Administrative tribunals in India
Administrative Tribunals in India
What are Administrative Tribunals?
Administrative tribunals are specialized quasi-judicial bodies created to adjudicate disputes relating to public service employment and other administrative matters without burdening regular courts. They provide a faster, expert, and cost-effective remedy for service matters and other administrative disputes.
Why were they created?
To provide speedy justice in service-related disputes of government employees.
To relieve the burden of ordinary courts.
To provide expertise in administrative and service law matters.
To uphold administrative efficiency and fairness.
Constitutional Provision:
The 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 inserted Article 323A in the Indian Constitution, empowering the Parliament to create tribunals for resolving disputes related to public services.
Key Legislation:
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: This act provides for the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and other tribunals for service matters of government employees.
Besides CAT, other tribunals include: Income Tax Tribunal, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), etc.
Jurisdiction:
Primarily deals with service matters: recruitment, promotion, dismissal, disciplinary actions.
Civil courts are barred from entertaining these matters once a tribunal is set up.
Important Case Laws on Administrative Tribunals in India
1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Brief:
This is a landmark case about the power of tribunals and the role of the Supreme Court.
Facts:
The validity of conferring exclusive jurisdiction to administrative tribunals and denying the power of judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court was challenged.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the power of judicial review by High Courts and the Supreme Court cannot be ousted even by tribunals.
Tribunals are part of the justice delivery system but their decisions are subject to judicial review.
Article 323A and the Administrative Tribunals Act are constitutional only if they preserve the power of the higher judiciary to review.
Key Point:
Tribunals cannot act as the final court of appeal; judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution.
2. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010)
Brief:
This case dealt with the power of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the scope of its jurisdiction.
Facts:
The petitioner challenged CAT’s order regarding his service matter.
Held:
The Supreme Court reiterated that CAT has exclusive jurisdiction over service matters of government employees, but the court retains jurisdiction for judicial review on questions of law and constitutional validity.
Key Point:
CAT’s jurisdiction is exclusive, but courts have supervisory jurisdiction to correct errors.
3. Syed Abdul Rahim v. State of Kerala (1979)
Brief:
This was a pre-42nd Amendment case dealing with the establishment of tribunals.
Facts:
The validity of tribunals under the existing laws before the 42nd Amendment was challenged.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that tribunals constituted for administrative matters were valid, but their orders could be challenged before ordinary courts. This led to the need for constitutional backing via Article 323A.
Key Point:
Before Article 323A, tribunals were not fully insulated from judicial scrutiny.
4. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1962)
Brief:
This case dealt with the power of tribunals to adjudicate disputes involving public servants.
Facts:
A service matter was referred to a tribunal under statutory authority.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that tribunals must act within the scope of delegated authority and must provide a fair hearing. However, decisions could be subject to judicial review.
Key Point:
Tribunals must follow principles of natural justice and act fairly.
5. State of Punjab v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (2003)
Brief:
This case dealt with the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts where tribunals exist.
Facts:
A service dispute was filed in a civil court despite the existence of a tribunal.
Held:
The Supreme Court reiterated that once a tribunal is constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, civil courts are barred from entertaining such service matters. The tribunal alone has jurisdiction.
Key Point:
Tribunals are exclusive forums for specified disputes, barring civil courts.
Summary Table:
| Case | Key Principle on Administrative Tribunals |
|---|---|
| L. Chandra Kumar (1997) | Judicial review cannot be ousted; tribunals subject to court review. |
| Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) | CAT has exclusive jurisdiction on service matters but courts have supervisory power. |
| Syed Abdul Rahim (1979) | Validity of tribunals recognized but judicial scrutiny allowed pre-42nd Amendment. |
| K.K. Verma (1962) | Tribunals must act within delegated power and ensure fairness. |
| State of Punjab (2003) | Civil courts barred where tribunal exists for service disputes. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments