2020 (9) TMI 1323 - HC - Indian Laws

Quasi-judicial tribunals have discretion to regulate procedure including deciding between oral hearings versus written submissions

Sunil Garg Versus Munnalal Halwai, The State of Goa & Institution of Goa Lokayukta

Bombay HC held that quasi-judicial tribunals have discretion to regulate their procedure, including whether to allow oral hearings. The court ruled that ... Violation of principles of natural justice - Before a quasi-judicial Tribunal, with no particular procedural norms, is oral hearing an inviolable facet of natural justice and fair hearing? - HELD THAT:- When it is silent—coupled with a legislative declaration that the tribunal concerned will have the powers to regulate its procedure—it lies in the tribunal's discretion. In the name of natural justice, a provision cannot be read into a statute, which the legislature has consciously avoided or omitted. It is, indeed, fallacious to insist that a court or a tribunal should follow throughout the life of a case the procedure it adopted at the beginning. Every case, has many stages. At some stages, the tribunal adjudicates issues which involve disputed questions of fact; at other stages it adjudicates disputed questions of law; still at some other stages, it adjudicates questions of both law and fact. At every stage, whether a party should be allowed to advance oral documents lies in the tribunal's discretion. The petitioner's argument does not carry the conviction that if the Lokayukta has not framed Regulations, it cannot decide on its own the procedure it may adopt. Subordinate legislation, as the very nomenclature demonstrates, gets its life and legitimacy from the parent legislation. Once that parent legislation is clear, the subordinate legislation being silent, different, or even absent makes no difference. Framing of rules cannot be a condition precedent for a statutory provision to operate on its own—if it is otherwise enforceable. It is difficult to appreciate that on a question of maintainability one cannot do justice unless he has the advantage of the counsel's oral articulation - Based on the gravity of the problem and intricacy of the issues, a tribunal may modulate its procedure. That apart, when a statute is clear, this court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction ought not to dictate to any tribunal the nitty-gritty of day-to-day proceedings. Conclusion - i) The Lokayukta's decision to require written submissions instead of oral arguments was a proper exercise of discretion, especially under the prevailing circumstances of the pandemic. ii) For any tribunal or quasi-judicial body-for that matter any adjudicatory agency, courts not excluded-'maximisation of judicial time and celerity of disposal' are the watchwords. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary legal issues considered in this judgment are:(i) Whether the Lokayukta can change the procedure it adopts during the course of a case.(ii) Whether the Lokayukta can regulate its own procedure without framing Regulations under Section 32 of the Lokayukta Act.(iii) Whether the complexity of facts and issues necessitates allowing the petitioner to advance oral arguments.(iv) Whether the Lokayukta can dispense with the petitioner's 'right to oral hearing' when its findings may have significant consequences, such as the public functionary vacating office or facing prosecution.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS(i) Procedure Change by LokayuktaThe Court examined whether the Lokayukta must adhere to a single procedure throughout the proceedings. It concluded that the Lokayukta could modulate its procedure at different stages of the proceedings. This flexibility is essential to address the varying nature of issues that may arise at different stages of a case.(ii) Regulation of Procedure Without Formal RegulationsThe Court analyzed whether the Lokayukta could regulate its own procedure without formal regulations under Section 32 of the Lokayukta Act. It was determined that the absence of formal regulations does not inhibit the Lokayukta from regulating its procedure. The substantive statute grants the Lokayukta the power to regulate its proceedings, and this power is not contingent upon the existence of subordinate legislation.(iii) Complexity of Facts and Oral ArgumentsThe Court considered whether the complexity of the case necessitated oral arguments. It found that the issues involved, particularly concerning the maintainability under Section 27 of the Lokayukta Act, were primarily legal and did not require oral arguments. The Court emphasized that the Lokayukta's discretion in procedural matters should be respected unless there is a clear statutory mandate for oral hearings.(iv) Right to Oral Hearing and ConsequencesThe Court addressed whether the Lokayukta could dispense with oral hearings given the potential consequences of its findings. It concluded that the application under Section 27 of the Lokayukta Act concerned maintainability and did not warrant an oral hearing. The Court noted that procedural discretion should be exercised judiciously, and the Lokayukta had not reached a stage where oral arguments were indispensable.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court emphasized that procedural modulation is permissible and necessary for effective adjudication. It held that:'Every case, as we know, has many stages. At some stages, the tribunal adjudicates issues which involve disputed questions of fact; at other stages it adjudicates disputed questions of law; still at some other stages, it adjudicates questions of both law and fact. At every stage, whether a party should be allowed to advance oral documents lies in the tribunal's discretion.'The Court further reinforced the principle that the absence of formal regulations does not impede the Lokayukta's ability to regulate its procedure:'Rules do not control the substantive statute, nor is their presence sine qua non for the statutory enforcement.'Finally, the Court concluded that the Lokayukta's decision to require written submissions instead of oral arguments was a proper exercise of discretion, especially under the prevailing circumstances of the pandemic.'For any tribunal or quasi-judicial body-for that matter any adjudicatory agency, courts not excluded-'maximisation of judicial time and celerity of disposal' are the watchwords.'The writ petition was disposed of with no order on costs, allowing the petitioner additional time to submit written arguments or engage a local counsel.