INTRODUCTION

The executive executes several quasi-legislative functions and quasi-judicial functions. It has
been the duty of the judiciary to preside over disputes but today, the governor’s functions have
increased thus having functions of the judiciary being undertaken by the executive. Some of
these functions include the imposition of fine, levy and confiscation of goods among others.

The state looks to make sure that social security and social welfare of the people are taken care
of over the sovereign functions it has. It looks after the industrial relations, take control over
productions and begins many enterprises. Legal issues are not the only ones that come about.

The ordinary courts cannot handle socio economic affairs and neither can they preside over
expeditious issues. Ordinary court are supposed to follow the rules of procedure and evidence
that are ever strict and technical. In that connection, administrative tribunals are formed to
preside over quasi-judicial issues instead of ordinary court of law.

What is an administrative tribunal?

Tribunal is an administrative body that practices the power of adjudicate. They are not termed as
ordinary courts. The word tribunal can not ne scientifically and precisely defined. In the
dictionary, the word ‘tribunal’ is the seat or bench that the judge or the judges sit in a court of
justice. This definition is vast since it covers ordinary court of law and when it comes to
administrative law, the meaning is bound to adjudicating authorities besides ordinary court of
law.1

1
http://lawnn.com/administrative-tribunal/(accessed on March 18, 2019 at 10:29pm)
 CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION
Art. 136 of the constitution recognizes the status of tribunal which give power to the Supreme
Court to give a special leave to appeal from any judgement whatsoever, decree, determination,
sentence or an order authorized by any tribunal in India. Likewise, Art. 227 gives power to every
High Court to be superior to every tribunal in the areas they have jurisdiction over.

When Prime Minister Mrs. Indra Gandhi was in power and by the 42nd constitutional
amendment, 1976, Art. 323-A and 323-B have been added in the constitution through which the
Parliament was authorized to include the administrative tribunal for the matters that arise from
the service and adjudication of matters mentioned therein.

A tribunal is an authority that adjudicates and the power of adjudication must be received from a
status and not from the agreement of parties.

Art. 136 and 127 of the Constitution has it that a tribunal is an adjudicating authority besides a
court given the judicial power of the Statute or rule of statute.

Art. 227 provide that the following authorities are held to be tribunal:
1. Election tribunal
2. Industrial tribunal
3. Revenue tribunal
4. Rent Control tribunal
5. Income Tax tribunal
6. Railway Rates tribunal
7. Panchayat Courts
8. Payment of Wages Authority
9. Statutory Arbitrary

At the same time these authorities are not tribunals:

1. Domestic tribunal
2. Conciliation officer
3. Military tribunal
4. Private arbitrator
5. Customs Officer
6. Advisory board under preventive detention laws2

2
https://knowindia.gov.in/profile/the-union/administrative-tribunals.php (accessed on March 20, 2018 at
10:17pm)
 THE GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
REASONS-
Dicey’s theory of rule of law states that legislative bodies are only for making laws. The ordinary
court of law is supposed to administer these laws. It is contrary to the doctrine of Separation of
Power to establish an administrative tribunal.

However, things have evolved with the functions of government increasing and the ordinary
court of law are not equipped to handle situations and complex issues in the dynamic socio-
economic world in the practical sense.

The ordinary courts are already overburdened and there are numerous reasons to that. The court
have to go through strict rules of procedure and evidence. The provision of a system of
adjudicating which was informal, inexpensive and fast is a great desire.

The inadequacy of the judicial system:

It has been proven that the traditional judicial system is inadequate to preside over everyconflict
that is in need of a resolution. It is slow, complex, costly, lacks expertise and very formal. It has
been burdened excessively from the beginning and the fast execution of all matters should not be
expected.

For instance, conflicts between employees and employees and employers comprising of strikes
and lockouts among others is an issue that can not be settled only through the stern interpretation
of the law. It calls for a number of factors to be considered which can not come a standing in a
court of law. In that case, the establishment of an industrial tribunal and labor courts were
brought about which have the methodologies and professionalism to deal with complex issues
such as these.

The judicial system is conservative, rigid and technical:

Administrative authorities can do away with technicalities. This is because they take practical
approaches instead of theoretical approaches. The traditional judiciary is outdated, stern and
technical. Unlike administrative tribunal they are not held by stern rules of evidence and
procedure. They make use of practical aspects to settle practical issues.

Provision of preventive measures:

The ordinary courts have to wait until the conflicting parties appear before them as a result of
their inability to take preventive measures. On the other end, administrative authorities can take
preventive measures such as licensing and rate fixing.
Many times, the preventive doing can turn out to be very effective and of use instead of giving
punishment to someone after he has done an offence in consideration of what the law provides.

Effective enforcement of preventive measures:

Administrative Authorities can undertake result producing processes to enforce the preventive
measures that were mentioned earlier which may include suspension, revocation or cancellation
of license and the destruction of contaminated articles among others. The court of law normally
do not have these solutions.

Departmental policies and other factors are considered:

Ordinary court of law make rulings after hearing parties and based on the evidence present in the
record. Administrative authorities do not find these procedures to be right for making decisions
where secrecy is given to them and the final ruling may be granted on the departmental policies
instead of factors that are relevant.

In the transformation of socio-economic atmosphere, policy consideration can be applied when

solving some modern cases where law, pure and simple concepts cannot be applied.

Need for expertise:

Disputes are naturally technical sometimes. It is not expected of the judicial system to take them
in and preside over them. The judges have their expertise on the law but none of it in technical
knowledge of technical conflicts.

Administrative tribunals on the other side of the coin, are handled by experts who can cater and
solve such issues. Example: issue related to atomic energy.

Merits of the system of administrative adjudication:

Administrative adjudication system is inexpensive, fast and flexible. On the other hand, the
judicial system is sluggish, complex and full of formalities.3

3
http://www.peterdjohnson.net/admintribunals.htm (accessed on March 18, 2019 at 10:42pm)
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
A tribunal must have following characteristics as set by the supreme court:

1. It must have originated from a statute.

2. It has some but not all elements of a court.
3. It has been granted judicial powers by the state that allows it to undertake judicial and
quasi-judicial functions.

An administrative tribunal has the power of the court when it comes to procedural matters
such as to summon witnesses, administering the oath and so forth.

It is not held under stern rules of procedure and evidence.

The rulings of many tribunals are judicial instead of administrative even if they have to take
records of finding of facts objectively and apply the law without regarding executive policy.
Discretion to be made use of objectively and judicially.

Majority of the tribunals are not interested entirely with the cases a government is a port of.
They also preside over the cases between two parties.

The tribunals are independent and they are not to be interfered with other administrations as
they execute their judicial and quasi-judicial functions.

Against the ruling of the administrative tribunals, prerogative writs of certiorari and
prohibition are present.

They must sit in public.

A legal practitioner may represent a party but it is not a right.

The tribunal members are able enough to be judges.4

4
Ibid 3.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE TRIBUNAL:
There are differences between a court and a tribunal just in the same way they both share some
similarities. Some of these similarities are that both are constituted by the state, granted judicial
power and exist permanently. That makes the two bodies adjudicating bodies. When the deal
with disputes, the result are their decisions in the disputes that touch the rights of the subjects.

Before looking into the differences, it is of importance to note that the tribunal is not the same as
court. The differences in between them make them two separate bodies even though a tribunal
may have some sentiments of the court. These are the points of differences:

A court of law is a constituent of the traditional judicial system which has its own judicial
powers received from the state. On the contrary, an administrative tribunal is an agency that the
statute forms and is granted judicial powers. It is a constituent of an executive part of a state
which practices judicial and executive functions thus the term quasi-judicial body.

Civil courts have powers of the judiciary to put all suits of a civil kind into a trial but not when
the cognizance is barred either expressly or impliedly while tribunals have the authority to try
cases of special affairs which are given to them by statutes.

In ordinary courts, judges are free from the executive because of their line of work where as the
members of the administrative tribunal are directly under the authority of the executive. The
officer presiding over a case in court of law is trained in law while the head or the member of the
tribunal may not have the same training but may have more expertise in area of administration.

A judge of a court of law is required to be a non-partisan where he is not into the matter of the
case whether directly or indirectly. On the other hand, administrative tribunal may have a part in
the dispute to be decided by the tribunal.

A court of law is held at bay by the rules of procedure and evidence while an administrative
tribunal is not held by the mentioned rules but is held by the principle of natural justice. This
makes the decision of the tribunal more of subjective than objective.

A court is held at bay by precedent, principle of red judicata and estoppel while an administrative
tribunal is not held by those principles sternly. An administrative tribunal cannot decide ‘vires’
of a legislation while a court can.5

5
https://archive.india.gov.in/knowindia/profile.php?id=36 (accessed on March 18, 2019 at 10:57pm)