Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
✅ Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
📌 Background and Need
With the increase in service-related disputes between government employees and the state, regular courts became overburdened. To ensure speedy and specialized adjudication, the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was enacted under Article 323-A of the Constitution, inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.
⚖️ Objectives of the Act
To establish Administrative Tribunals for service matters of public servants.
To reduce burden on High Courts and speed up justice delivery.
To ensure a specialized, efficient, and cost-effective forum for adjudicating service disputes.
📘 Key Features of the Act
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Date of Enactment | 27 February 1985 |
| Commencement | 1 November 1985 |
| Applicable To | Central Government employees and, if adopted by states, State Government employees |
| Tribunals Established | Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) |
🔹 Structure Under the Act
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): Handles disputes related to employees of the Central Government and Union Territories.
State Administrative Tribunals (SATs): Optional; set up by states with Presidential approval.
🔹 Jurisdiction of Tribunals
Tribunals under the Act can adjudicate disputes and hear appeals relating to:
Recruitment
Transfer
Promotion
Seniority
Disciplinary actions
Pay and pension
Leave and other service conditions
🛑 Excluded Matters:
Matters relating to the armed forces
High-level constitutional functionaries (President, Governors, Judges, etc.)
🔹 Composition
Chairman: Must be a retired High Court or Supreme Court judge
Vice-Chairmen and Members: Judicial and administrative members with specified qualifications
🔹 Powers of the Tribunal
Equivalent to a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)
Can summon witnesses, examine evidence, and review its own orders
Not bound by the CPC; follows principles of natural justice
🔹 Appeal and Judicial Review
Initially, no direct appeal lay to High Courts. But the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) held:
Tribunal decisions are subject to judicial review by High Courts under Article 226/227.
⚖️ Important Case Laws (More Than 5 Detailed Cases)
1. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987)
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 386
Facts: Challenge to the constitutionality of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Issue: Whether excluding High Court jurisdiction was constitutional.
Held: Upheld the Act as constitutional subject to proper working and effectiveness of tribunals.
Significance: Recognized tribunals as effective substitutes for High Courts in service matters.
2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 1125
Facts: Challenge to exclusion of judicial review under Article 226/227.
Held: Struck down the exclusion clause. Declared that:
High Court's writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 is part of the basic structure and cannot be excluded.
Significance: Major turning point. Made tribunal decisions reviewable by High Courts.
3. Union of India v. Deep Chand Pandey (1992)
Citation: AIR 1992 SC 932
Facts: Delay in disposing of service matters in the tribunal.
Held: Directed tribunals to function expeditiously and deliver decisions within reasonable time.
Significance: Emphasized efficient working of tribunals in line with the Act’s purpose.
4. R.K. Jain v. Union of India (1993)
Citation: AIR 1993 SC 1769
Facts: Challenge regarding appointment procedures and independence of tribunal members.
Held: Advocated for institutional independence, transparent appointments, and fixed tenures.
Significance: Set standards for independence and integrity in tribunal functioning.
5. Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019)
Citation: AIR 2020 SC 35
Facts: Concerned validity of tribunal rules made under the Finance Act, 2017.
Held: Highlighted that tribunals must be independent and not controlled by the executive.
Significance: Reinforced earlier judgments ensuring judicial independence in tribunals.
6. Union of India v. Madras Bar Association (2010)
Citation: AIR 2010 SC 2600
Facts: Related to the formation of National Tax Tribunal and appointment of members.
Held: Judicial members must have adequate experience, and tribunal independence is crucial.
Significance: Reaffirmed that tribunals performing judicial functions must be manned by judicially trained personnel.
🔍 Key Constitutional and Legal Issues Around the Act
| Issue | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Exclusion of High Court Jurisdiction | Unconstitutional (L. Chandra Kumar) |
| Tribunal as substitute for courts | Valid but must be effective (S.P. Sampath Kumar) |
| Appointment process | Must ensure independence (R.K. Jain, Rojer Mathew) |
| Functioning delays | Must be avoided to fulfill the objective (Deep Chand Pandey) |
📈 Advantages of Administrative Tribunals
Speedy disposal of service-related matters
Specialized knowledge of administrative and service law
Reduced burden on High Courts and Supreme Court
Less formal procedures
❌ Criticism and Challenges
Lack of independence in appointments
Delay in filling vacancies
Poor infrastructure
Limited enforcement powers
Confusion due to overlapping jurisdictions
📌 Conclusion
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 plays a vital role in modern governance by providing an alternative, efficient, and specialized forum for resolving service disputes. While the Supreme Court has ensured judicial oversight and safeguarded constitutional principles, ongoing reforms are necessary to strengthen the independence, efficiency, and credibility of tribunals.
RELATED Blog
0 comments