Introduction:
Many countries have recently increased their interest in administrative law, particularly with the introduction of new administrative courts, which brings the focus towards administrative justice, which deals with judicial review of administrative acts. The right to effectively question acts and decisions that affect civil rights and obligations, as well as people’s daily lives, is at the heart of a responsible and transparent administration. A functioning administrative justice system with fair trial guarantees is required for effective means of recourse against administrative decisions.
The objectives of this article are to provide a better understanding of the concept of a fair trial, which is drawn from the concept of natural justice. Also discussed is the evolution of the right to a fair trial and how it has become a mandatory requirement in administrative law. As a society grows, the concept of power separation blurs in order for it to function properly, which has resulted in huge growth in the administration of that society. Because administration in such societies affects every element of a person’s life, administrative law is required to strike a balance between the necessity for efficient administration and the people’s freedoms. The article discusses the role of the right to a fair trial, which is a fundamental right in every country’s legal system, in the burgeoning field of administrative law.
The Notion of a Fair Trial
Initially, it was the belief that if there are no judicial proceedings, the fair, public, and expeditious aspects are of little use. As a result, the right to a fair trial encapsulated the “right to a court,” of which one part is the ability to initiate actions as a right of access, while another is the assurances relating to the court’s organization and composition, as well as the conduct of the processes. This, to be summed, was the notion of fair trial/fair hearing.[1] Various rights pertaining to a fair trial are consciously stated in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[2], the United States Constitution’s Sixth Amendment[3], and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights[4], as well as myriad other constitutions and declarations around the world.
Elements of Right to a Fair Trial
Principle of Adversarial Proceedings
It means that each party in a criminal or civil trial must not only have the opportunity to present any evidence necessary for his argument to triumph but also to be privy to evidence presented or observations submitted to drive the court’s decision[5]. This implies the observance of principles of natural justice.[6]
Impartiality of Court/Judge
The court’s neutrality is a crucial feature of the right to a fair trial. A judge must not have preconceived notions about the case in front of him, and he must not act in a way that benefits either one of the two parties.[7] A trial gets flawed by the participation of an impartial judge.
Audi Alteram Partem
Another important aspect of natural justice is the concept of Audi alteram partem which is breached when a hearing is held in the absence of a party; when a party is not heard before an order adversely affecting his interests; or when a litigant is denied the right to make an opening or closing speech or to take any legal submission by the court; or when an appeal court required to re-evaluate the evidence submitted at the trial[8] and failure to conduct oral proceedings to assess if a procedural fault influenced the trial court’s verdict.
Reasoned Judgment
The principle of procedural equality enshrines “equality of arms”. This stand is violated when a trial judge refuses to grant an adjournment to enable the accused person to obtain legal representation; when an accused is denied access to his case file in the police or court; when the court is unable to regulate the hostile environment created by the public, and so on.[9]
Right of a Fair Trial under Administrative Law governing Administrative Actions
The right to a fair trial, now certainly applicable to administrative actions well within the domain of administrative law, that is governed by legality and administrative morality norms. Instead of specific regulations governing administration, written constitutions typically focus on offering chains of accountability and democratic legitimacy for administrators’ decisions. In other words, rather than administering legally, constitutions regulate it structurally.
Written constitutions, appear to reflect changes in governing technology. For instance, the latest made constitution sets bodies like an ombudsman, human rights commissions, and a corruption commission. Administrative law is addressed in constitutions through the introduction of administrative court systems. And these administrative courts while deciding upon the question of administrative actions, are required to follow the principles of natural justice. In terms of attitude, any administrative conduct that hinders one’s rights necessitates forewarning to parties whose interests are involved.
Indian Context
The first component of a fair trial was discussed by the Indian judiciary in the cases of Keshav Mills Co. V Union of India[10] and Maharashtra State Financial Corp. v. Suvarna Board Mill[11], where the former concluded that issuing a notice is purely and simply a procedural necessity and thus cannot be used to quash an administrative decision, and this was reiterated in the later judgment. However, there was a caveat that this would not dispute the authority unless and until a reasonable opportunity to be heard had been provided.
In Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT[12], the court determined that people appearing just before administrative authority with adjudicatory powers has the right to be informed of what evidence would be used against them. Furthermore, administrative authorities must give the person against whom evidence is offered a complete opportunity to present evidence, both testimonial, and documentary. In the administrative process, however, the court does not have a way out for standardized cross-examination. In Khatri v. State of Bihar[13], the Supreme Court declared that the State is legally obligated to give legal help to the indigent, not only during the trial but also during the remand period. However, giving legal representation is not an indispensable required aspect of administrative law, owing to the fact that it can lengthen the hearing.
As per the court in Errington v. Minister of Health[14], ex parte evidence in the absence of the party does not violate the ideal of a fair hearing. Every administrative authority having ruling competence must use that authority to self-govern. As a result, if a decision is made at the request of an outside agency, the right to a fair hearing is violated[15].
The Judiciary has even ruled that the tenets of a “fair hearing” necessitate the administrative power not to make cursory decisions. [16] Further retracting the guidelines, the Supreme Court of India declared in M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka[17] that there is no general duty in Indian administrative law for administrative authorities to articulate explanations for their decisions. Courts, on the other hand, deem it mandatory for the administrative agency to provide reasons if the statute under which it operates requires so.
For matters pertaining to disciplinary actions, the investigation is delegated to somebody else, and the report is produced, the relevant authority takes action. In these scenarios, a very clear question arises that whether such a report is enough for a final decision? From the standpoint of constitutional and administrative law, this is an essential subject. Any action with civil implications for any individual must comply with the norms of natural justice, as per the settled cardinal principles of administrative law.
To tackle this question, the harmonizing too of a post-decisional hearing was devised to strike a compromise between administrative efficiency and individual fairness was instituted in the landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.[18]
Administrative Exceptions to the Right of a Fair Trial
There are some restrictions to the right to a fair trial in Indian administration law. Administrative actions and administrative adjudicatory actions are used in society to ensure smooth and timely governance. It cannot be subjected to the right to a fair trial at every moment when justice is attempted to be done alternatively. Ergo! Some exceptions had been developed in case of emergency, though not final[19]; In Cases of Confidentiality[20]; in case of purely administrative matters[21]; exclusion based on impracticability[22]; in cases of interim preventive action[23], in cases of legislative action[24]; in case of statutory exception or necessity[25]; in case of government policy decision[26] and in the case where there is contractual agreement no duty to act judicially is attracted.
Conclusion
The right to a fair trial may appear simple, yet it encompasses the entire story of justice. Nonetheless, there are some scenarios where this rule is not followed, still there too it must be justified. There has to be a rationale for ignoring this principle, which is the foundation of justice. There is no neck brace or straight jacket formula for determining where ignorance of the principle of a fair trial is justified and was not. It is rather contingent on the relevant facts of the case.
The right of fair trial now is a widely accepted notion under administrative law for saving the liberties of individuals from the arbitrary actions of administrative authorities. The European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have both underlined that the right to a fair trial covers administrative proceedings. If an individual’s legal rights are at stake, the controversy must be resolved fairly.
References:
[1] Jacobs, Arthur. “A Fair ‘Trial’?” The Musical Times, vol. 118, no. 1616, 1977, pp. 814–814. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/959535. Accessed 20 Aug. 2021.
[2] UDHR, art. 10.
[3] U.S. CONST. amend. VI.
[4] EUR CONV ON HUMAN RIGHTS. art. 6.
[5] Brandstetter v. Austria, (1991) 15 EHRR 378. 2.
[6] Gary Goodpaster, On the Theory of American Adversary Criminal Trial, 78 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 118 (1987-1988)
[7] Dr. AbdalrazakAlsheban, Judicial Impartiality and Independence of the Judiciary (Comparative Study), IOSR-JHSS, Volume 22, Issue 5, Ver. II (May 2017) PP 37-44.
[8] Russo, Charles J. (16 June 2011). The Legal Rights of Students with Disabilities: International Perspectives. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 66.
[9] V.S. Chauhan, Reasoned Decision: A Principle of Natural Justice, Journal of the Indian Law Institute Vol. 37, No. 1 (January-March 1995), pp. 92-104
[10] Keshav Mills Company Ltd. v. Union of India, 1973 AIR 389.
[11] Maharashtra State Financial Corp. v. Suvarna Board Mill, 1994 SCC (5) 566.
[12] Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT, 26 ITR 775 (S.C).
[13] Khatri v. State of Bihar, 1981 AIR 1068.
[14] Errington v. Minister of Health, (1935) 1 KB 249.
[15] Mahadayal Prem Chandra v. C.T.O., AIR 1958 SC 66.
[16] S.P. Kapoor v. State of H.P., 1981 AIR 2181.
[17] M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka, Appeal (civil) 4564 of 1995.
[18] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597.
[19] Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, 1981 AIR 818.
[20] Malak Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana, 1981 AIR 760.
[21] Jawahar Lal Nehru University v. B.S. Narwal, 1980 AIR 1666.
[22] R. Radhakrishnan v. Osmania University, AIR 1974 AP 283.
[23] Abhay Kumar v. K. Srinivasan, AIR 1981 Delhi 381.
[24] Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd., 1987 AIR 1802.
[25] Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, 1990 AIR 1480.
[26] Balco Employees Union v. Union of India, Transfer Case (civil) 8 of 2001.
0 Comments