Superentendence over administrative Tribunal under Art 227
Superintendence over Administrative Tribunals under Article 227
Article 227 - Overview
Article 227 of the Indian Constitution grants the High Courts superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction.
It states:
“Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.”
What does "superintendence" mean?
The term superintendence is broad and confers on the High Courts supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals.
This power includes:
Ensuring tribunals act within their jurisdiction (no excess or abuse of power).
Issuing directions, orders, or writs for the proper exercise of jurisdiction.
Preventing miscarriage of justice.
Ensuring fairness and legality of the proceedings.
Administrative Tribunals and Article 227
Administrative Tribunals, like the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) or State Administrative Tribunals, are specialized tribunals established under statutes to adjudicate disputes related to public service matters.
Although tribunals exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions, High Courts retain supervisory jurisdiction over them under Article 227, subject to specific statutory provisions.
Scope and Limitations of Article 227 over Administrative Tribunals
Jurisdictional errors:
The High Court can exercise Article 227 powers if the tribunal has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction.
Non-jurisdictional errors:
Generally, mere errors of fact or law (non-jurisdictional errors) committed by the tribunal do not justify interference under Article 227.
Statutory bars:
Sometimes statutes governing tribunals exclude the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 either expressly or by implication (e.g., through finality clauses or ouster provisions).
Exceptional cases:
High Courts may intervene under Article 227 in cases of violation of principles of natural justice, mala fide exercise of power, gross irregularity, or where there is a failure of justice.
Key Case Laws on Superintendence under Article 227 over Administrative Tribunals
1. Union of India v. Madanlal (1964)
Facts:
The question was whether the High Court could interfere with orders passed by a statutory tribunal under Article 227.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 to supervise tribunals unless expressly barred by statute.
The power is supervisory and should be exercised cautiously.
Interference is warranted only in cases of lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or grave injustice.
2. S. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002)
Facts:
This case involved challenge to orders of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court clarified that Article 227 applies to tribunals.
High Courts have limited jurisdiction to interfere and cannot substitute their views for that of the tribunal.
The court emphasized that interference should be for patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or procedural irregularity.
3. B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that High Courts have supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 but it should be exercised sparingly.
The High Court cannot ordinarily interfere with errors of fact or law, which are subject to appellate remedy.
Only gross illegality or jurisdictional defect will attract Article 227 jurisdiction.
4. State of Haryana v. Chanan Singh (2009)
Facts:
The issue was about interference with the orders of the Haryana Administrative Tribunal under Article 227.
Judgment:
The Court reaffirmed that High Courts have supervisory powers but should not act as courts of appeal.
Interference is justified only in cases of jurisdictional errors or procedural lapses that cause miscarriage of justice.
5. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. N.K. Sharma (1979)
Facts:
The Rajasthan High Court considered its jurisdiction over administrative tribunals.
Judgment:
It was held that High Courts’ superintendence under Article 227 extends to administrative tribunals unless a statute specifically bars such jurisdiction.
The power of superintendence includes correcting errors of jurisdiction or abuse of power by tribunals.
6. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Facts:
The Supreme Court considered whether High Courts can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 over tribunals established under statutes.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that tribunals are subject to the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, unless Parliament excludes such jurisdiction explicitly.
This ensures a constitutional check on tribunals.
Summary: Superintendence under Article 227 over Administrative Tribunals
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature of Power | Supervisory, not appellate; limited interference |
| Scope of Interference | Jurisdictional errors, gross illegality, procedural irregularity, violation of natural justice |
| Limitations | No interference for mere errors of law/fact; statutory bars can limit jurisdiction |
| Relationship with Article 226 | High Courts also have writ jurisdiction under Article 226 over tribunals |
| Standard of Review | High Courts cannot substitute tribunal’s decision, only correct jurisdictional or procedural errors |
RELATED Blog
0 comments