Administrative Law Project PDF 1

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROJECT
PROJECT TOPIC:
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND THEIR ROLE IN

MODERN ERA
Submitted to:
Prof. Hyder Ali
Submitted by:
Minal Sangatwani (12/bba/029)
Shreyan Das (12/bba/050)
Steve Saldanha (12/bba/054)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
EVOLUTION OF TRIBUNAL SYSTEM IN INDIA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985
TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (CAT)
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CERAT)
ELECTION COMMISSION (EC)
FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD (FERAB)
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
RAILWAY RATES TRIBUNAL
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
SOME FEATURES OF TRIBUNALS IN INDIA
SOURCES OF TRIBUNALS JURISDICTION
PROCEDURE
10
WHAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS CANNOT DO?
10
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
11
ADVANTAGES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
14

DISADVANTAGES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
15
TRIBUNALS IN INDIA: A CRITICAL MODERN OVERVIEW
15
CONSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW REGARDING TRIBUNALS IN INDIA
17
CONCLUSION
19
BIBLIOGRAPHY
20
INTRODUCTION
Welfare nature of government is the evolutionary goal of probably every kind of government these
days in this contemporary world. There has been a phenomenal increase in the functions of the
government, which has lent enormous powers to the executive and also led to increase in the
legislative output. This has led to more litigation, restrictions on the freedom of the individuals and
constant frictions between them and the authority. The development of welfare-ism led to an increase
in governmental functions and the executive saw in this a need to perform a number of quasilegislative and quasi- judicial functions, thus blurring the traditional positions of the various wings of
the government under the doctrine of separation of powers, under which the powers of the
government were divided between the legislature, executive and the judiciary which were to be
entrusted with the power of making law, executing it and interpreting the law respectively 1.
But now these welfare states changed radically and involve itself in the hosting of wide socioeconomic activities; for example: providing health services, education , industrial regulation and
other allied welfare measures 2. Now where there is these kind of activities; disputes are certain and
obvious. The issues which arose from disputes on such matters raised not only legal matters but also
matters which affect the society at large. The constitution and function of our court system is very
traditional as well as inefficient 3. The inherent procedural limitations made it difficult for the courts
to dispose these cases promptly thus leading to a huge backlog of cases in all levels of the judiciary.
Courts therefore became deluged with litigations arising directly and incidentally from such
increased governmental interventions. It was also felt in many quarters that the members of the
judiciary were neither adequately trained nor equipped to deal with the complex socio-economic and
technical matters at hand4.
Thus it was felt specialised adjudicatory bodies such as tribunals needed to be created to resolve such
5
disputes fairly and effectively . The appointed to adjudicate on claims of a particular kind. The
essence of the meaning of the word tribunal which can be culled out from the various Supreme Court
authorities is that they are adjudicatory bodies (except ordinary courts of law) constituted by the State
and invested with judicial and quasi-judicial functions as distinguished from administrative or
executive functions. Administrative tribunals have emerged not only in India but also in many other
countries with the objective of providing a new type of justice - public good oriented justice. These
tribunals manned by technical experts, with flexibility in operations, informality in procedures have
1
2Kagzi , M.C. Jain The Constitutional of India Vol.1
De, D. J. The Constitution of India, Vol 1 & 2
3
& 2. New Delhi: India Law House, 2001.
Ibid.
Id. at 1.
5
De, D. J. The Constitution of India, Vol 1 & 2.
4
gained importance in the adjudication process. According to Seervai, the development of

administrative law in a welfare state has made administrative tribunals a necessity'. Administrative
tribunals are authorities outside the ordinary court system, which interpret and apply the laws when
acts of public administration are questioned in formal suits by the courts or by other established
methods6. They are not a court nor are they an executive body. Rather they are a mixture of both.
They are judicial in the sense that the tribunals have to decide facts and apply them impartially,
without considering executive policy7. They are administrative because the reasons for preferring
them to the ordinary courts of law are administrative reasons. The Supreme Court in Jaswant Sugar
Mills v. Lakshmi Chand laid down the following characteristics or tests to determine whether an
8
authority is a tribunal or not :
Power of adjudication must be derived from a statute or statutory rule.
It must possess the trappings of a court and thereby be vested with the power to
summon witnesses, administer oath, compel production of evidence, etc.
Tribunals are not bound by strict rules of evidence.
They are to exercise their functions objectively and judicially and to apply the law
and resolve disputes independently of executive policy.
Tribunals are supposed to be independent and immune from any administrative

9
interference in the discharge of their judicial functions .

This project comprehensively deals with the all possible aspects regarding the tribunals in India. An
exhaustive research was done using secondary sources from books, articles and over the internet. A
comprehensive bibliography is provided at the end of this project.
EVOLUTION OF TRIBUNAL SYSTEM IN INDIA

In India, administrative adjudication increased after independence and several welfare laws were
promulgated which vested the power on deciding various issues in the hands of the administration.
The modern Indian Republic was born a Welfare State and thus the burden on the government to
provide a host of welfare services to the people was immense. These quasi-judicial powers acquired
by the administration led to a huge number of cases with respect to the manner in which these
administrative bodies arrived at their decisions. The Courts held that these bodies must maintain
procedural safeguards while arriving at their decisions and observe principles of natural justice-their
6
7Kashyap,
Ibid.
8
9
Subhash C. Khanna D.D. Kueck, Gret W. Reviewing the Constitution Delhi: Shipra Publication, 2000.
Id. at 6.
Mathew, P.D. & P.M. Bakshi Indian Judicial System New Delhi: ISI, 2002.
opinions were substantiated by the 14th Law Commission Report.In order to avoid clogging the
judicial machinery with cases which would have arisen by the operation of these new socio-economic
legislations, a number of tribunals were established by the government. The tribunals were
established with the object of providing a speedy, cheap and decentralised determination of disputes
arising out of the various welfare legislations 10.Another important reason for the new development is
that law courts, on account of their elaborate procedures, legalistic fronts and attitudes can hardly
render justice to the parties concerned, in technical cases. Ordinary judges, brought up in the
traditions of law and jurisprudence, are not capable enough to understand technical problems, which
crop up in the wake of modem complex economic and social processes. Only administrators having
expert knowledge can tackle such problems judiciously. To meet this requirement, a number of
administrative tribunals have come into existence.
In India such tribunals were set up immediately after independence. In fact, the most important
adjudicatory function is carried out by statutory tribunals created by the legislature to adjudicate
11
upon certain disputes arising from administrative decisions or to determine issues judicially .
The Railway Rates Tribunal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Labour Tribunals, the
Companies Tribunal, various Compensation Tribunals, Revenue Courts of various States, etc.,
can be cited as examples of such tribunals. Regarding the problem of backlog and delayed
disposal of case the Government set up the Administrative Reforms Commission in 1967. It was
to examine the problem, suggests solutions and also to recommend the suitable areas in which
tribunals could be set up, according to this commission The reasons for the growth of
administrative tribunals are as follows:
12
Inadequacy of the traditional judiciary to effectively decide administration-related

matters especially when it came to technicalities
2 The traditional judiciary was seen to be slow, costly and excessively procedural.
1) Service matters and dispute of employees under the state
2) Orders of assessment on adjudication under Customs, Central Excise, Sales Tax and
13
orders under the Motor vehicles Act .

Period of emergency played a crucial role in the evolution of tribunals in India. There were clear
signals that the executive did not want the judiciary to interfere with their developmental plans
10
Supra note, 9.
Ibid.
11
12
Sathe S.P., Adminiostrative Law, 6th. Edn., Butterworths, New Delhi, 1999, pp. 245-252.
Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse v Haribansh Ramakbal Singh [1995] Supp6 S.C.R. 471.
13
and other such decisions. Such as removing disputes regarding elections to the office of
14
President, Prime Minister and Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond judicial scrutiny . Hence in
1976 the issue was discussed at the Conference of Chief Secretaries and from amongst all these
discussions and the reports of the various bodies stated above, Parliament enacted the
42ndConstitution (Amendment) Act, 1976 inserting Articles 323A and 323B, which provided for
the establishment of administrative and other tribunals to deal with the matters specifically
provided for.
The main distinction that can be made out between article 323A and 323B is that while 323A
allows for the Parliament to by law provide for administrative tribunals to adjudicate disputes,
323B allows for the any appropriate legislature, to by law create an administrative tribunal for
the adjudication of disputes.
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
In pursuance of Art 323-A Parliament has passed the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
covering all matters falling within the clause (1) of Article 323- A. This Act authorises central
government to establish administrative tribunals for central services and on the application o f
States even for States services as well as for local bodies and other authorities including public
corporation. From the date of establishment of tribunals all courts except the Supreme Court
under Art 136 lose their jurisdiction with respect to the matter falling within the jurisdiction of
15
the tribunals .
A tribunal shall consist of Chairman and such number of Vice-Chairmen and other members as
appropriate Government may deem fit. They are appointed by the President in the case of Central
tribunals and by the President in consultation with the Governors or Governors in case of State or
16
joint Tribunals. The qualifications regarding that are laid down in the Act .
Other aspects regarding administrative Tribunals are being discussed below different headings
and sub-headings.
TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
14
17
Infra note 15.
15
Kashyap, Subhash C. (ed.) Constitutional Reforms: Problem, Prospects and Perspectives New Delhi: Radha
Pub., 2004.
16
Ibid. at 15.
17
Raj , Hans The Constitution of India New Delhi: Surjeet Publications, 1998.
There are different types of administrative tribunals, which are governed by the statues, rules,
and regulations of the Central Government as well as State Governments.
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
The enactment of Administrative Tribunals Act in, 1985
18
opened a new chapter in administering
justice to the aggrieved government servants. It owes its origin to Article 323 A of the
Constitution which empowers the Central Government to set up by an Act of Parliament, the
Administrative Tribunals for adjudication of disputes and complains with respective recruitment
and conditions of service of persons appointed to the public services and posts in connection with
19
the Union and the States .

The Tribunals enjoy the powers of the High Court in respect of service matters of the employees
covered by the Act. They are not bound by the technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure, but
have to abide by the Principles of Natural Justice. They are distinguished from the ordinary
courts with regard to their jurisdiction and procedures. This makes them free from the shackles of
20
the ordinary courts and enables them to provide speedy and inexpensive justice .
The Act provides for the establishment of Central Administrative Tribunal and State
Administrative Tribunals. The CAT was established in 1985. The Tribunal consists of a
Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members. These Members are drawn from the judicial as well as
the administrative streams. The appeal against the decisions of the CAT lies with the Supreme
21
Court of India .
Customs and Excise Revenue Appellate Tribunal (CERAT)
22
The Parliament passed the CERAT Act in 1986 The Tribunal adjudicate disputes,. Complaints or
offences with regard to customs and excise revenue. Appeals from the, orders of the CERAT lies
with the Supreme Court
Election Commission (EC)
18
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 http://cgat.gov.in/act.htm as on 18th Oct,2011

ISBN-81-85402-61-2.
20
Ibid. at 19.
21
Infra note 22.
22
The Act was brought into force with effect from 2-10-1985. The Central Administrative Tribunals was set up on
1-11-1985.
The Election Commission is a tribunal for adjudication of matters pertaining to the allotment of
election symbols to parties and similar other problems. The decision of the commission can be
challenged in the Supreme Court.
Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (FERAB)
The Board has been set up under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. A person who is
aggrieved by an order of adjudication for causing breach or committing offences under the Act
can file an appeal before the FERAB.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
This tribunal has been constituted under the Income Tax Act, 196 1. The Tribunal has its benches
in various cities and appeals can be filed before it by an aggrieved persons against the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Director of
Income Tax. An appeal against the order of the Tribunal lies to the High Court. An appeal also
lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court deems fit.
Railway Rates Tribunal
This-Tribunal was set up under the Indian Railways Act, 1989. It adjudicates matters pertaining
to the complaints against the railway administration. These may be related to the discriminatory
or unreasonable rates, unfair charges or preferential treatment meted out by the railway
'administration. The appeal against the order of the Tribunal lies with the Supreme Court.
Industrial Tribunal
This Tribunal has been set up under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It can be constituted by'
both the Central as well as State governments. The Tribunal looks into the dispute between the
employers and the workers in matters relating to wages, the period and mode of payment,
compensation and other allowances, hours of work, gratuity, retrenchment and closure of the
establishment. The appeals against the decision of the Tribunal lie with the Supreme Court.
SOME FEATURES OF TRIBUNALS IN INDIA

Jurisdiction and Power:
1
After the coming into force of Administrative Tribunals Act, 198510, all judicial
remedies save those of the Supreme Court under Art 2 and 136 have been abolished and
the pending proceeding before other courts stand transferred before the regional
23
Administrative Tribunals under .29 of the Act .

Administrative Tribunal is competent to exercise all powers which the respective
courts had, including declaration as to constitutionality of relevant laws. In short, the
jurisdiction
of the Tribunal is not supplementary but is a complete substitute of the High Courts and Civil
Courts
24
In view of .14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, in case where the suit
lay, the employee will now have to seek his remedy by application under s.19 of the Act.
Pending
suits shall stand transferred to the Administrative Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction
under section 29 of the Act12.
Section 29A (inserted in 1986) gives an appellant jurisdiction of the Central

Administrative Tribunal. Appeals from judgement of Civil Courts in suits relating to
service matter which are now governed by the A.T. Act shall lie to the Administrative
Tribunals to the exclusion of any other Civil Appellant Court or the High Court13. The
central Administrative Tribunal is the Tribunal constituted under Art.323-A of the
Constitution and is expected to have the same jurisdiction as that of High Court
25
4the HighOrders
Court.of the Central Administrative Tribunals are not open to challenge before
26
Sources
1 of Tribunals Jurisdiction
Suit of proceeding transferred to it under .29 of the Act
2
S.19 deals with jurisdiction of entertaining original application relating to service matters
Appellant jurisdiction under s.29A
What
1 the Administrative Tribunals can do1. Unconstitutionality of Law
2
(a) The tribunal can declare the unconstitutional a statute or subordinate
legislation relating to the dispute before it, which contravenes provisions of the
3constitution.
(b) Whether a body would be an authority within the meaning of Art.12.
23
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
24
Kashyap , Subhash C.(ed.) Perspectives of the Constitution New Delhi: Shipra Publishers, 1995. ISBN-81-8540261-2.
25
29A of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
26
29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
(3) In a case where enquiry has been dispensed with under the 2nd proviso to Art 311(2), the
tribunal is competent to examine the legal jurisdiction for such dispensation.15
(4) It may decide question of law, including preliminary pleas in bar, e.g. limitation; non-joinder
of party; territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal; res judicata.
27
Procedure
(1) A Tribunal is not barred by the provisions of the Evidence Act.16 In order to discover the
truth, the Tribunal may resort to the inquisitional procedure, provided no principle of natural
justice is violated.
(2) Tribunals shall be guided solely by the principles of natural justice unfettered by anything in
the CPC and shall have the power to regulate its own procedure.
(3) A plea of violation of statutory provision can be taken before the Tribunal though not taken
in the petition.
(4) It is competent to execute its own order, though the A.T Act has no specific provision in this
behalf.
28
29
What the Administrative Tribunals cannot do ?

However wide be the jurisdiction of the tribunal, it cannot exercise any jurisdiction of power
which no court could exercise, e.g.(1) To question the ground of satisfaction of the President under Cl. (c) of the second proviso to
Art.311 (2) 17
30
(2) To go into the merits of an administrative determination in the absence of mala fides,
arbitrariness, colourable exercise of power or exercise of power without jurisdiction; or a finding
31
without any evidence at all .

(3) To overrule or by-pass decision of the High Court which are binding on it as precedents.
(4) Though, like the High Court or a Civil Court, an administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to
32
make interim order in like circumstances .

27
Ed. Sorabjee, Soli J. Law & Justice An anthology Delhi: Universal Law Publishing, 2006.
28
Cf. Kaptan Singh v, UOI (1986) 4 SLR 545 (Del).
29
30
31
UOI v. Deep Chand Pandey (1992) 4 SCC 432.
Ibid.
UOI v. K D Batish AIR 2006 SC 789.
10
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
33
As mentioned earlier, the Administrative Tribunals Act was passed in 1985 under article 323A
and .28 of this Act provided for the exclusion of jurisdiction of all courts except that of the
Supreme Court under Article 13618. This fuelled a sudden spurt in the number of cases that
challenged the validity of the said legislation as well as that of the 42nd Amendment that
introduced Articles 323A and 323B in to the constitution. Some of the prominent case in this
regard is discussed below.
1
34
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India .
This is the first and perhaps the most important case in this period that attracted judicial scrutiny
in this area. The Constitution Bench in Sampath kumar was called upon to decide on the main
issue whether Section 28 of the Act was unconstitutional as it excludes judicial review, which
was contended as part of the basic structure of the constitution20. The Supreme Court accepted
without doubt that judicial; review is part of the basic structure. However the Court went on to
observe that the creation of alternate institutional mechanisms which were as effective as the
35
High Courts would not be violative of the basic structure . The administrative Tribunals under
the Act were recognized as effective substitutes of the High Courts. This proved to be a shot in
the arm of the proponents of tribunalisation. However the Apex Court came down heavily on the
procedure for appointing the Chairman of the Tribunal. Section 6(1) (c) of the Act allowed a
person who held the post of a Secretary to the Government of India or an equivalent post t
become the Chairman. Since these Tribunals were to be substitutes of High Courts it is
impermissible for bureaucrats to hold such a post. Hence this provision was held to be
36
unconstitutional . The Chairman should be a retiring or retired Chief Justice of a High Court.
Other members have to appointed by a committee consisting of a sitting Judge of the Supreme
Court. It was also suggested that the Chief Justice of India has to consult while making these
appointments. The Parliament accepted these recommendations and now they find a place in the
37
Act by way of the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act of 1986 .
32
Ibid. at 10.
Infra note 20.
34
35S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 386
Ibid.
36
Id. at 387.
37
Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh and Others AIR 1997 SC 3297
33
11
Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
38
It was held in this case that Article 371D (5) of the constitution, which was inserted by the
Constitution (32nd Amendment) Act, 1973, was unconstitutional and void. This provision had
enabled the Government of Andhra Pradesh to modify or nullify any order of the Administrative
39
tribunal of that state . It was pointed out that such a provision was violative of the basic
structure as it made the tribunal not as effective as the High Court when it comes to judicial
review. Here the Court seems to be strictly adhering to the directive in Sampath Kumars case
that the administrative tribunals should be effective substitutes to the High Court.
1
J.B.Chopra v. Union of India
40
It was held that since the Administrative tribunals are meant to be substitutes of High Courts,
their power of judicial review extended to power as to decide on the constitutionality of service
rules. However, soon we see a reversal of trend leading to a lot of confusion. In M.B.Majumdar
v. Union of India
41
the Supreme Court refused to extend the service conditions and other benefits
enjoyed by ordinary High Court judges to the members of these Tribunals. Three years later, in
42
R.K.Jain v. Union of India , the Supreme Court opined that these Tribunals could not be
effective substitutes of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. We also find very clear
expression of dissatisfaction of the apex court regarding the functioning and effectiveness of
Administrative Tribunals especially with regard to their power of judicial review.
1
Sakinala Harinath v. State of Andhra Pradesh
43
In this case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dropped a bomb shell by expressing serious doubts
44
about the wisdom of the learned Judges in Sampath Kumars case . The Full Bench ruled that
the ruling in the above case equating Administrative Tribunals to the High courts with respect to
their jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was inconsistent with the apex courts ruling in
cases like Kesvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
45
46
and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain . It was
pointed out that the constitutional courts could only exercise the power of judicial review. Since
the logic of alternative institutional mechanism propounded in Sampath Kumars case does not
38
Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1987) I SCC 386

Ibid. at 389.
40
Id.
41
42M.B. Majumdar v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 501.
R.K.Jain v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 119
43
44Sakinala Harinath v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993 (2) An. W.R.484 (FB)
Supra note, 3.
45
Kesvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225.
46
Ibid. at 8.
39
12
fit in to this scheme, it is constitutionally impermissible. As a result both Articles 323A(d) and
47
section 28 of the Act were struck down as unconstitutional .

The judicial green signal given for tribunalisation given in Sampath Kumar can be seen to be
slowly fading because of the subsequent decisions. The confusion created by these conflicting
decisions ushered in the need for taking a second look at S.P. Sampath Kumars case. This
opportunity arrived when a three judge bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandrakumar v.
Union of India28 decided to refer the matter to a larger bench. This eventually led to the famous
48
ruling of the Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India ,
which is now the law of the land.
1
L. Chandrakumars Case
The important issues considered by the apex court were as follows:

1) Whether Art. 323A (2) (d) and Art.323B (3) (d) of the constitution which give the power
to the Union and State Legislatures to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except that of
the Supreme Court under Art.136, is in accordance with the power of judicial review
49
embodied in Art.32 and 226 .
2) Whether the power of High Courts to exercise the powers of superintendence over the
50
subordinate judiciary under Articles 226 and 227 form part of Basic Structure .
51
3) The competence of the aforesaid tribunals to determine the constitutionality of any law .
4) Whether the aforesaid tribunals are acting as affective substitutes to High Courts in terms
of efficiency52.
It was held that the power of judicial review over legislative and administrative action is
expressly vested with the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32
respectively. The contention that the constitutional safeguards which ensure the independence of
the higher judiciaryis not available to the lower judiciary and bodies such as Tribunals was
upheld and the Apex Court consequently held that the lower judiciary would not be able to serve
as effective substitutes to the higher judiciary in matters of constitutional interpretation and
47
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2291.

L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1151.
49
Ibid. at 13.
50
Id. at 15.
51
See also, Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse v Haribansh Ramakbal Singh [1995] Supp6 S.C.R. 471, 1996 (1) UJ
471 52Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh and Others AIR 1997 SC 3297.
48
13
judicial review. Hence the power of judicial review is vested in the higher judiciary and the
power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislative and
administrative action cannot ordinarily be ousted. However it was held that these tribunals and
the lower judiciary could exercise the role of judicial review as supplement to the superior
53
judiciary. The court applied the provisions of Article 32(3) to uphold the same .
ADVANTAGES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Administrative adjudication is a dynamic system of administration, which serves, more
adequately than any other method, the varied and complex needs of the modem society. The
main advantages of the administrative tribunals are:
1) Flexibility
Administrative adjudication has brought about flexibility and adaptability in the judicial as well
as administrative tribunals. For instance, the courts of law exhibit a good deal of conservatism
and inelasticity of outlook and approach. The justice they administer may become out of
harmony with the rapidly changing social conditions. Administrative adjudication, not restrained
by rigid rules of procedure and canons of evidence, can remain in tune with the varying phases of
social and economic life.
2) Adequate Justice
In the fast changing world of today, administrative tribunals are not only the most appropriated
means of administrative action, but also the most effective means of giving fair justice to the
individuals. Lawyers, who are more concerned about aspects of law, find it difficult to
adequately assess the needs of the modem welfare society and to locate the individuals place in
it.
3) Less Expensive
Administrative justice ensures cheap and quick justice. As against this, procedure in the law
courts is long and cumbersome and litigation is costly. It involves payment of huge court fees,
engagement of lawyers and meeting of other incidental charges. Administrative adjudication, in
most cases, requires no stamp fees. Its procedures are simple and can be easily understood by a
layman.
53
Supra note, 18.
14

4) Relief to Courts
The system also gives the much-needed relief to ordinary courts of law, which are already
overburdened with ordinary suits.
DISADVANTAGES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

Even though administrative adjudication is essential and useful in modem day administration, we
should not be blind to the defects from which it suffers or the dangers it poses to a democratic
polity. Some of the main drawbacks are mentioned below.
(1) Administrative adjudication is a negation of Rule of Law. Rule of Law ensures equality
before law for everybody and the supremacy of ordinary law and due procedure of law over
governmental arbitrariness. But administrative tribunals, with their separate laws and procedures
often made by themselves, puts a serious limitation upon the celebrated principles of Rule of
Law.
(2) Administrative tribunals have in most cases, no set procedures and sometimes they violate
even the principles of natural justice.
(3) Administrative tribunals often hold summary trials and they do not follow any precedents.
As such it is not possible to predict the course of future decisions.
(4) The civil and criminal courts have a uniform pattern of administering justice and centuries of
experience in the administration of civil and criminal laws have borne testimony to the
advantages of uniform procedure. A uniform code of procedure in administrative adjudication is
not there.
(5) Administrative tribunals are manned by administrators and technical heads who may not have
the background of law or training of judicial work. Some of them may not possess the
independent outlook of a judge.
TRIBUNALS IN INDIA: A CRITICAL MODERN OVERVIEW
15
Tribunals are essentially those bodies of the Executive branch of the government who by virtue
of some statutory provision have the power and duty to act judicially in determining disputes
which come before it. Tribunals as stated earlier are distinct from the ordinary courts of the land
and as per Chandrakumars case they are not on par with the High Courts but serve a
54
supplemental function to the High Courts . They are therefore subject to the writ jurisdiction of
the superior judiciary and to the power of judicial review exercisable by the superior judiciary. In
most of the tribunals appeals from their decisions lie in the High Court on substantial questions
55
of law .
There are different types of tribunals in India, ranging from single member tribunals to multimember tribunals. Tribunals such as the Industrial tribunal may consist of one or more members,
and they can be appointed by the appropriate government. The chairman of the tribunal is
supposed to possess judicial qualifications and is supposed to be or have been a judge of the
High Court or a District judge or be qualified for appointment as a High Court judge. The other
members are expected to satisfy the prescribed requirements- which are to ensure that the
members are experts and will be able to speedily and effectively dispose of matters. The
56
procedure to be followed by the tribunal is prescribed by the Act and rules made there under .
Though the function of the tribunal is to adjudicate on the disputes it has only some of the
trappings of the court. It is not bound by strict rules of procedure and can take decisions by
exercising its discretion. While accepting the fact that such tribunals must work towards
furthering social justice, it has been held in J&K Iron and Steel Co. v. Mazdoor Union that
tribunal cannot act beyond the scope of the law. It can decide the dispute on the basis of the
pleadings and has no power to reach a conclusion without any evidence on record. The tribunal is
expected to hold the proceedings in public, follow fair procedure and decide disputes impartially
and independently.
All tribunals in India are arranged on the following
54
57
58
1
2
Created by a statute .
Subject to the writ jurisdiction of the superior judiciary and to judicial review.
Manned by experts and persons with judicial experience.
Infra note 55.
55
56L.
Chandrakumar v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1151.

Ibid.
57
See, Sharma, S.R. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Constitutional Law Vol. 1 to 5: An Introduction to Constitutional Law
New Delhi: Anmol Publications, 2003.
58
Ibid. at 56.
16
Subject to the superintendence of the concerned High Court under Art.227
59
Decisions may be final or appealable within the tribunal or in certain cases to the
High Court. Appeals against orders of the tribunal may be heard by the Supreme Court by
60
special leave under Art. 136 .
CONSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW REGARDING TRIBUNALS IN INDIA
61
Among the many innovative provisions adopted by the Forty-second Amendment of the
Constitution (1976) a measure of far-reaching importance was the provision for the setting up of
Administrative Tribunals. Part XIV-A which consists of two Articles 323A and 323B deals with
these Tribunals. Section (1) of Article 323-A provides for the adjudication or trial by
administrative tribunals
62
of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions
of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the
Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India. The power to
63
constitute such Tribunals is vested exclusively in Parliament .

Section (2) of the same Article provides that a law made by Parliament under (1) may:Provide
for the establishment of an Administrative Tribunal for the Union and a separate Administrative
64
Tribunal for each State or for two or more States ;

1
Specify the jurisdiction, powers and authority which may be exercised by such
tribunals;
Provide for the procedure to be followed by these tribunals; and
Exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except the special jurisdiction of the
65
Supreme Court under Article 136 .

Article 323-B empowers Parliament or State Legislatures to set up tribunals for matters other
than those covered by clause (2) of Article 323-A. The matters to be covered by such tribunals
66
are as follows :
1
59
60Joshi,
Levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of any tax;
K. C., Legal Status of Tribunals, IBR, Vol. 25 (2), 1998.

Supra note 56.
61
62See, Om Prakash Pathak v. UOI (1986) 4 SLR 251.
Supra note 58.
63
Joshi, K. C., Legal Status of Tribunals, IBR, Vol. 25 (2), 1998.
64
65Mathew, P.D. & P.M. Bakshi Indian Judicial System New Delhi: ISI, 2002.
See, In re Staklinski & Pyramid Elec. Co. 6 N.Y.2d 159.
66
Sathe S.P., Adminiostrative Law, 6th. Edn., Butterworths, New Delhi, 1999, pp. 245-252.
17

1
Foreign exchange, import and export across customs frontiers;
2
3
Industrial and labour disputes ;

Matters connected with land reforms covered by Article 31-A;
Ceiling on urban property;
Elections to either House of Parliament or Legislatures of the States and
Production, procurement, supply and distribution of food-stuffs or other essential
67
68
goods .
A law made under the above provisions may provide for the establishment of a hierarchy of
tribunals and specify the jurisdiction, powers and authority which may be exercised by each of
them. Such law may also provide for the procedure to be followed by these tribunals and exclude
the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court of India.The Scheme of Administrative
Tribunals envisaged by Part XIV-A of the Constitution as several other provisions of the Fortysecond Amendment of the Constitution was looked upon with suspicion and misgivings by
certain sections of political and public opinion in the country and that was reflected in the attempt
69
of the Janata Government (1977-79) to abolish these provisions . The Forty-fourth Amendment
(1978) among other things sought to abolish Part XIV-A altogether. However, this attempt of the
70
Janata Government was unsuccessful as it could not muster adequate support in Parliament .
The basic objective of administrative tribunals is to take out of the purview of the regular courts of
law certain matters of dispute between the citizen and government agencies and make the judicial
71
process quick and less expensive .The fact that there has been a phenomenal increase in the number
of disputes in which administrative authorities are involved has to be recognised. If all these disputes
go to the ordinary judicial system where there is provision for appeals to successive higher courts one
after another, there will be no speedy settlement of such disputes and they might linger for years or
decades.Inordinate delay and enormous cost are the two distinguishing features of the ordinary
judicial system. The number of cases that are pending before the High Courts and the Supreme Court
72
today is legion . No one can normally expect any
67
G Mohanti v. UOI ATR (1987) 1 CAT 229.

69
70Ekta Shakti Foundation v Government of (NCT of Delhi) [2006] Supp3 S.C.R. 631.
Jagdishchandra Maganlal Trivedi v. State Bank of India AIR 2005 NOC 371.
71
Jha, Abhishek Kumar , 'Administrative Tribunals of India': A Study in the Light of Decided Cases (January 22,
2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1989780 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1989780.
72
Supra note 61.
68
18

73
speedy disposal of most of them . At the same time, there are matters of social concern which
require reasonably quick disposal. Administrative tribunals facilitate this and that is the strongest
argument in their favour.Administrative tribunals are not an original invention of the Indian
political system. Such tribunals are now well established in all democratic countries of Europe as
74
well as the United States of America .Britain which until a few decades ago looked upon
administrative tribunals with suspicion has, in recent times, recognised their beneficial role and
therefore has set up many of them. The experience of India during the past two decades and more
has demonstrated that administrative tribunals have an effective role to play in a country which
75
has embarked upon a programme of rapid socioeconomic change .
CONCLUSION
In practice there are a number of tribunals functioning in the country. Very few of them, however,
have been able to inspire confidence in the public. The tribunals have shown a singular lack of
competence and objectivity in determining disputes. Another reason for their failure is the
constitution of the tribunals and the method of appointment of the personnel. Persons with
expertise and the right qualifications do not want to sit on these tribunals thus leading to the
unsatisfactory functioning of these tribunals. The uncertainty of tenure, unsatisfactory service
conditions, interference by the executive and political interference have further impeded the
proper development of tribunals in India. Tribunals are supposed to provide specialised
adjudicatory services but the type of people appointed lack the requisite expertise and are on the
76
tribunals merely because of political pressure and executive interference .

Tribunals are supposed to serve as alternative institutional mechanisms to high courts, they must
therefore be able to inspire public confidence by proving themselves to be a competent and
expert mechanism with a judicial and objective approach. In order to achieve this it is essential
77
that members of the tribunal are equipped with adequate judicial acumen and expertise . These
judicial officers need to be balanced with experts in the particular field. Only a judicious blend of
the two will be able to provide an effective and result oriented tribunal system. Another
important measure which needs to be taken are steps to maintain the independence of the
73
Ibid.
Infra note 71.
75
Tribunalisation in India http://legalsutra.org/1446/tribunalisation-in-india/ as on 16 th August, 2013.
76
See, Supra note 61.
77
74
19

78
members of these tribunals from political or executive interference . Just as the ordinary
judiciary are protected from political control through security of tenure and through
institutionalized methods of appointment (through a selection committee comprising of the Chief
Justice, Departmental secretaries, etc.) in order to further reduce the burden on the high courts
the high courts must be divested of the supervisory jurisdiction over the tribunals. It is essential
therefore that a single centralised nodal agency be established to oversee the functioning of the
tribunals. Such a centralised umbrella organisation will ensure the independence of the tribunals
79
in matters of tenure and funds .

Thus the overall picture regarding tribunalisation of justice in the country is far from
80
satisfactory . A fresh look at the system of tribunals in India is required so as to ensure speedy
justice and quick disposal of disputes arising out of administrative disputes which are essential
81
for the development of the nation .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASES
S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 386
Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1987) I SCC 386
M.B. Majumdar v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 501.
R.K.Jain v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 119
Sakinala Harinath v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1993 (2) An. W.R.484 (FB)
Kesvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain AIR 1975 SC 2291
L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC 1151
Bennett, Coleman & Co. v. Union of India & Ors., 1983 5 Comp. Cases 674
78
Kashyap,
79
Subhash C. Khanna D.D. Kueck, Gret W. Reviewing the Constitution Delhi: Shipra Publication, 2000.
Jha, Abhishek Kumar , 'Administrative Tribunals of India': A Study in the Light of Decided Cases (January 22,
2012).
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1989780 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1989780.
80
Samatha v State of Andhra Pradesh and Others AIR 1997 SC 3297.
81
Ibid.
20
Uma Shankar & Ors. v. State Of Uttaranchal and Ors. (2002) 1 UPLBEC 11.
General Assurance Society Limited v Chandmull Jain and Another [1966] 3 S.C.R. 500
Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse v Haribansh Ramakbal Singh [1995] Supp6 S.C.R. 471, 1996 (1)
UJ 471
Ekta Shakti Foundation v Government of (NCT of Delhi) [2006] Supp3 S.C.R. 631
Federal Bank Limited v Sagar Thomas and Others
In re Brown's Estate, 446 Pa. 401, 409, 289 A.2d 77, 81 (1972)
In re Staklinski & Pyramid Elec. Co. 6 N.Y.2d 159
Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd v. Dalhousie Haldings Ltd AIR 1957 Cal 293
J. Venkatramana Reddy v. Kanakagari Bhakthavatsalaish 2003 AIHC 1994 (2002) (AP)
Jagan Nath v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 148
Jagdishchandra Maganlal Trivedi v. State Bank of India AIR 2005 NOC 371
Jalan Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha Union AIR 1967 SC 691
Jaora Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P. AIR 1966 SC 416
Jit Ram Shiv. Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 1980 SC 1285
Joshi R.S. v. Ajit Mills Ltd. AIR 1977 SC 2279
K.C.Gajapati Narayan Deo v. St. of Orissa AIR 1953 SC 375
Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 790
Karishamms Oljefabriker v. East Port navigation Cpn (The Elafi) [1982] 1 All ER 208
Moolji Jetha & Co. v. K S & W Mills Co AIR 1950 FC 83,105
Motilal Padmapat Sugar Mills Co Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 621
Muhammad Habib Ullah v. Bird & Co. (1921) 48 IA 175: 43 All 257; AIR 1922 PC 178
N Rama Natha Pillai v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 2641
21
N Sundereswaran v. Sri Krishna Refineries AIR 1977 Mad 109

Naga Peoples Movement for Human Rights v. Union of India AIR 1998 SC 431
Nageswar Rao Gullapalli v. A.P. Transport Corp. AIR 1959 SC 308
Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Alag, AIR 1991 Del 315, 320
Narasaraopeta Electric Corporation Ltd. v. The State of Madras A.I.R. 1951 Mad. 979
Nazeeria Motor Service v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1970 SC 1864
Nelson v. Richia, 232 F.2d 827 (1st Cir. 1956)
Nidhi v. Mazha 7 A 230
Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse v Haribansh Ramakbal Singh [1995] Supp6 S.C.R. 471
22
BOOKS
Kagzi , M.C. Jain The Constitutional of India Vol.1 & 2. New Delhi: India Law House, 2001.
De, D. J. The Constitution of India, Vol 1 & 2
Basu, Durga Das Commentary on the Constitution of India
Chaube, Shibanikinkar Constituent Assembly of India, New Delhi: Manohar Publishers &
Distributors, 2000
Basu, Durga Das Introduction to the Constitution of India New Delhi: Wadhwa and Company
Law Publishers, 2002
Raj , Hans The Constitution of India New Delhi: Surjeet Publications, 1998.
Austin, Granville Working A Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience; Delhi: OUP, 1999
Ed. Sorabjee, Soli J. Law & Justice An anthology Delhi: Universal Law Publishing, 2006.
Sharma, S.R. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Constitutional Law Vol. 1 to 5: An Introduction to
Constitutional Law New Delhi: Anmol Publications, 2003.
Kashyap , Subhash C.(ed.) Perspectives of the Constitution New Delhi: Shipra Publishers, 1995.
ISBN-81-85402-61-2
Kashyap, Subhash C. (ed.) Constitutional Reforms: Problem, Prospects and Perspectives New
Delhi: Radha Pub., 2004.
Kashyap, Subhash C. Khanna D.D. Kueck, Gret W. Reviewing the Constitution Delhi: Shipra
Publication, 2000
Sathe S.P., Adminiostrative Law, 6th. Edn., Butterworths, New Delhi, 1999, pp. 245-252
Joshi, K. C., Legal Status of Tribunals, IBR, Vol. 25 (2), 1998
23

Administrative Law Project PDF 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Administrative Law Project PDF 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA