The Supreme People's Court this week issued a notice requiring local courts to maintain impartiality in hearing administrative cases.

It orders local courts to avoid pampering government departments and resist any local powers' attempts to influence administrative litigation.

The text sounds like a statement of the obvious, yet it points to problems that have long troubled many judges chairing administrative tribunals.

Unlike criminal cases and civil disputes, administrative cases provide citizens the chance to reclaim rights and interests allegedly revoked by administrative agencies' activities, such as fines, detention or confiscation of property.

The nature of administrative litigation prescribes the role of administrative departments as defendants, and in that capacity they must face citizens' charges and, in many cases, accept unfavorable rulings.

Problems are therefore inevitable. The most frequent hindrance of judicial work in these cases is when some departments dare challenge the rulings by refusing to accept unfavorable results.

Some officials do not even bother to represent their agencies in court because it could sap their "image."

Rather than glossifying reality, the Supreme Court's notice is a reminder of the nagging problems that erode justice.

The current administrative and legal systems do not provide many means for citizens to get relief when their rights are infringed upon by powerful departments. Complaints to upper-level authorities often take months or even years to be resolved, with barely satisfactory outcome.

Litigation thus becomes many citizens' last hope for challenging administrative departments' wrongdoings.

Despite the nominal equality between plaintiffs and defendants, citizens are often in a disadvantaged position in administrative cases, considering the asymmetry of power and burden of proof.

It is particularly important for the court to resist pressure from local authorities to safeguard justice.

The Supreme Court's notice comes at a time when public demand for limited administration and more efficient judicature is rising.

In addition to repeated calls for respect for the Constitution and the law, the central leadership recently required local governments to improve the handling of public complaints to strengthen public supervision.

The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has also planned to revise the law on administrative procedure, as well as civil and criminal procedures, to enhance judicial work.

These changes have cultivated a favorable atmosphere for the judicature to assume a more powerful and independent role and parry outside intervention.

To give full play to the judicature, however, more substantial reforms are needed.

Currently, local courts are elected by and report to local people's congresses, and they are funded by local governments. Such a situation inevitably makes the court vulnerable to administrative intervention.

To cut the connection completely, the country should initiate a sweeping reform of the court system -- a scenario that is not likely to come in the short term.

(China Daily April 1, 2004)