ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

Synopsis

I. Introduction B. Jurisdiction and Power

II. Tribunals C. Appeal from Administrative

Tribunal to Supreme Court
III. Administrative Tribunals
VII. Judicial Review of Decisions of
IV. Characteristics of Administrative
Administrative Tribunals
Tribunals
S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of
V. Articles 323-A and 323-B of the
India [AIR 1987 SC 386]
Constitution of India
L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India
VI. Establishment of Administrative
[AIR 1997 SC 1125]
Tribunals under Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 VIII. Conclusion

A. Types of Tribunals

Introduction
According to Seervai, the development of administrative law in a welfare state has made
administrative tribunals a necessity.

The constitution and function of our court system is very traditional as well as inefficient. With the
phenomenal increase in the functions of the government, there has been an enormous increase in the
powers to the executive and also led to increase in the legislative output. This has led to more
litigation, restrictions on the freedom of the individuals and constant frictions between them and the
authority. Therefore with the increase in litigations, there was need to set up adjudicatory bodies
which could adequately deal with technical matters involved in administrative disputes. This has led
to the growth of Administrative Tribunals.

Tribunals
The term tribunal is not capable of any precise definition. The word tribunal has been used under
Articles 136 and 227 of the Constitution of India but even the Constitution does not define the term.
In the case of

Durga Shanker Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh

The Supreme Court held that the term tribunal does not mean the same thing as Court. It includes
within its ambit, all adjudicating bodies, provided they are constituted by the State and vested with
judicial as distinguished from administrative or executive functionings.

Thus tribunals are adjudicatory bodies (except ordinary courts of law) constituted by the State and
invested with judicial and quasi- judicial functions as distinguished from administrative or executive
functions. In the case of

Bharat Bank v. Employees

The Supreme Court held that the tribunals possess some trappings of court but not all.

The Supreme Court in

Jaswant Sugar Mills v. Lakshmi Chand

laid down the following characteristics or tests to determine whether an authority is a tribunal or not:

1. Power of adjudication must be derived from a statute or statutory rule.

2. It must possess the trappings of a court and thereby be vested with the power to summon
witnesses, administer oaths, compel production of evidence, etc.

3. Tribunals are not bound by strict rules of evidence.

4. They are to exercise their functions objectively and judicially and to apply the law and resolve
disputes independently of executive policy.

5. Tribunals are supposed to be independent and immune from any administrative interference in the
discharge of their judicial functions.

Administrative Tribunals
Administrative tribunals are authorities outside the ordinary court system, which interpret and apply
the laws when acts of public administration are questioned in formal suits by the courts or by other
established methods. They are not a court nor are they an executive body. Rather they are a mixture of
both. They are judicial in the sense that the tribunals have to decide facts and apply them impartially,
without considering executive policy. They are administrative because the reasons for preferring them
to the ordinary courts of law are administrative reasons.

Characteristics of Administrative Tribunals

The following are the characteristics of an administrative tribunal:

1. An administrative tribunal is the creation of a statute and thus, it has a statutory origin.

2. It has only some of the powers and functions of a court but not all.
3. An administrative tribunal is entrusted with the judicial powers of the State and thus, performs
judicial and quasi-judicial functions, as distinguished from pure administrative or executive
functions and is bound to act judicially.

4. Even with regard to procedural matters, an administrative tribunal possesses powers of a court;
for example, to summon witnesses, to administer oath, to compel production of documents, etc.

5. An administrative tribunal is not bound by strict rules of evidence and procedure.

6. Most of the administrative tribunals are not concerned exclusively with the cases in which
Government is a party; they also decide disputes between two private parties, e.g. Election
Tribunal, Rent Tribunal, Industrial Tribunal, etc.

7. Administrative Tribunals are independent and they are not subject to any administrative
interference in the discharge of their judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

8. The prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition are available against the decisions of
administrative tribunals. Thus, taking into account the functions being performed and the powers
being exercised by administrative tribunals it can be said that, they are neither exclusively judicial
nor exclusively administrative bodies, but are partly administrative and partly judicial authorities.

Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution of India

In the backdrop of the recommendations of the Swarn Singh Committee and the decision of the
Supreme Court in K.K. Dutta v. Union of India, the Constitution (Forty- second Amendment) Act,
1976 was enacted which added Part XIV-A in the Constitution. This Part consisted of two Articles,
Article 323-A and 323-B. Articles 323-A and 323-B enabled Parliament to constitute administrative
tribunals for dealing with certain matters specified therein.

Article 323-A provides for the establishment of the Tribunal to deal with service matters whereas
Article 323-B provides for the establishment of Tribunals to deal with other matters.

Both the Articles further lay down the jurisdiction and powers of such Tribunals. Such powers (as
vested with the Administrative Tribunals, established under Part XIV-A of the Constitution of India)
may include the power to punish for their contempt.

The law made pursuant to Part XIV-A may lay down the procedure to be followed by such tribunals,
including rules as to limitation and evidence and may provide for the transfer to such Tribunals cases
which are pending before a court or other authority at the time of establishment of each Tribunal.

Provision was also made to the effect that the law made pursuant to the powers under this Part may
exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts, other than the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under
Article 32 or 136, in respect of such matters.
Establishment of Administrative Tribunals under Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985
Empowered by the above mentioned provisions of the Constitution, the Parliament enacted
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the establishment of administrative service tribunals for
deciding service disputes of civil servants of the Centre as well as of the States which was amended in
1986.

Types of Tribunals
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides for three types of tribunals:

1. The Central Government establishes an administrative tribunal called the Central

Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which has jurisdiction to deal with service matters pertaining
to the Central Government employees, or of any Union Territory, or local or other government
under the control of the Government of India, or of a corporation owned or controlled by the
Central Government

2. The Central Government may, on receipt of a request in this behalf from any State Government,
establish an administrative tribunal for such State employees [State Administrative Tribunal].

3. Two or more States might ask for a joint tribunal, which is called the Joint Administrative
Tribunal (JAT), which exercises powers of the administrative tribunals for such States.

Jurisdiction and Power

1. After the coming into force of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, all judicial remedies save
those of the Supreme Court under Art 32 and 136 have been abolished and the pending
proceeding before other courts stand transferred before the regional Administrative Tribunals
under s.29 of the Act.

2. Administrative Tribunal is competent to exercise all powers which the respective courts had,
including declaration as to constitutionality of relevant laws. In short, the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal is not supplementary but is a complete substitute of the High Courts and Civil Courts.

3. Section 29A (inserted in 1986) gives an appellate jurisdiction of the Central Administrative
Tribunal. Appeals from judgment of Civil Courts in suits relating to service matter which are
now governed by the Administrative Tribunal Act shall lie to the Administrative Tribunals to
the exclusion of any other Civil Appellant Court or the High Court.

4. Orders of the Central Administrative Tribunals are not open to challenge before the High Court.

Appeal from Administrative Tribunal to Supreme Court

Though the jurisdiction of High Court under Art 226 over service matter has been taken over by the
respective Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over these
Tribunals under Art.136 has been retained. Appeal lies to the Supreme Court from orders of an
Administrative Tribunal, by special leave under Art 136, on the following grounds

(i) Error of Law

(ii) Finding of the Tribunal being perverse.
(iii) The order of the Tribunal being without jurisdiction or ultra vires.
(iv) The order of the Tribunals being arbitrary or mala fide.
(v) The order of the Tribunal is such as would lead to grave injustice.

Judicial Review of Decisions of Administrative Tribunals (Judicial Control

of Administrative Tribunals)
Articles 323-A and 323-B of the Constitution and S. 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act provided
that the decision of the Administrative Tribunal is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Courts
under Articles 226 and 227 and that of the Supreme Court under Article 32. This means that other
than approaching the Supreme Court by way of special leave under Article 136, there is no other
remedy available to any person aggrieved by the decision of the Administrative Tribunal.

This leads to the emergence of two important issues. Firstly, it leads to overburdening of the Supreme
Court in the absence of any other alternate remedy and due to excessive litigation in the Supreme
Court under Article 136. Secondly and more importantly such a provision contradicts with the power
of judicial review the superior Courts.

The constitutional validity of the provisions which excluded the jurisdiction of the HC and the SC
under Articles 226, 2227 and 32 has been discussed in detail in the two landmark cases of Sampath
Kumar v. Union of India and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.

S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India [AIR 1987 SC 386]

This is the first and perhaps the most important case in this period that attracted judicial scrutiny in
this area. The Constitution Bench in Sampath Kumars case was called upon to decide on the main
issue whether Section 28 of the Act was unconstitutional as it excludes judicial review, which was
contended as part of the basic structure of the constitution.

The Supreme Court accepted without doubt that judicial review is part of the basic structure.
However the Court went on to observe that the creation of alternative institutional mechanisms which
were as effective as the High Courts would not be violative of the basic structure. The administrative
Tribunals under the Act were recognized as effective substitutes of the High Courts.

L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India [AIR 1997 SC 1125]

The judicial green signal given for tribunalisation given in Sampath Kumar could be seen slowly
fading because of the subsequent decisions. The confusion created by these conflicting decisions
ushered in the need for taking a second look at S.P. Sampath Kumars case.
This opportunity arrived when a three judge bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandrakumar v.
Union of India decided to refer the matter to a larger bench.

This eventually led to the famous ruling of the Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on L.
Chandrakumar v. Union of India, which is now the law of the land.

The important issues considered by the apex court were as follows:

1. Whether Art. 323A (2) (d) and Art.323B (3) (d) of the Constitution which empower to the Union
and State Legislatures to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except that of the Supreme Court
under Art.136, is in accordance with the power of judicial review embodied in Art.32 and 226.

2. Whether the power of High Courts to exercise the powers of superintendence over the subordinate
judiciary under Articles 226 and 227 forms part of Basic Structure?

3. The competence of the aforesaid tribunals to determine the constitutionality of any law.

4. Whether the aforesaid tribunals are acting as effective substitutes to High Courts in terms of
efficiency.

Held

It was held that the power of judicial review over legislative and administrative action is expressly
vested with the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32 respectively. It was
held that the constitutional safeguards which ensure the independence of the higher judiciary is not
available to the lower judiciary and tribunals. Consequently it was held that the lower judiciary would
not be able to serve as effective substitutes to the higher judiciary in matters of constitutional
interpretation and judicial review. Hence the power of judicial review is vested in the higher judiciary
and the power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislative
and administrative action cannot ordinarily be ousted.

However it was held that these tribunals and the lower judiciary could exercise the role of judicial
review as supplement to the superior judiciary.

Conclusion
Tribunals are supposed to serve as alternative institutional mechanisms to High Courts. They must
therefore be able to inspire public confidence by proving themselves to be a competent and expert
mechanism with a judicial and objective approach. In order to achieve this it is essential that members
of the tribunal are equipped with adequate judicial acumen and expertise. These judicial officers need
to be balanced with experts in the particular field. Only a judicious blend of the two will be able to
provide an effective and result oriented tribunal system.
 EXTRA MATERIAL

Origin and Development of Administrative Tribunals

In England
In England, the provisions for the control of Administrative Tribunals were found to be insufficient.
Therefore in 1955 a Committee was constituted to consider and make recommendations on the
constitution, working and procedure of the Administrative Tribunals. This Committee was known as
the Franks Committee. Some of the recommendations made by the Franks Committee were given
effect in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958. This Act has been replaced by the Act of 1971, which
makes no change of substance.

In USA
In USA, the doctrine of separation of powers and the provisions of Section 1 of Article III of the
Constitution have been the obstacle in the establishment of Administrative Tribunals. Therefore it is
only the judicial process and not the judicial power that is delegated to the Administrative Tribunals.
It is believed that so long as the decisions of the Administrative tribunals are open to judicial review
and not final, there is no violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.

In India
For a long time a search was going on for a mechanism to relieve the courts, including High Courts
and the Supreme Court, from the burden of service litigation which formed a substantial portion of
pending litigation. As early as 1958 this problem engaged the attention of the Law Commission which
recommended for the establishment of tribunals consisting of judicial and administrative members to
decide service matters. In 1969 Administrative Reform Commission also recommended for the
establishment of civil service tribunals both for the Central and State civil servants.

Central Government appointed a committee under the Chairmanship of Justice J.C. Shah of the SC of
India in 1969 which also made similar recommendation. In 1975, Swarn Singh Committee again
recommended for the setting up of service tribunals. The idea of setting up service tribunals also
found favour with the SC of India which in

K.K. Dutta

v.

Union of India

advocated for setting up of service tribunals to save the courts from avalanche of writ petitions and
appeals in service matters.

It was against this backdrop that Parliament passed Constitution (Forty- second Amendment) Act,
1976 which added Part XIV-A in the Constitution.
ADVANTAGES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Administrative adjudication is a dynamic system of administration, which serves, more adequately
than any other method, the varied and complex needs of the modem society. The main advantages of
the administrative tribunals are:

1. Flexibility
Administrative adjudication has brought about flexibility and adaptability in the judicial as well as
administrative tribunals. For instance, the courts of law exhibit a good deal of conservatism and
inelasticity of outlook and approach. The justice they administer may become out of harmony with the
rapidly changing social conditions. Administrative adjudication, not restrained by rigid rules of
procedure and canons of evidence, can remain in tune with the varying phases of social and economic
life.

2. Adequate Justice
In the fast changing world of today, administrative tribunals are not only the most appropriated means
of administrative action, but also the most effective means of giving fair justice to the individuals.
Lawyers, who are more concerned about aspects of law, find it difficult to adequately assess the needs
of the modem welfare society and to locate the individuals place in it.

3. Less Expensive
Administrative justice ensures cheap and quick justice. As against this, procedure in the law courts is
long and cumbersome and litigation is costly. It involves payment of huge court fees, engagement of
lawyers and meeting of other incidental charges. Administrative adjudication, in most cases, requires
no stamp fees. Its procedures are simple and can be easily understood by a layman.

4. Relief to Courts
The system also gives the much-needed relief to ordinary courts of law, which are already
overburdened with ordinary suits.

Disadvantages of Administrative Tribunals

Even though administrative adjudication is essential and useful in modem day administration, we
should not be blind to the defects from which it suffers or the dangers it poses to a democratic polity.
Some of the main drawbacks are mentioned below.

1. Administrative adjudication is a negation of Rule of Law. Rule of Law ensures equality

before law for everybody and the supremacy of ordinary law and due procedure of law over
governmental arbitrariness. But administrative tribunals, with their separate laws and
procedures often made by themselves, puts a serious limitation upon the celebrated principles
of Rule of Law.
 2. Administrative tribunals have in most cases, no set procedures and sometimes they violate
even the principles of natural justice.
3. Administrative tribunals often hold summary trials and they do not follow any precedents. As
such it is not possible to predict the course of future decisions.
4. The civil and criminal courts have a uniform pattern of administering justice and centuries of
experience in the administration of civil and criminal laws have borne testimony to the
advantages of uniform procedure. A uniform code of procedure in administrative adjudication
is not there.
5. Administrative tribunals are manned by administrators and technical heads who may not have
the background of law or training of judicial work. Some of them may not possess the
independent outlook of a judge.

Administrative Tribunals and Principles of Natural Justice

In the case of

Union of India

v.

T.R. Varma

the Supreme Court rightly observed that the law requires Administrative Tribunals to observe rules of
natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry before them. If they do so, their decisions are not liable to
be impeached on the ground that the procedure followed by them was not in accordance with the
procedure followed by a Court of Law.

The Law Commission in its Fourteenth Report (1958) has observed that administrative tribunals
perform quasi- judicial functions and they must act judicially and in accordance with the principles of
natural justice. Administrative Tribunals must act openly, fairly and impartially. They must afford a
reasonable opportunity to the parties to represent their case and to adduce the relevant evidence. Their
decisions must be objective and not subjective.