Institutional Decision1.

Institutional decision is one which is taken by the designated official with the
assistanceof his subordinates in the department.
2.
It is called institutional due to it being taken by the department as a whole.3.There are however two main
problems associated with it namely, the authorship of the decision is unknown and secondly it leads to
division in the decision making process.
4.
In Local Government Board v. Alrdige, the borough council declared a house unfit for human habitation and
asked for its closure. The landlord approached the LocalGovernment Board to conduct investigations and help
him. The Board asked aninspector to carry out the task who in his final report stated that the house was infactunfit
for habitation. This was challenged by the landlord who stated that he had not been given a fair hearing as he was
not allowed to be heard by the officer who hadactually examined the case. The court held otherwise stating it to an
institutionaldecision. Herein it is not necessary to identify the officer who had conducted theenquiry as the decision
is deemed to be that of the department. Further, in this case it isnot necessary that the official conducting enquiry
must hear the case as well as is seenin case of judicial decisions.

5.
Another point of difference between institutional decision and a judicial decision is that in an institutional decision
not all evidence against the person may be provided to him.6.Institutional decision is different from the
decision of a single official or administrativetribunal as it is the decision of the department.7.In the US,
the Administrative Procedure Act has provisions for regulation of institutional decisions. In UK as

well, it is an accepted fact that when a decision is to betaken by a minister it means that such decision is to be taken
by the department as awhole.
8.
In Union of India v. Shripati Rajan, the respondent was dismissed from service by thecollector of customs. As per
the law, he appealed to the President but his appeal wasdismissed by the Finance Minister without consideration
by the President. The SC heldsuch decision as being valid as the Finance Minister disposed off the case in
accordancewith the rules of business and the President is a mere constitutional head. It was thus aninstitutional
decision.
9.
In Mahavir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of UP, it was held that an executive authority can exercise power
through their subordinates.10.Generally speaking, the report made by the hearing officer which is
submitted beforethe authority which sits in judgment is not necessary unless it prejudices the case to agreat
extent

Natural Law says that one who decides the case should hear the case. However, this is not always
possible, particularly in departmental decision making.
Institutional Decisions are decisions taken by a large number of people who take part in the collective
decision making process. The decision is a result of institutions and institutional process rather than that
of one designated person.
Contents
[hide]

1 Advantages / Need
2 Disadvantages
3 Statute provisions

3.1 United States of America

4 Recent Cases / Related Cases / Case Law

5 Conclusion
6 Related Topics

Advantages / Need
Some issues are complex requiring special skills, expertise, opinions and views of a number of

people rather than just one individual.

Ministers responsible to take decisions function through officers of his department.

Disadvantages
Decision making process becomes complex

Clouds responsibility

Makes decision making difficult to evaluate.

Statute provisions
United States of America
The Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 has the provisions regulating institutional decisions

When the decision maker does not conduct the hearing, the hearing officer is required to

make a recommendation which shall include

Statement of findings

Conclusions

Reasons or basis there of upon the material of facts, law or discretion presented
on record.

Act also included provisions for ensuring the impartiality of hearing officers.

Recent Cases / Related Cases / Case Law

Local Government Board V Arlidge

House of Lords decided the validity of institutional decisions.

Decision of Local Government Board was challenged on the ground that the aggrieved
person was not allowed to appear before the official who actually decide the matter.
Held that it is not necessary that a person who decides must hear the person affected.

Bushell V Secretary of State for the Environment

Held that there is no violation of natural justice when the deciding Minister took

departmental advice after local inquiry while deciding whether he should confirm a scheme or not.
India v Sripathi Renjam

The power of adjudication is exercised by officials authorized to do so under the Rules of

Business
Labh Singh v Union of India

Challenge on sub-delegation

Held contention of Chief Settlement Commissioner to be rejected even though he is

higher in rank to Deputy Secretary because the act / decision of Deputy Secretary is deemed to
be that of the Central Government.
Travancore Rayons v India

Government order was in printed form signed by a Joint Secretary.

Supreme Court of India expressed dissatisfaction and said the party approaching the
Government in exercise of a statutory right for adjudication of a dispute is entitled to know at least
the official designation of the person giving the decision against him.

Conclusion
Administrative Law must allow institutional process to meld all of the skills, experience and values in order
to take full advantage of the administrative process but in must create order and awareness within the
institutional making process.

Read more: http://www.lawnotes.in/Institutional_Decision#ixzz3R1WHP0is