Administrative Tribunals and Their Jurisdictional Authority
- ByAdmin --
- 06 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
Administrative tribunals are specialized quasi-judicial bodies established to adjudicate disputes concerning public administration. They offer an alternative to regular courts for faster, more efficient resolution of service and administrative matters. Their creation is rooted in the principle that specialized bodies can better handle complex administrative issues than traditional courts.
Constitutional and Legal Basis
- Article 323-A: Provides for the establishment of Administrative Tribunals for public service matters.
- Article 323-B: Empowers the legislature to create tribunals for other matters like taxation, industrial disputes, land reforms, etc.
- Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Enacted to give effect to Article 323-A, establishing the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and State Administrative Tribunals (SATs).
Features of Administrative Tribunals
- Specialized Jurisdiction: Focus on specific disputes, mainly concerning service matters.
- Reduced Formalism: Less procedural rigidity compared to regular courts.
- Speedy Disposal: Aim for quicker resolution of cases.
- Expertise: Often include technical members with experience in relevant fields.
Jurisdictional Authority of Administrative Tribunals
- Scope of Jurisdiction
- Central and State Administrative Tribunals can adjudicate disputes relating to:
- Recruitment
- Service conditions of government employees
- Tribunals also handle promotions, transfers, seniority issues, pension, and disciplinary matters.
- Central and State Administrative Tribunals can adjudicate disputes relating to:
- Exclusion of Jurisdiction of Courts
- Once a tribunal is set up, civil courts' jurisdiction is generally barred in the specified matters.
- Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Bars jurisdiction of civil courts and High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 in service matters falling under the tribunal’s domain.
- Once a tribunal is set up, civil courts' jurisdiction is generally barred in the specified matters.
- Appellate Jurisdiction
- Appeals from tribunals lie directly to the Supreme Court under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition), not to High Courts.
- Appeals from tribunals lie directly to the Supreme Court under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition), not to High Courts.
- Limitations on Jurisdiction
- Tribunals cannot decide issues outside their subject area (e.g., criminal matters, constitutional interpretation, unless incidental to service disputes).
- They are bound by the principles of natural justice and are subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
- Tribunals cannot decide issues outside their subject area (e.g., criminal matters, constitutional interpretation, unless incidental to service disputes).
Important Judicial Pronouncements
- S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987):
- Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of tribunals but insisted that they must be effective substitutes for High Courts.
- Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of tribunals but insisted that they must be effective substitutes for High Courts.
- L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
- Landmark ruling.
- Held that:
- Power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 and 32 is part of the basic structure.
- Decisions of tribunals are subject to judicial review by High Courts.
- Tribunals are supplemental, not substitutes for High Courts.
This judgment significantly modified the understanding of tribunal authority.
Advantages of Administrative Tribunals
- Expert Decision-Making: Specialized knowledge allows better adjudication of complex service matters.
- Reduced Court Burden: Eases pressure on regular judiciary.
- Speedier Justice: Tribunals often dispose of matters faster than traditional courts.
- Cost-Effective: Less expensive process compared to civil court litigation.
Challenges and Criticisms
- Lack of Independence: Appointment and removal procedures may compromise tribunal independence.
- Delays: Over time, many tribunals have also become plagued by delays.
- Inconsistency: Lack of uniform procedures across different tribunals.
- Access Issues: Some tribunals are located only in major cities, making access difficult for remote litigants.
Recent Developments
- Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021:
- Aimed at rationalizing tribunal structures.
- Reduced the number of tribunals by merging their functions.
- Fixed tenure and conditions for appointment of members.
- Debates continue regarding whether the reforms have strengthened or weakened tribunal independence and accessibility.
Conclusion
Administrative Tribunals play a crucial role in ensuring swift, expert, and efficient resolution of administrative disputes, especially in public service matters. However, their functioning must align with constitutional principles, particularly the right to judicial review. Strengthening their independence, accessibility, and efficiency is key to achieving the intended goals of administrative justice.
As judicial scrutiny has reinforced, tribunals must remain supplemental institutions aiding the judiciary, without undermining constitutional rights and the rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments