1. Core Legal Answer & Context: Traditionally, the application of the rules of natural justice (such as audi alteram partem - hear the other side, and nemo judex in causa sua - no one should be a judge in their own cause) was primarily confined to judicial and quasi-judicial functions. Administrative functions, which were seen as purely executive or policy-making, were often considered exempt from these procedural safeguards. The rationale was that quasi-judicial bodies, like courts, determined rights and obligations, necessitating fairness, while administrative bodies merely implemented policy.

However, the statement accurately reflects a significant evolution in administrative law. Over time, courts recognized that many administrative decisions, even if not strictly quasi-judicial, could profoundly affect the rights, interests, or legitimate expectations of individuals. The rigid distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative functions became increasingly blurred and impractical. The focus shifted from the nature of the function to the impact of the decision on the individual. If an administrative action has civil consequences, i.e., it affects a person's rights, property, or legitimate expectations, then the principles of natural justice must be observed, unless expressly excluded by statute or by necessary implication.

This shift is driven by the principle of fairness and the need to prevent arbitrary state action. The modern view emphasizes that natural justice is not merely a procedural formality but an essential component of fair play in action, ensuring that individuals are treated justly by public authorities.

2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

• No specific statute, but the principles of natural justice are considered inherent in the rule of law and are often read into Article 14 (Equality before law) and Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India, which embody the concept of procedural due process and fairness.

3. Important Landmark Cases:

• A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969): This landmark case marked a turning point. The Supreme Court held that the dividing line between administrative and quasi-judicial functions is thin and is being progressively obliterated. It emphasized that the principles of natural justice apply to administrative inquiries that affect the rights of individuals, stating that the aim of natural justice is to secure justice, and it should not be treated as a 'handmaid of injustice'.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case further solidified the application of natural justice to administrative actions. The Supreme Court held that 'procedure established by law' under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. This implied that any administrative action affecting a person's life or liberty must adhere to the principles of natural justice.

4. Clear Conclusion: The statement is largely correct. The traditional distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative functions is no longer the sole or exclusive criterion for applying natural justice. The modern approach, championed by the judiciary, focuses on the impact of the administrative action on an individual's rights or legitimate expectations. If an administrative decision has civil consequences, the principles of natural justice are generally applicable, ensuring fairness and preventing arbitrary exercise of power by public authorities.