Administrative Tribunals and Courts of Law:
To make the meaning of Administrative Tribunals more clear, let us compare them with the ordinary courts of law and justice.
(I) Justice in the ordinary courts is always supposed to be administered without any ‘bias’, ‘affection’ or ‘ill-will’. However, in an Administrative Tribunal, the administrator, during the process of adjudication, has to apply public policy and obtain results in terms of it. So administrative adjudication is generally predisposed in favour of that policy and is not free from official bias.
(II) It is said that justice in the courts is administered according to the settled principles of law, while administrative adjudication is guided not by definite legal precepts but by certain statutory standards of “common good” and “public interest”. The judge thus applies the law and is bound by it while an administrative tribunal applies ‘policy’ and has considerable discretion in doing so.
(III) Delegation of power is applicable in administrative adjudication while the judge cannot delegate his power of justice to someone else.
(IV) The administrative adjudicate can initiate regulatory action of his own accord while the judge of a regular court is not empowered to start proceedings except on the submission made by some private party.
(V) The courts give reasoned decisions while Administrative Tribunals in many cases simply announce their decisions without stating the grounds or reasons on which they are based.
(VI) In ordinary courts, cases are dealt with according to well-established rules of evidence which are, however, relaxed or in-operative in case of administrative adjudication.
Thus the Administrative Tribunals and the Courts of Law differ in their organization and working.
