Can an adjudicatory body base its decision on any material unless they have given the affected person an opportunity to respond to it?

 It is a well-established principle of administrative law that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. Surveying the precedents extensively, MP Jain & SN Jain's treatise on Principles of Administrative Law1 notes that:

If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. The principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings. {Para 17}  (emphasis supplied)

39. The following principles emerge from the above discussion:

(i) A quasi-judicial authority has a duty to disclose the material that has been relied upon at the stage of adjudication; and

(ii) An ipse dixit of the authority that it has not relied on certain material would not exempt it of its liability to disclose such material if it is relevant to and has a nexus to the action that is taken by the authority. In all reasonable probability, such material would have influenced the decision reached by the authority.

Thus, the actual test is whether the material that is required to be disclosed is relevant for purpose of adjudication. If it is, then the principles of natural justice require its due disclosure.

(emphasis supplied)

19. On the issue of the impact of such non-disclosure, in T. Takano, summarizing the ratio of the Constitution Bench in B. Karunakar2, we noted that:

A Constitution Bench of this Court in Karunakar (supra) held that the non-disclosure of the relevant information is not in itself sufficient to warrant the setting aside of the order of punishment. It was held that in order to set aside the order of punishment, the aggrieved person must be able prove that prejudice has been caused to him due to non-disclosure. To prove prejudice, he must prove that had the material been disclosed to him the outcome or the punishment would have been different. The test for the extent of disclosure and the corresponding remedy for non-disclosure is dependent on the objective that the disclosure seeks to achieve. Therefore, the impact of nondisclosure on the reliability of the verdict must also be determined vis-à-vis, the overall fairness of the proceeding. While determining the reliability of the verdict and punishment, the court must also look into the possible uses of the undisclosed information for purposes ancillary to the outcome, but that which might have impacted the verdict.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 88-89 of 2023, 

Deepak Ananda Patil Vs.The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.I. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Author:Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.I.

Decided On: 04.01.2023

Citation: MANU/SC/0020/2023

Print Page

Whether criminal prosecution can be initiated against Judicial and quasi judicial authorities for orders passed by them?

Insofar as  to the point of limitation is concerned,  in our view
the only remedy available to the non­applicant no.2 was to challenge the
order before the authorities under the Act, if aggrieved.  Similar is the
case in respect of  jurisdiction.  If the non­applicant no.2 was aggrieved

by the recovery certificate issued by the applicant on any ground, he
ought   to  have   resorted   to  appropriate  proceedings   to   challenge   the
certificate. Instead of resorting to the remedy available under the Act,
the non­applicant no.2 chose to file  report before the non­applicant no.1
and having failed to get the First Information Report registered against
the applicant, approached the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the
Code   of   Criminal   Procedure.     Moreover,   since     the   applicant     was
exercising   the   quasi   judicial   function   while   issuing   certificate   under
Section 101 of the Act, the criminal action initiated against the applicant
on the grounds stated in the petition, is unsustainable in law. Such a
course,   if   permitted,   would   shake   the   confidence   of   the   authorities
exercising judicial and quasi judicial function and expose the judicial and
quasi judicial authorities to unwarranted criminal actions.   If a party is
aggrieved by the order passed by a judicial or quasi judicial authority,
appropriate remedy for such a aggrieved person is to resort remedy
available under  a particular statute or to approach this Court depending
upon the facts and circumstances of the case.   If criminal  action is
permitted against persons exercising judicial or quasi judicial function

they     would   be   exposed   to   vexatious   criminal   proceedings   at   the
instance of disgruntled persons who are aggrieved by the orders passed
or actions taken against them by such authorities. Such a course can
never be countenanced.   Moreover, under Section 162 of the Act, no
suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding is maintainable against the
Registrar or any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority in
respect of anything in good faith done, or purported to be done by him
under the Act.  Therefore, the applicant is not liable to be prosecuted for
issuing recovery certificate under the Act in good faith.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 470/2011 (APL)

Yogiraj  Vasantrao Surve, Vs  State of Maharashtra,


          
           CORAM:  A.P.LAVANDE & A.B.CHAUDHARI,JJ
             
        DATED :28.2.2013

Print Page