The Legality of Unwritten Administrative Decisions and Their Impact In Terms of Proof and Challenge

Abstract

This study effectively checks the legality of governing unwritten (verbal) administrative decisions, meticulously addressing their validity, hardships in judicial oversight, and practical implications. While administrative decisions classically need written form to undoubtedly ensure how transparent and accountable, administrative practice strikingly uncovers recurrent reliance on verbal decisions, more particularly in abrupt scenarios or routine internal directives.  The study tremendously asserts that unwritten decisions retain legal validity once they effectively fulfill core substantive conditions: competence of the issuing authority, legitimate purpose, lawful cause, and alignment with public interest. The "shape" of such choices is undoubtedly formally oral expression instead of documentation. Nonetheless, the non-existence of written records sophisticatedly complicates proof in judicial disputes and effectively weakens guarantees of legality, Critical risks include eroded transparency, vulnerability to misuse of discretionary powers, and compromised individual rights, particularly in public employment or punitive measures. The research ultimately sums up that while unwritten decisions are legally permissible under traditional administrative law theory, they undermine judicial review and accountability. It recommends:

1. Legislative reform mandating written documentation for rights-affecting decisions.
2. Procedural safeguards requiring ex-post written recording of verbal directives.
3. Judicial flexibility in admitting diverse evidence to prove unwritten acts.