Meaning and Purpose

An Administrative Tribunal is a specialized, statutory body established to adjudicate specific types of disputes arising from administrative actions. These tribunals are created to provide a speedier, cheaper, and more expert alternative to the ordinary courts of law for resolving disputes in particular fields. They form a crucial part of the system of administrative adjudication, where judicial functions are performed by the executive branch.

Unlike a court, which has general jurisdiction over all types of cases, a tribunal has a very specific and limited jurisdiction, defined by the statute that creates it. For example, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can only hear appeals related to direct tax matters and nothing else.

Specialized bodies for adjudicating administrative matters

The primary purpose behind the creation of administrative tribunals is to deal with the new kinds of disputes that have emerged in the modern welfare state. The traditional court system was found to be inadequate for handling these cases for several reasons:

• Overburdened Courts: The ordinary courts are already burdened with a huge backlog of traditional civil and criminal cases. Diverting specialized administrative disputes to tribunals helps reduce this burden.

• Need for Expertise: Many administrative disputes are highly technical and require specialized knowledge of the subject matter (e.g., environmental science, taxation, telecommunications regulation). Tribunals can be staffed with members who have expertise in these specific fields, in addition to judicial members.

• Speed and Cost-Effectiveness: The procedures in tribunals are typically less formal, more flexible, and quicker than the rigid procedures of ordinary courts. This makes justice more accessible and less expensive for the average citizen.

• Focus on Policy: Tribunals are often better positioned to consider the policy implications of their decisions within their specialized area, ensuring that adjudication is consistent with the goals of the regulatory scheme.

Quasi-judicial nature

Administrative tribunals are not courts in the traditional sense; they are described as quasi-judicial bodies. This means they have some of the trappings of a court but not all.

Judicial Characteristics:

• They adjudicate on disputes between parties.
• They must base their decisions on facts and apply the relevant law.
• They are bound by the principles of natural justice (fair hearing, rule against bias).
• Their decisions are legally binding on the parties.

Non-Judicial Characteristics (Differences from Courts):

• Procedure: They are not bound by the strict rules of procedure and evidence contained in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act. They are guided by principles of natural justice and can devise their own procedures.

• Composition: While the chairperson is often a retired judge, the other members may be technical experts or administrative officials rather than legally trained judges.

• Jurisdiction: Their jurisdiction is limited and statutory, unlike High Courts which have very wide jurisdiction.

Constitutional Basis

The establishment of administrative tribunals in India was given a firm constitutional foundation through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. This amendment introduced a new part, Part XIV-A, into the Constitution, which consists of two articles: Article 323A and Article 323B. These articles empower the Parliament and State Legislatures to create tribunals and, importantly, to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts (except the Supreme Court under Article 136) over the matters assigned to these tribunals.

This "ouster of jurisdiction" clause was later read down by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997). The Court held that the power of judicial review of the High Courts (Article 226) and the Supreme Court (Article 32) is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away. Therefore, an appeal from the decision of a tribunal now lies to the Division Bench of the respective High Court.

Article 323A (Administrative Tribunals)

Article 323A is a specific provision that empowers the Parliament of India to create administrative tribunals by law. It is limited to one specific subject matter.

• Exclusive Power of Parliament: Only the Parliament, not state legislatures, can make laws under this article.

• Subject Matter: The tribunals can only be established for the adjudication of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State, or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government.

• Hierarchical Structure: The law can provide for the establishment of a Central Administrative Tribunal (for the Union) and a separate Administrative Tribunal for each State or for two or more States.

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

In exercise of the power conferred by Article 323A, the Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. This Act has led to the establishment of:

• The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) with its principal bench in Delhi and other benches across the country.
• State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) in various states that have requested them.

Article 323B (Tribunals for other matters)

Article 323B is a broader provision that allows for the creation of tribunals for a range of other specific matters.

• Power of both Parliament and State Legislatures: The appropriate legislature (Parliament or State Legislature, depending on the subject matter under the Seventh Schedule) can make laws to establish tribunals.

• List of Subject Matters: Article 323B provides an exhaustive list of matters for which tribunals may be established. This includes:

  1. Taxation
  2. Foreign exchange, import, and export
  3. Industrial and labour disputes
  4. Land reforms
  5. Ceiling on urban property
  6. Elections to Parliament and State Legislatures
  7. Production, procurement, supply, and distribution of foodstuffs and other essential goods.

Unlike Article 323A which deals with a single category, Article 323B allows for the creation of various specialized tribunals dealing with different subjects. Examples of tribunals whose legislative basis can be traced to Article 323B include the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and various tax tribunals.

Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was established in 1985 under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which was enacted by Parliament using its power under Article 323A of the Constitution. The primary objective of CAT is to provide a specialized forum for the speedy and inexpensive adjudication of disputes relating to the service matters of central government employees.

The Act also provides for the establishment of State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) at the request of individual state governments to perform the same function for state government employees. Several states have established SATs.

Jurisdiction over service matters

The jurisdiction of CAT and SATs is specific and limited to "service matters." This includes all matters concerning a public servant's conditions of service.

What constitutes a "Service Matter"?

This includes disputes relating to:

• Recruitment: Issues arising from the selection and appointment process.
• Remuneration: Pay, allowances, and pensions.
• Promotion and Seniority: Disputes over promotions, demotions, and the determination of seniority lists.
• Leave and Tenure: Matters concerning leave, superannuation, and premature retirement.
• Disciplinary Proceedings: Challenges to dismissal, removal, reduction in rank, and other penalties imposed in departmental inquiries.

Who is covered?

• CAT: All-India service officers, central government employees, and employees of certain notified corporations and public sector undertakings.

• SAT: Employees of the respective state government.

Who is excluded?

The jurisdiction of the tribunals does not extend to:

• Members of the naval, military, or air forces of the Union.
• Any officer or servant of the Supreme Court or any High Court.
• Persons appointed to the secretarial staff of either House of Parliament or any State Legislature.

Upon the establishment of CAT, the jurisdiction of all courts (except the Supreme Court) over these service matters was transferred to the tribunal. This meant a government servant could no longer directly approach a High Court for a service-related grievance and had to go to CAT first.

Powers of Tribunals

Administrative tribunals are vested with significant powers to ensure they can effectively discharge their adjudicatory functions. These powers are typically modelled on those of a civil court but with greater procedural flexibility.

Power to regulate own procedure

A key feature of tribunals is their freedom from the rigid procedural codes that bind ordinary courts. Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, explicitly states that a tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice.

This allows tribunals to:

• Devise their own simple and flexible procedures.
• Avoid technicalities and focus on the substance of the dispute.
• Admit evidence that may not be strictly admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

However, while they are not bound by these codes, tribunals are vested with certain powers of a civil court for the purpose of discharging their functions effectively. These include the power to:

• Summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him on oath.
• Require the discovery and production of documents.
• Receive evidence on affidavits.
• Issue commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents.

They also have the power to punish for their own contempt, similar to a High Court.

Binding nature of decisions

The decisions of an administrative tribunal are legally binding on the parties to the dispute. An order passed by CAT or an SAT has the same force and effect as a decree of a civil court and is enforceable in the same manner. Failure to comply with a tribunal's order can lead to contempt proceedings against the concerned authority.

Appeals from Tribunals

The question of appeals from tribunals has been a subject of significant constitutional debate. The original intent of Article 323A was to create a self-contained system with an appeal lying directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the High Courts.

To the High Court and Supreme Court

The Original Position

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, initially provided that an appeal against a final order of a tribunal would lie only to the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 was excluded.

The L. Chandra Kumar Case and the Current Position

This position was drastically altered by the landmark seven-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997).

The Supreme Court held:

1. The power of judicial review of the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by a constitutional amendment or a statute.

2. Consequently, the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act that excluded the jurisdiction of the High Courts were declared unconstitutional.

3. The Court established a new appellate structure: an appeal from the decision of any administrative tribunal (created under Article 323A or 323B) will now lie before a Division Bench (a bench of two judges) of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal is situated.

Therefore, the current path for challenging a tribunal's order is:

Decision of Tribunal → Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court → Appeal to the Supreme Court (usually by SLP under Article 136)

This judgment restored the supervisory role of the High Courts over tribunals, reinforcing the judicial hierarchy and the principles of the Rule of Law and separation of powers.

Role of Tribunals in providing speedy and inexpensive justice

The primary justification for the creation of administrative tribunals is their potential to provide a system of justice that is more accessible, efficient, and affordable than the traditional court system. They play a crucial role in reducing the burden on the higher judiciary and delivering specialized justice.

How Tribunals Promote Speedy and Inexpensive Justice:

• Informal Procedure: By avoiding the rigid and technical procedures of the Civil Procedure Code, tribunals can resolve cases much faster. The focus is on substance over form.

• Reduced Backlog: By taking over a large volume of cases in specific areas (like service matters), tribunals prevent the High Courts from being flooded with this litigation, allowing them to focus on other important constitutional and civil/criminal matters.

• Expertise: The presence of technical and administrative members on the tribunal bench allows for a quicker grasp of the complex issues involved, avoiding the time-consuming process of educating a generalist judge on the intricacies of a specialized field.

• Lower Costs: The simplified procedures and faster disposal of cases generally lead to lower litigation costs for the parties involved. Court fees are often lower, and the need for lengthy legal arguments is reduced.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite their intended role, the functioning of tribunals in India has faced several challenges:

• Pendency of Cases: Many tribunals themselves have become burdened with a large backlog of cases, defeating their purpose of providing speedy justice.

• Dependence on the Executive: The members of tribunals are appointed by the executive, and their service conditions are controlled by it. This raises concerns about their independence and impartiality.

• Lack of Uniformity: The quality and efficiency of different tribunals can vary significantly.

However, despite these challenges, administrative tribunals remain an indispensable part of the Indian justice delivery system, providing a necessary forum for the resolution of specialized administrative disputes.