Administrative Tribunals

BY
SAGNIK CHAKRABORTY
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
THE UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

INTRODUCTION
 The traditional theory of “laissez faire” has been
given up and the old “police state” has now
become a “welfare state”
 This radical change in the philosophy of the role
of the state, expanded the functions of the state.
 Now the state is over burdened with sovereign
functions, social security, social welfare, socio-
economic activities and so on.
 It is not possible for the ordinary courts of law to
entertain all socio-economic problems which are
not related to purely legal issues.

DEFINITION
 In Durga shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh AIR
1954 SC 520
Supreme court defined “Tribunal” as “the
expression ‘Tribunal’ as used in Article 136 does
not mean the same thing as ‘court’ but includes,
within its ambit, all adjudicating bodies, provided
they are constituted by the state and are invested
with judicial as distinguished from administrative
or executive functions.”
 According to The Franks committee, “ Tribunals
have certain characteristics which often give them
advantages over the courts. These are
cheapness, accessibility, freedom from
technicality, expedition and expert knowledge of
their particular subject.

CONSTITUTIONAL
RECOGNITION
 Article 136 of the constitution empowers the
supreme court to grant special leave to appeal
from any judgment, decree, order, determination,
sentence or order passed or made by any tribunal
in India.
 Article 227 enables every High Court to exercise
power of superintendence over all tribunals
throughout the territories over which it exercises
jurisdiction.
 The constitutional (42nd amendment) Act, 1976,
inserted Article 323-A and 323-B, by which
parliament has been authorized to constitute
administrative tribunals for settlement of disputes
and adjudication of matters specified therein.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL:
VAGUE TITLE
 According to Wade, the expression
“Administrative Tribunal” is misleading for various
reasons,
1. Every tribunal is constituted by an Act of the
parliament and not by government.
2. Decisions of such tribunals are judicial rather
than administrative.
3. Sometimes tribunals adjudicate disputes
between private individuals.
4. Such tribunals are independent, free from any
administrative interference.

TEST
 In order to be a tribunal, it is essential that the
power of adjudication must be derived from a
statute and not from an agreement between the
parties.
 “Domestic tribunal” is a private body set up by the
agreement between the parties.

REASONS FOR GROWTH
 Increasing governmental functions and activities
overloaded the courts.
 The traditional judicial system proved to be
inadequate to decide and settle all the disputes
requiring resolution.
 In modern society, complex questions arise which
cannot be decided on objective legal principles,
they are to be solved by keeping in mind policy
consideration and public interest.
 Traditional courts are only equipped with legal
knowledge, but modern administration requires,
specialization and expertise knowledge in
relevant fields.

 Administrative tribunals can avoid technicalities.
 Administrative tribunals can take preventive
measures.
 Administrative tribunals conferred with wide
discretion power, and decisions may be given on
the basis of departmental policy and other
relevant factors.
 Administrative tribunals work more rapidly,
cheaply, and efficiently than ordinary courts.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND
COURT: DISTINCTION
 A court of law is a part of traditional judicial system
and it derives its power from the state.
on the other hand and administrative tribunal is an
agency created by a statute and invested with judicial
Powers.
 ordinary civil courts have judicial powers to try all suits
of a civil nature, except those whose cognizance is
either expressed or implied Barred.
Administrative tribunals only have the power to try
cases which are specially conferred upon them
through some statute.
 lack of jurisdiction to try all cases of civil nature does
not necessarily lead to an inference that the forum is
a tribunal and not a court.
A court can also be constituted with limited
jurisdiction.

• Judges of ordinary courts of law are independent from the executive
power of the government.
Members of administrative tribunals are entirely in the hands of
government in respect of certain matters.
• The presiding officer of a court of law is a trained legal officer.
whereas the president or the members of the tribunal may not be trained
as well in law.
•In a court of law, a judge cannot decide a matter in which he is
interested.
An administrative tribunal may be party to the dispute to be decided by
it.
• A court of law is bound by all the rules of evidence and procedure.
An administrative tribunal is not bound by those rules unless otherwise
directed.

•A court of law must decide all the questions objectively on the
basis of the evidence and material produced before it.
•An administrative tribunal may decide the questions taking into
account the departmental policies or expediency and the
decision may be subjective rather than objective.
•While a court of law is bound by precedents, principle of res
judicata and estoppel.
An administrative tribunal is not strictly bound by them.
•A court of law can decide the vires of a legislation while and
tribunal cannot do so.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL VS.
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY.
 Administrative tribunal is not an executive body or
administrative department of the government.
 The powers conferred on an administrative
tribunal are Quasi judicial and not purely
administrative.
 Administrative tribunals are bound to act judicially
and they have to observe the principle of natural
justice.
 They add administrative only because they are
part of an administrative scheme for which a
minister is responsible to parliament and because
the reasons for preferring them to the ordinary
courts are administrative reasons.

Characteristics:
 It is a creation of a statute and thus it has a statutory origin.
 It has some of the features of ordinary court but not all of
them.
 Admission tribunals is interested with judicial powers of
the state.
 They perform judicial and Quasi judicial functions but not
purely administrative or executive functions and they are
bound to act judicially.
 Administrative tribunals possesses the powers of an
ordinary court with regard to the procedural matters.
 Administrative tribunal is not bound by the strict rules of
evidence and procedure.

•Administrative tribunals are not always concerned exclusively
with the cases in which government is a party they also decide
disputes between two private parties.
•Administrative tribunals are independent and they are not
subject to any administrative interference in discharge of the
judicial and Quasi judicial functions.
•The writs of certiorari and prohibition are available against the
decision of administrative tribunals.

POWER TO GRANT INTERIM
RELIEF:
 An administrative tribunal is created by statute.
 It possesses all the power conferred on it by the
parent Act.
 It has also the power to grant interim relief during
the pendency of proceedings before it.
 Maxwell states, “where an Act confers
jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of
doing all such acts, or employing such means, as
are essentially necessary to its execution.”

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE:
 An essential feature of Administrative tribunal is
that they decide the disputes independently,
judicially, objectively and without any bias for or
prejudice against any of the parties to the
dispute.
 The Franks committee, in its report (1957) has
proclaimed three fundamental objectives, 1)
openness, 2) fairness, 3) impartiality.
 These principals are accepted in India. The Law
commission in its 14th report (1958) has
observed that administrative tribunals perform
quasi-judicial functions and they must act
judicially and in accordance with the principles

RULES OF PROCEDURE AND
EVIDENCE:
 The tribunals are invested with powers conferred on civil
courts by CPC in respect of , 1) summoning of
witnesses and enforcement of attendance, 2) discovery
and inspection, 3) production of documents, etc.
 The proceeding of administrative tribunals are deemed
to be judicial proceedings for the purposes of sections
193, 195 and 228 of IPC and sections 345 and 346 of
CrPC.
 They are not bound by the strict rules of procedure and
evidence. Provided they observed the principles of
natural justice.

REASONS FOR DECISION:
 Recording of reasons in support of the order is
considered to be a part of natural justice.
 In M.P. Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, AIR
1966 SC 671
Subba Rao J. observed,
“Arbitrariness in their functioning destroys the
concept of a welfare state itself. A reasoned order
is desirable condition of judicial disposal.”

FINALITY OF DECISIONS:
In Dhulabhai Vs. State of M.P. AIR 1969 SC 78
Hidayatullah CJ. summarised the principles after
exhaustively discussing the case-law.
 Where the statute gives finality of the order of the special
tribunal, the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be
excluded.
 Where there is an express bar of jurisdiction of the court.
 Provisions of a particular Act which is challenged as an ultra
virus act cannot be brought before the tribunal constituted
under that act.
 when a provision is already declared unconstitutional, a suit
is open against that provision. A writ of certiorari may
include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the
time prescribed by the limitation Act, but it is not compulsory
remedy to replace a suit.
 When that particular act contains no machinery for refund of
tax collected in excess of constitutional limit then a suit lies.

JUDICIAL REVIEW:
 No appeal, revision or reference against the decision
of an administrative tribunal is maintainable if the said
right is not conferred by the relevant statute.
 However, this will not affect the jurisdiction of High
court under Articles 226 and 227 and of the Supreme
Court under Articles 32 and 136 of the Constitution.
 The power of judicial review is recognized by the
constitution and the same cannot be taken away by
any statute.
 According to Denning LJ, “if tribunals were to be at
liberty to exceed their jurisdiction without any check
by the courts, the rule of law would be at the end.”

POWER TO REVIEW:
 An Administrative tribunal becomes functus officio as
soon as it makes an order and there after cannot
review its decision unless the same is conferred on it
by a statute, and the decision must stand unless and
until it is set aside by the appellate or revisional
authority or by a competent court.

DOCTRINE OF RESJUDICATA:
• Section 11 of CPC deals with doctrine of res judicata.
• Though section 11 of CPC speaks about civil suits
only, the general principles underlying the doctrine of
res judicata applies even to administrative
adjudication.
• Thus, an award pronounced by the industrial tribunal
operates as res judicata between the same parties
and the payment of wages authority has no
jurisdiction to entertain the said question again.

WHETHER BOUND BY THE
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT
AND HIGH COURT:
 Article 141 of the constitution declares that, "the law declared
by the supreme court shall be binding on all courts within the
territory of India". Undoubtedly, the scope of Article 141 is
wide enough to include all ordinary courts as well as the
administrative tribunals.
 There is no such provision corresponding to Article 141 with
respect to the law declared by the High court.
 As the Supreme court is the apex court in the country, the
High court is the apex court in the state.
 Like the Supreme court, the High court over and above the
writ jurisdiction, has also supervisory jurisdiction of all
subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the territories
in relation to which it exercises its jurisdiction.
 Therefore if any administrative tribunal act without jurisdiction,
exceeds its power or seeks to transgress the law laid down by
the High court, the High court can certainly interfere with the
action of the tribunal.

DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT
 Administrative tribunals are bound by the decisions of
the Supreme court and of the High court in the
territories within which they exercises their
jurisdiction and also bound by the decisions of a
higher authority.
 In Bhopal sugar industries limited vs ITO AIR 1961
SC 182.
The Income-Tax officer refused to carry out clear
and unambiguous direction issued by the Income-
Tax Tribunal. Observing that such refusal would be
against the fundamental principle of hierarchy of
courts, the Supreme court stated, "such a view is
restricted of the basic principle of the administration

DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
 The doctrine of Stare Decisis applied to crown's
court does not stricto sensu apply to
administrative tribunals.
 The duty of a Tribunal is "to reach the right
decision in the circumstances of the moment" and
they are not bound to follow previous decisions.

CONTEMPT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNALS:
 Article 129 and 215 of the constitution preserve all the
powers of the Supreme court and the High courts,
respectively, as a court of record which includes the power
to punish the contempt for itself.
 Section 10 of The contempt of courts Act,
1971 empowers every High court to exercise the same
jurisdiction, power and authority in respect of contempt of
courts subordinate to it as it exercises in respect of
contempt of itself.
 The question, however, is whether a Tribunal can be said
to be a "court" subordinate to the High court or not.
 In some cases, The Supreme court held that the phrase
"courts subordinate to a High court" under The Contempt
of courts Act is wide enough to include administrative
Tribunal throughout the territories in relation to which the
High court exercises it's jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the constitution, whereas in some the other cases, it has
taken a contrary view.

LIMITATIONS :
 Sometimes there is no appeal against the Tribunal's
decision, e.g. Rent Tribunal. Tremendous power
which can ruin a person's life. There is no higher court
in which their decision can be tested.
 A court of no appeal has been put into the hands
of men who are generally neither qualified lawyers,
magistrate nor judges.
 There is no evidence on oath, and therefore there can
be no proper cross examination as in a court of law.
 Procedure is as the Tribunal shall determine. No rules
have been laid down as to the procedure at the
Tribunal hearing. Witnesses may be heard or not
heard at their pleasure.

FRANKS COMMITTEE:
In 1955, A committee was appointed by the Lord
chancellor under the chairmanship of Sir Oliver Frank
to look into the complaints and make
recommendations of the constitution and working of
the administrative tribunals in England.
The committee considered the grievances and
submitted its report in 1957 and made the following
recommendations:
 The appointment, removal, qualification and
remuneration of the members of the Tribunal.
 Procedure for each Tribunal, based on common
principles but suited to its needs, should be
formulated by the council.

•Hearing should be in public, except only in cases
involving,
1) public security, 2) intimate personal or financial
circumstances or 3) professional reputation.
•Legal representation should always be
allowed, save only in most exceptional
circumstances.
• Tribunal should have the power to take evidence
on oath, to examine witnesses and to award costs.
•The decisions of the Tribunal should be reasoned
and made available to the parties in writing.
•There should be right of appeal on facts, law and
merits to an appellate Tribunal, except where the
lower Tribunal is exceptionally strong.

•There should also be remedies through certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus.
•The council should advise, and report quickly, on the
application of all these principles to the various tribunals, and
should advise on any proposal to establish a new Tribunal.
Griffith and Street have included the following
recommendations:
•Adjudication of law and fact in which no policy question is
involved should not be carried out by Ministers themselves or
by civil service in the Minister's name.
• The personnel of tribunals deciding issue of law or fact or
applying standard should be independent of the department
with which their functions are connected.

•The personnel should enjoy security of tenure and adequacy of
remuneration.
•At least one member of the Tribunal should be a lawyer if the
question of fact and law arise, one member may have the
expert knowledge where such knowledge would be helpful to
guide discretion and apply standards.
•An Appellate system should be provided.
These recommendations were accepted by the government and
implemented by the Tribunals and Inquires Act, 1958 which was
substituted by the act of 1971 and then by the act of 1992

CONSTITUTIONAL (42ND
AMENDMENT) ACT, 1976
 The amendments made two major changes as far as
Tribunals are concerned.
1. It took away the power of superintendence of High
court over administrative tribunals which they
possessed under Article 227 of the constitution.
2. After Part XIV, it inserted Part XIV-A (Article 323-A
and 323-B) by enabling Parliament to constitute
administrative tribunals for the purposes specified
therein.
These amendments may also provide for the
exclusion of jurisdiction of all courts except that of
the Supreme court under Article 136.

CONSTITUTION (44TH
AMENDMENT) ACT, 1978
 Article 227 was amended and jurisdiction of High
courts over administrative tribunal had been
restored.
 No amendment was made in Part XVI-A as
inserted by the Constitutional (42nd Amendment)
Act, 1976.

SAMPATH KUMAR V. UNION OF
INDIA (1987) 1 SCC 124
 In exercise of the power conferred by Article 323-
A of the constitution, Parliament enacted the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
 Section 28 of the said Act excluded the power of
judicial review in service matters under Article 226
and 227 of the constitution.
 The constitutionality of the Act was challenged
before the Supreme Court in this leading case.
 The constitutional bench upheld the validity of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

POST “SAMPATH KUMAR”
POSITION:
 In Sampath Kumar, the Supreme court observed
that CATs were the “real substitutes” of the High
Courts de jure as well as de facto in regards to
the matters to be dealt with by them and no void
had been created.

THE ARREARS COMMITTEE:
 There were some serious complaints against the
tribunals as they did not allow to argue properly, some of
them did not allow oral submissions, some of them did
not allow to cite Supreme court judgments and so on.
 The ARREARS COMMITTEE after the in-depth review of
these problems, stated in its report Vol. II (1989-1990),
CHAP 8,9. 110-111; PARA, 8-65.:
“The overall picture regarding tribunalisation of justice in
our country in not satisfactory and encouraging. There is
a need for a fresh look and review and a serious
consideration before experiment is extended to new
areas of the fields, especially if the constitutional
jurisdiction of the High court is to be simultaneously
ousted.”

L. CHANDRA KUMAR V. UNION OF
INDIA (1997) 3 SCC 261
 After considering various decisions on the point,
the larger bench held that the power of judicial
review is the basic and essential feature of the
constitution.
 Parliament is empowered to amend the
constitution, but that power cannot be exercised
so as to damage the essential feature of the
constitution.
 It was held that, Section 28 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 and clause 2(d) of Article 323-
A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B was ultra vires
as amended by the 42nd amendment Act, 1976.

CONCLUSION:
 A sound justice delivery system is a sine qua non for
the efficient governance of a country wedded to the
rule of law. An independent and impartial judiciary in
which the litigating public has faith and confidence
alone can deliver the goods.
 Any institutional mechanism or authority in negation
of judicial review is destructive of basic structure.
 For inspiring confidence and faith in the litigating
public they must have an assurance that the persons
deciding the disputes are totally and completely free
from influence of pressure from executive. To
maintain independence and impartiality, it is
necessary that the persons appointed in tribunals are
judicial and objective approach and also possess
sufficient knowledge and legal training.

Administrative Tribunals

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Administrative Tribunals

Semelhante a Administrative Tribunals (20)

Último

Último (20)

Administrative Tribunals