Study on the Sailent Features of Administrative Tribunals in India
⚖️ I. Introduction
Administrative tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established to adjudicate disputes concerning the functions and operations of administrative or executive authorities. They are an integral part of the administrative justice system and offer an alternative forum to regular courts for resolving disputes, particularly where technical or service-related issues are involved.
The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 inserted Articles 323A and 323B to provide for Administrative Tribunals.
📌 II. Constitutional Basis
Article 323A: Provides for the establishment of tribunals for public service matters.
Article 323B: Enables Parliament and State Legislatures to establish tribunals for other specific matters (taxation, land reforms, industrial disputes, etc.).
🧩 III. Salient Features of Administrative Tribunals in India
1. Quasi-Judicial Nature
Tribunals are not full-fledged courts but function judicially and deliver binding decisions.
They follow principles of natural justice, not strict procedures of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. Specialized Jurisdiction
Administrative tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction in specific areas (e.g., service matters in CAT).
They handle technical and complex matters that require expertise.
3. Speedy Disposal
Tribunals are designed to offer faster adjudication compared to regular courts.
Procedural simplicity and relaxed evidentiary rules speed up the process.
4. Reduction of Burden on Courts
They help reduce backlog in High Courts and Supreme Court by handling specialized disputes.
5. Less Formal Procedures
Tribunals are not bound by strict procedural or evidentiary laws (like CPC and Evidence Act).
They adopt a flexible and less technical approach to justice.
6. Composition
Usually composed of Judicial and Technical/Administrative members.
Headed by a chairperson (often a retired judge of High Court/Supreme Court).
7. Limited Judicial Review
Decisions of tribunals can be reviewed by High Courts (under Article 226/227) and the Supreme Court (under Article 136).
Original jurisdiction of High Courts is excluded for matters under tribunals (Article 323A).
🧾 IV. Key Case Laws (Explained in Detail – More Than Four)
1. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386
📝 Facts:
Challenge to the exclusion of High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 323A due to the establishment of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
⚖️ Held:
SC upheld the constitutional validity of tribunals but ruled that they must be an effective substitute for High Courts.
CAT was deemed constitutional if it met the standards of judicial independence and provided effective justice.
📌 Significance:
Laid down the doctrine of "efficacious alternative".
Tribunal must be independent, impartial, and competent if it replaces court jurisdiction.
2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125
📝 Facts:
This case reconsidered the Sampath Kumar ruling and challenged the exclusion of High Court’s writ jurisdiction.
⚖️ Held:
SC held that Articles 226 and 227 are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Therefore, tribunal decisions are subject to judicial review by High Courts.
📌 Significance:
Restored judicial supremacy.
Held that tribunals are supplemental, not substitutes, for constitutional courts.
3. Union of India v. R. Gandhi, (2010) 11 SCC 1
📝 Facts:
Concerned the constitutionality and structure of the Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
⚖️ Held:
Tribunals must maintain judicial independence.
Provisions for appointment, tenure, and removal of tribunal members must ensure separation of powers.
📌 Significance:
Emphasized that tribunals must follow judicial standards.
Reinforced the structural independence of tribunals.
4. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 1
📝 Facts:
Examined the constitutionality of the Finance Act, 2017, which changed the appointment procedure of tribunal members.
⚖️ Held:
The Finance Act, 2017, cannot override principles of judicial independence.
Parliament cannot make rules that make tribunals executive-dominated.
📌 Significance:
Protects the autonomy of tribunals from executive interference.
Strengthened safeguards for appointment and functioning of tribunal members.
5. West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 3588
📝 Facts:
Issue related to the jurisdiction of Electricity Regulatory Tribunals.
⚖️ Held:
Tribunals are expert bodies and their decisions are entitled to due deference, especially on technical matters.
📌 Significance:
Recognized tribunals as expert adjudicatory bodies.
Ensures judicial respect for tribunal findings in technical domains.
🧮 V. Summary of Case Laws
| Case | Key Principle/Outcome |
|---|---|
| S.P. Sampath Kumar | Tribunals must be effective substitutes for courts |
| L. Chandra Kumar | Judicial review by High Courts is part of basic structure |
| R. Gandhi Case | Tribunals must ensure judicial independence |
| Rojer Mathew Case | Executive dominance over tribunals is unconstitutional |
| WB Electricity Regulatory Commission | Tribunals' technical expertise must be respected |
🏁 VI. Conclusion
Administrative Tribunals have become essential pillars in India’s administrative justice system, offering a specialized, efficient, and accessible alternative to traditional courts.
However, their growth and effectiveness must be balanced with safeguards:
Ensuring independence from executive control.
Guaranteeing judicial standards in appointment and functioning.
Keeping them accountable to constitutional courts via judicial review.
The judiciary, through various landmark rulings, has shaped and safeguarded the institution of tribunals, ensuring they fulfill their role without undermining constitutional values.
RELATED Blog
0 comments