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that even an administrative order that involves civil consequences must be made after following the principles of natural justice.
Fair hearing was mandatory.
Significance:
Even seemingly minor administrative decisions with civil consequences require fairness.
Established that any action affecting rights must give opportunity to be heard.
4. Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405
Facts:
Election Commission cancelled an election without giving the candidate a hearing.
The cancellation order did not record detailed reasons.
Issue:
Whether such administrative action without giving an opportunity to the affected party is valid.
Held:
The Court emphasized that fairness is the soul of the rule of law.
Administrative authorities must act fairly, especially when the decision has serious consequences.
Significance:
Introduced the concept of duty to give reasons in administrative decisions.
Reinforced that natural justice cannot be ignored in administrative functions.
5. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398
Facts:
Government servants were dismissed without inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) due to the "interests of state security".
Issue:
Whether denial of a hearing in such cases violates principles of natural justice.
Held:
The Court held that principles of natural justice can be excluded in exceptional cases, like public interest or national security.
However, the authority must record reasons justifying such exclusion.
Significance:
Clarified that fairness is the norm, but can be excluded in exceptional circumstances.
The burden lies on the authority to justify the denial of fairness.
III. Summary: Key Takeaways
| Principle | Explanation | Case Law |
|---|---|---|
| Right to Fair Hearing | A person must be given a chance to respond to allegations | Maneka Gandhi, Binapani Dei |
| Rule Against Bias | No person should decide a matter in which they have an interest | A.K. Kraipak |
| Reasoned Decisions | Authorities must record reasons for decisions | Mohinder Singh Gill |
| Fairness in Admin Action | Fair procedure is required even in administrative decisions | Maneka Gandhi, Kraipak |
| Exceptions to Natural Justice | In exceptional cases like national security, fairness may be bypassed | Tulsiram Patel |
IV. Conclusion
Fairness in the administrative process is not a luxury; it's a constitutional necessity. Whether an action is administrative or quasi-judicial, if it affects the rights, interests, or liberties of individuals, it must be guided by principles of natural justice. The Indian judiciary, through landmark cases, has ensured that fairness is embedded in administrative law, balancing individual rights with administrative efficiency.
RELATED Blog
0 comments