Cases on Tribunals

In S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India & Ors (SC) the Constitutional bench gave the decision:

After constitution of Administrative Tribunals under the Tribunals Act, 1985 the jurisdiction in regard to original jurisdiction relating to service matters
was shifted from courts to Administrative Tribunals. It was discussed that since the tribunal were a substitute for the High Court so these should be so
constituted as to generate the same faith & confidence in them as in High Court.

It was held necessary that the chairman of the tribunal should be a former or retiring chief justice or senior judge of the H.C or a person having a
qualification of a H.C. judge, with 2 years experience or vice-chairman could also be appointed as a chairman.

It was further held all the appointments must be made by the high powered committee with the sitting judge of the S.C. as its chairman. These directions
were given effect to by government.

For this purpose, The Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1987 was enacted.

In L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors (SC) the division bench said that the decision given by Constitutional bench in S.P. Sampath Kumar
case needed to be reconsidered so the matter was placed before a larger bench of 7 judges. The S.C. has partially over-ruled its judgment given in
Sampath Kumar v. Union of India. The S.C. struck down clause 2(d) of A. 323 A & clause 3(d) of A. 323 B to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of
H.C. & S.C. u/A 226/227 & A. 32 of the Constitution as they damage the power of Judicial Review which is an essential & integral part of the
Constitution.

The tribunals created u/A 323 A & 323 B would continue to be the courts of first instance in respect of the areas of the law for which they were
constituted & litigants can’t approach to the H.C. directly by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned tribunal.

All the decisions of the tribunal would be subject to scrutiny before the division bench of the H.C. within whose jurisdiction the concerned tribunal
would fall.

If the party is not satisfied from the tribunal decision, it can move to the H.C. u/A. 226/227 & from the division bench of the H.C., it can move to the
S.C. u/A. 136.
The S.C. held that the tribunals are performing supplemental role & not a substitutional role so tribunals can’t act as substitute for H.C. & S.C.

The court expressed unhappiness over the functioning of these tribunals & suggested various measures for their effective functioning.

Difference between Courts & Tribunals

Ordinary Courts and administrative tribunals are adjudicating bodies. Administrative tribunals and Ordinary Courts both deals with the disputes and
decide the dispute between the parties. which affects the rights of the subjects. But Administrative Tribunal is not a court. Some notable Differences
between a court and Administrative Tribunal are as follows -

No Court of Law Tribunal

1 A court of law is a part of the traditional An Administrative Tribunal is an agency

judicial system whereby judicial powers created by the statute and invested with
are derived from the state. judicial power.

2 The Civil Courts have judicial power to Tribunal is also known as the Quasi-judicial
try all suits of civil nature unless the body. Tribunals have the power to try cases
cognizance is expressly or impliedly of special matter which are conferred on
barred. them by statutes

3 Judges of the ordinary courts of law are
independent of the executive in respect
of their tenure, terms and conditions of
service etc. Judiciary is independent of
Executive
Tenure, terms and conditions of services of
the members of Administrative Tribunal are
entirely in the hands of Executive for
example government.
4 The presiding officer of the court of law The president or a member of Tribunal may
is trained in law. not be trained as well as in law. He may be
expert in the field of Administrative
matters.

5 A judge of a court of law must be An Administrative Tribunal may be a party

impartial who is not interested in the to the dispute to be decided by it.
matter directly or indirectly.

6 A court of law is bound by all the rules An Administrative Tribunal is not bound by
of evidence and procedure. rules but bound by the principles of nature
of Justice.

7 Court Must decide all questions Administrative Tribunal may decide

objectively on the basis of evidence and questions by taking into account
materials on record. departmental policy, the decision of
Administrative Tribunal may be subjective
rather than objective.

A court of law is bound by president Administrative Tribunal is not strictly

8 principles of res judicata and estoppel. bound by why president principle of res
judicata and estoppel.

9 A court of law can decide vires of a Administrative Tribunal cannot do so

legislation
In 'Union of India V. R. Gandhi' - (2010) 96 CLA 222 (SC) the Supreme Court elaborately discussed the role of Courts, establishment and
functioning of tribunals and the difference between courts and tribunals.

The term 'courts' refers to places where justice is administered or refers to Judges who exercise judicial functions. Courts are established by the State for
administration of justice that is for exercise of the judicial power of the state to maintain and uphold the rights, to punish wrongs and to adjudicate up on
disputes. Courts refer to the Civil Courts, Criminal Courts and High Courts. Tribunals on the other hand are special alternative institutional
mechanisms, usually brought into existence by or under a statute to decide disputes arising with reference to that particular statute, or to determine
controversies arising out of any administrative law. Tribunals can be either private tribunals such as arbitral tribunals or Tribunals constituted under the
Constitution or Tribunals authorized by the Constitution or Statutory Tribunals which are created under a statute.

Some Tribunals are manned exclusively by Judicial Officers. Example for that type of Tribunals are Rent Tribunals, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Labor Courts, Industrial Tribunals etc., Other Statutory Tribunals are having both judicial and technical members. Example for that type of Tribunals
are Central Administrative Tribunals, Telecom Disputes Settlement Appellate Tribunal Competition Appellate Tribunals, Consumer Fora, Cyber
Appellate Tribunal etc.,

In 'Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., v. Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala' - (1962) 2 SCR 339 the Supreme Court succinctly explained the difference
between courts and Tribunals - 'All Tribunals are not courts, though are courts are Tribunals. The word 'Courts' is used to designate those Tribunals
which are set up in an organized state for the administration of justice. By administration of justice is meant the exercise of juridical power of the State
to maintain and uphold rights and to punish 'wrongs'. Whenever there is an infringement of a right or an injury, the courts are there to restore the
vinculum juris, which is disturbed.'

When rights are infringed or invaded, the aggrieved party can go and commence a quarrel before the ordinary civil courts. These courts which are
instrumentalities of Government are invested with the judicial power of the State and their authority is derived from the Constitution or some Act of
Legislature constituting them. Their number is ordinarily fixed but they ordinarily permanent and can try any suit or cause with their jurisdiction. Their
numbers may be increased or decreased, but they are almost always permanent and go under the compendious name of 'Courts of Civil Judicature'.
There can be thus be doubt that the Central Government does not come within this clause.

With the growth of civilization and the problems of modern life, a large number of administrative Tribunals have come into existence. These Tribunals
have the authority of law to pronounce upon valuable rights; they act in a judicial manner and even on evidence on oath, but they are not part of the
ordinary Courts of Civil Judicature. They share the exercise of the judicial power of the State, but they are brought into existence to implement some
administrative policy or to determine controversies arising out of some administrative law. They are very similar to courts, but are not courts. When the
Constitution speaks of 'Courts' in article 136, 227 or 228 or in article 233 to 237 or in the Lists, it contemplates Courts of Civil Judicature but not
Tribunals other than such courts.

By 'Courts' is meant Courts of Civil Judicature and by 'Tribunals' those bodies of men who are appointed to decide controversies arising under certain
special laws. Among the powers of the State is included the power to decide such controversies. This is undoubtedly one of the attributes of the State,
and is aptly called the judicial power of the State. In the exercise of this power, a clear division is, thus, noticeable. Broadly speaking, certain special
matters go before Tribunals, and the residue goes before the ordinary Courts of Civil Judicature. Their procedures may differ, but the functions are not
essentially different. What distinguishes them has never been successfully established.

In 'Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh (1995) 1 SCR 267 it was held that the Courts and Tribunals are both adjudicating bodies and they deal
with and finally determine disputes between parties which are entrusted to their jurisdiction. The procedure followed by the courts is regularly
prescribed and in discharging their functions and exercising their powers, the courts have to conform to that procedure. The procedure which the
Tribunals have to follow may not always be so strictly prescribed, but the approach adopted by both the courts and the Tribunals is substantially the
same and there is no essential difference between the functions that they discharge. As in the case of courts, so in the case of Tribunals, it is the State's
inherent powers which has been transferred and by virtue of the said power it is the State's inherent judicial function which they discharge.

The tribunals are preferred because the courts' functions under archaic and elaborate procedural laws and highly technical evidence law. To ensure fair
play and avoidance of judicial error, the procedural laws provide for appeals, revisions and reviews and allow parties to file innumerable applications
and raise vexatious objections as a result of which the main matters get pushed to the back ground. All litigation in courts get inevitably delayed which
leads to frustration and dissatisfaction among litigants. In view of huge pendency, courts are not able to bestow attention and give priority to cases
arising under special legislations. Therefore, there is a need to transfer some selected arrears of litigation dealt with by traditional courts to special
tribunals.

Only if continued judicial independence is assured, Tribunals can discharge judicial functions. In order to make such independence a reality, it is
fundamental that the members of the Tribunal shall be independent persons, not civil servants. They should resemble courts and not bureaucratic boards.
Even the dependence of Tribunals on the sponsoring or parent department for infrastructural facilities or personnel may undermine the independence of
the Tribunal.