Administrative Review of a Quasi-Judicial Action - Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa

Introduction

Most of the times, Administrative Law only talks about Judicial Review of Administrative Actions. Seldom the question arises as to the validity of an Administrative Review of a Judicial or a Quasi-Judicial Action. Normally, judicial actions are never amenable to review by an Administrative Authority. However, with ever changing times and laws, interesting and peculiar situations arise in the field of law. In such situations, what is the answer? Is an Administrative Review of a Quasi-Judicial Action tenable at all? The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. K.M. Shankarappa, (2001) 1 SCC 582, has attempted to answer this question.

View taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court says that if a quasi-judicial body consists of qualified persons, then as a matter of principle its decision would be final and binding on the Executive and the Government. The principle is that of the ‘Separation of Power’. The Court states that to permit the Executive to review the decision of a quasi-judicial body or a judicial body would amount to interference with the exercise of judicial function. The ‘Separation of Power’ Doctrine is all about maintaining a system of checks and balances. However, in order to maintain checks and balances, it is important that one organ of the State must not interfere with the functioning of the other. Our Constitutional Jurisprudence respects the Doctrine of Basic Structure that upholds the concept of Judicial Review. But there is no provision of Administrative Review in our Constitutional Setup.

Separation of Power and Doctrine of Basic Structure, on a joint reading, imply that Judiciary and Executive must not interfere with each and only Judicial Review is the norm and not the vice-versa. Thus the Executive must obey the Judicial Order.

Separation of Power and Judicial Review are also an important feature of a Rule of Law Society. Any provision or law in contravention of the said principle would be a travesty of the Rule of Law which is also a Basic Feature of our Constitution.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankarappa says that under our Constitutional Setup, it is not disputed that the Legislature may overrule or nullify a judicial or executive decision by enacting an appropriate legislation. However, without enacting an appropriate legislation, the executive or the legislature cannot set at naught a Judicial Order.

An Administrative Body performing judicial functions is for all practical purposes a quasi-judicial body. The said proposition is also a settled one and shall be discussed in the subsequent post. An Executive Officer or a Minister discharging executive functions cannot revise the decisions of a quasi-judicial body. At most, the Government or an Officer of the Executive may apply for a Review in front of the quasi-judicial body. However, the Executive shall be bound by the decision of the quasi-judicial body.

Conclusion

There are not many case laws on this aspect. In fact, this is the only Supreme Court decision dealing with the question relating to Administrative Review of quasi-judicial actions. The reasoning adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a sound one and is consistent with the Basic Structure Doctrine. This is a fact often forgotten by the Administrative Authorities. There is a clear need to put an end to such exercises being resorted to by the Administrative functionaries else there would be nothing left for giving certainty and protection to judicial pronouncements. The abovementioned proposition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a sacrosanct one and deserves the same degree of respect as other important principles of common law such as Res Judicata and Stare Decisis.