Supercisory Jurisdiction of High Courts iver Tribunals
Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Courts over Tribunals: Detailed Explanation
1. Introduction
In India, Tribunals are specialized quasi-judicial bodies set up to adjudicate specific types of disputes, such as tax matters, labor disputes, administrative services, etc. These tribunals exercise statutory jurisdiction but are not courts in the strict sense.
High Courts, on the other hand, are constitutional courts vested with supervisory and appellate jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction.
The supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over tribunals is a crucial feature ensuring legality, fairness, and proper administration of justice.
2. What is Supervisory Jurisdiction?
Supervisory jurisdiction is a power exercised by High Courts to oversee, supervise, and control subordinate courts and tribunals to ensure:
Proper exercise of jurisdiction,
Compliance with principles of natural justice,
Prevention of abuse of power,
Correction of procedural irregularities,
Enforcement of fundamental rights and rule of law.
This jurisdiction is generally exercised through writ petitions (under Article 226 of the Constitution) or through letters patent appeals.
3. Scope and Nature of Supervisory Jurisdiction over Tribunals
The High Courts have the power to issue writs, orders, or directions against tribunals under Article 226.
This jurisdiction is not appellate in nature but supervisory.
The High Court cannot normally substitute its own decision for that of the tribunal but can quash the tribunal’s order if there is illegality, jurisdictional error, or violation of natural justice.
Supervisory jurisdiction acts as a check against arbitrariness and ensures fairness.
However, when there is a statutory appeal to High Court or Supreme Court, supervisory jurisdiction is exercised with caution, so as not to interfere with appellate jurisdiction.
4. Limitations on Supervisory Jurisdiction
The High Court cannot interfere merely because it disagrees with the tribunal's decision.
Interference is only warranted where there is violation of jurisdiction, error of law, or breach of natural justice.
Where a statute bars interference or provides exclusive jurisdiction to a specialized tribunal or appellate authority, the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction may be curtailed.
Supervisory jurisdiction does not allow reappraisal of evidence or substitution of discretion.
5. Relevant Provisions
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
Article 227 confers inherent supervisory power on High Courts over all courts and tribunals within the state.
Various statutes creating tribunals sometimes provide for appeals or review, which may affect the scope of supervisory jurisdiction.
Key Case Laws on Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Courts over Tribunals
1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) – Supreme Court
Issue: Whether High Courts have supervisory jurisdiction over administrative tribunals.
Held: High Courts do have supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 over tribunals.
Principle: The jurisdiction of tribunals is subject to the judicial review powers of High Courts, ensuring constitutionality and legality.
This case reaffirmed the primacy of judicial review over tribunal decisions.
2. Union of India v. R.S. Joshi (1969) – Supreme Court
Issue: The scope of interference by courts over tribunal decisions.
Held: Courts cannot interfere unless there is jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice.
Principle: Supervisory jurisdiction is limited and not to be used as an appellate jurisdiction.
3. Delhi Jal Board v. National Capital Region Planning Board (1993) – Supreme Court
Issue: Whether High Courts can interfere in proceedings before tribunals.
Held: High Courts can exercise supervisory jurisdiction to ensure tribunal functions within jurisdiction and adheres to natural justice.
Principle: Supervisory jurisdiction is a necessary check on tribunals but must be exercised sparingly.
4. K.P. Verma v. Union of India (1991) – Supreme Court
Issue: Whether High Courts can exercise supervisory jurisdiction over tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Held: High Courts have supervisory jurisdiction to issue writs but must respect tribunal’s specialized expertise.
Principle: Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be used to interfere with technical or factual findings unless mala fide or illegal.
5. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd. (1999) – Supreme Court
Issue: Supervisory jurisdiction over company law tribunals.
Held: High Courts can intervene only when tribunal acts beyond jurisdiction or violates principles of natural justice.
Principle: Supervisory jurisdiction acts as a corrective tool, not appellate replacement.
6. M.C. Chockalingam v. Union of India (1979) – Supreme Court
Issue: Scope of supervisory jurisdiction against tribunal orders.
Held: Supervisory jurisdiction can be invoked for correcting procedural lapses and illegality.
Principle: It is essential for preventing miscarriage of justice.
Summary Table of Key Principles
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| L. Chandra Kumar (1997) | High Courts have supervisory jurisdiction over tribunals under Articles 226 and 227 |
| Union of India v. R.S. Joshi (1969) | Interference only for jurisdictional errors or breach of natural justice |
| Delhi Jal Board (1993) | Supervisory jurisdiction is a necessary but sparingly exercised check |
| K.P. Verma (1991) | Supervisory jurisdiction respects tribunal expertise, interference only for illegality |
| Sundaram Finance (1999) | Supervisory jurisdiction corrects excess or abuse of power, not factual reappraisal |
| M.C. Chockalingam (1979) | Corrects procedural lapses and prevents miscarriage of justice |
Conclusion
The supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over tribunals plays a vital role in maintaining the rule of law and preventing administrative excess or abuse. While tribunals enjoy specialized powers, they remain subject to judicial oversight to ensure legality, fairness, and adherence to natural justice. High Courts exercise this power cautiously, avoiding interference with factual findings or technical expertise unless jurisdiction is exceeded or rights violated.
RELATED Blog
0 comments