Judicial Truth Seeking in Administrative Adjudication The Inquisitorial Function as Preventive Judicial Power
Keywords:
Administrative Justice; inquisitorial system; Judicial Function; preventive judicial power; administrative courts.Abstract
Administrative adjudication is commonly characterized by the presence of inquisitorial elements that distinguish it from adversarial models of judicial decision making. While these elements are often described as procedural mechanisms designed to enhance fact-finding efficiency, their deeper doctrinal significance for the role of judges in administrative justice remains underexplored. This article examines the truth-seeking function of judges in administrative proceedings, with particular reference to the practices of the Administrative Court of First Instance. Employing a qualitative doctrinal methodology, the study analyzes administrative procedural norms, judicial decisions, and relevant doctrinal scholarship to assess how inquisitorial powers are exercised in practice and how they shape the adjudicative role of the judge. The analysis demonstrates that judicial truth-seeking operates as a core structural feature of administrative adjudication, enabling courts to address structural inequalities between public authorities and private individuals and to ensure substantively fair outcomes. The article advances the argument that judicial truth-seeking constitutes a distinct doctrinal function that may be conceptualized as a form of preventive judicial power. By proactively clarifying facts and legal issues, judges are able not only to resolve disputes but also to prevent the crystallization of injustice arising from incomplete or asymmetric information. At the same time, the study emphasizes that the legitimacy of such intervention depends on its careful limitation by principles of impartiality, proportionality, and procedural fairness. By articulating judicial truth-seeking as an expression of judicial identity in administrative justice, the article contributes to broader comparative and theoretical debates on the role of courts in controlling administrative power and safeguarding the rule of law.References
Alfons, S. S., Soplanit, M., & Mail, S. M. H. (2024). Creating substantive justice in state administrative courts: A theoretical, philosophical, and human rights review. Jurnal Suara Hukum, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.26740/jsh.v6n2.p298-306
Cao, G., Liu, C., & Zhou, L. A. (2023). Suing the government under weak rule of law: Evidence from administrative litigation reform in China. Journal of Public Economics, 222, 104895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.104895
Chertoff, E. R., & Bulman-Pozen, J. (2025). The administrative state's second face. New York University Law Review, 100, 727.
Downing, G. (2024). The origin of asymmetric information: Revisiting the rationale for regulation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 44(1), 28-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqad023
Eliantonio, M., & Marique, Y. (2023). Comparative administrative law in Europe: State-of-the-art overview and research agenda. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 30(6), 689-704. http://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X241252105
Fevola, I., & Montaldo, S. (2025). Access to written submissions in preliminary reference proceedings: An evaluation of the CJEU statute reform and its contribution to open justice. European Papers—A Journal on Law and Integration, 2025(2), 357-389.
Groves, M. (2023). Equality of arms in administrative review. Melbourne University Law Review, 46(3), 726-779.
Guillard, A. (2023). The convergence of judicial and administrative investigation techniques in French law. Vilnius University Open Series, 74-84.
Guerra, A., Maraki, M., Massenot, B., & Thöni, C. (2023). Deterrence, settlement, and litigation under adversarial versus inquisitorial systems. Public Choice, 196(3), 331-356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-022-01001-4
Herd, P., Hoynes, H., Michener, J., & Moynihan, D. (2023). Introduction: Administrative burden as a mechanism of inequality in policy implementation. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 9(4), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2023.9.4.01
Jacobs, L. (2024). Access to administrative justice as an administrative law value: Designing an inclusive and accessible administrative justice system. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 40, 158-183. https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v40.9184
Markova, O. O., & Petrenko, A. V. (2025). Historical and doctrinal analysis of the German administrative procedure model. Bulletin of Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs, 108(1, Part 1), 204-212. https://doi.org/10.32631/v.2025.1.16
Paphangkornphurin, P. (2025). The legal doctrine and the role of the administrative court in the establishment of good governance standards in public personnel administration. Naresuan University Law Journal, 18(2), 113–139.
Rayasawath, C. (2025). The role and scope of the administrative court's jurisdiction in cases of disputes under Section 9 of the Administrative Court Act and Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2542: Development guidelines and new directions. Research Community and Social Development Journal, 19(2), 124-139. https://doi.org/10.14456/rc-sdj.2025.08
Reiling, K. (2024). Proof in administrative law: The German perspective. Review of European Administrative Law, 17(1), 81-110. https://doi.org/10.7590/187479824X17117014447526
Roberts, J. V., & Petzsche, A. (2025, April). Sentencing procedures under the adversarial and inquisitorial models of justice: A comparative analysis. Criminal Law Forum, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-025-09506-5
Sevier, J. (2014). The truth-justice tradeoff: Perceptions of decisional accuracy and procedural justice in adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(2), 212.
Slotfeldt-Ellingsen, D. (2023). The ideals of neutrality, impartiality and independence. In Professional ethics for research and development activities (pp. 107-108). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25484-0_7
Stephenson, M. C. (2008). Evidentiary standards and information acquisition in public law. American Law and Economics Review, 10(2), 351-387.
Surattanasanya, C. (2023). Roles of judge-commissioner of justice in procedure of Thai administrative court: In comparison to procedure of other court systems employing inquisitorial system. Naresuan University Law Journal, 16(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.14456/nulj.2023.1
Thomas, R. (2016). From “Adversarial v inquisitorial” to “Active, enabling, and investigative”: Developments in UK administrative tribunals. In The nature of inquisitorial processes in administrative regimes (pp. 51-70). Routledge.
Wever, M., & Ybema, J. F. (2024). Procedural justice and the design of administrative dispute resolution procedures. Social Justice Research, 37(1), 76-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-023-00428-4
Zuber, B., & Majnik, T. (2025). Ensuring effective judicial protection in administrative disputes through the annulment power of the administrative judiciary. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 121. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.2-a000113
