PROJECT REPORT

SERVICE LAW

ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNALS

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Ms. Tanmeet Kaur Shubham Bhatia

Assistant Professor, UILS B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Sem-8th

Panjab University, Chandigarh Roll No: 95/16

Section-B
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind
support and help of many individuals and organizations. I would like to extend my sincere
thanks to all of them.
I am highly indebted to Tanmeet Mam for her guidance and constant supervision as well as
providing information regarding the project and also for her support in completing this project.
I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents and friends for their kind co-operation
and encouragement which helped me in completion of this project.

Page | 1
 INDEX

S.NO TOPIC PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. HISTORY BEHIND ENACTMENT OF PART 5

XIV-A

3. CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF 6
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985

4. CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE 7
TRIBUNAL

5. WORKING UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE 8-12

TRIBUNAL ACT

 APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT

 COMPOSITION OF THE TRIBUNALS AND
BENCH
 QUALIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF
MEMBERS
 TERM OF OFFICE
 RESIGNATION AND REMOVAL
 JURISDICTION OF CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
 JURISDICTION OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL
 JURISDICTION OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL
 PROCEDURE AND POWERS OF TRIBUNALS

6. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMINISTARTIVE 13

TRIBNAL AND COURT

7. SUPREMACY OF SUPREME COURT AND 14

HIGH COURTS OVER ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNALS

8. CASE LAWS RELATING TO 15-16

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

9. CONCLUSION 17

10. REFERENCES 18

Page | 2
 TABLE OF CASES

S.NO TOPIC CITATION PAGE NO.

AIR 1962 SC
1. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. 1893 14
Collector of Customs
AIR 1980 SC
2. K.K. Dutta v. Union of India 2056 5

(1997) 3 SCC
3. L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI 261 5,6
(1994) 2 SCC
4. Mahabal Ram (Dr.) v. Indian Council of 401 8
Agricultural Research
AIR 1990 SC
5. M.B. Majumdar v. UOI 2263 15
(1993) 4 SCC
6. R.K. Jain v. UOI 119 15

7. S.D. Ghatge v. State of Bombay AIR 1977 4

Bom 3844

8. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. UOI AIR 1987 SC 6,15

386

Page | 3
 INTRODUCTION

The traditional theory of ‘laissez faire’ has been given up and old ‘police state’ has now become
a ‘welfare state’, and because of this radical change in the philosophy as to the role to be played
by the State, its functions have increased. It is not possible for the ordinary courts of law to
deal with all these socio-economic problems. All the same, it is necessary that such disputes
should not be determined in an arbitrary or autocratic manner. Administrative tribunals are,
therefore, established to decide various quasi-judicial issues which, if are adjudicated upon by
ordinary courts of law, will result in adjudication been neither cost effective, nor time
effective.1 The Constitution of India, being a product of the philosophy of welfare state, was
bound to recognise the existence of tribunals. Tribunals are being established to provide for
speedy disposal of cases, and thus reduce the pressure on the Civil Courts.

Even the draft Constitution contained reference to tribunals in Articles 136 and 227. even
though the word ‘tribunal’ was deleted from Article 227 by the Constitution (Forty second
Amendment) Act 1976, the courts interpreted that, the word ‘courts’ included tribunals for the
purpose of judicial superintendence under that Article2 , and by the Constitution (Forty- fourth
Amendment) Act 1978, the word ‘tribunal’ was reinstated in that article. Articles 323-A and
323-B were added to the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty- second Amendment) Act
1976. These Articles empower Parliament, and appropriate legislatures respectively to provide
for ‘the adjudication or trial by tribunals’ of the types of matters mentioned therein. The
tribunals established under Articles 323- A and 323-B have the same status as the High Court;
as the appeals from these tribunals can go directly to the Supreme Court under Article 136.

In exercise of the power conferred by Article 323-A of the Constitution, Parliament enacted
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is an Act to provide for the adjudication by
administrative tribunals of complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of
persons appointed to public services of Union or States or any local or other authority in
pursuance of Article 323-A and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

1
C.K. Takwani, Lectures on Administrative Law, Eastern Book Company, Fourth Edition, Lecture VII
Administrative Tribunals, p.228
2
S.D. Ghatge v. State of Bombay [AIR 1977 Bom 384]

Page | 4
 HISTORY BEHIND ENACTMENT OF PART XIV-A

For a long time a search was going on for a mechanism to relieve the courts, including High
Courts and the Supreme Court, from the burden of service litigation which formed a substantial
portion of pending litigation. In 1969 Administrative Reform Commission also recommended
for the establishment of civil service tribunals both for the Central and State civil servants. In
1975, Swarn Singh Committee again recommended for the setting up of service tribunals. The
idea of setting up service tribunals also found favour with the SC of India which in K.K. Dutta
v. Union of India3 advocated for setting up of service tribunals to save the courts from
avalanche of writ petitions and appeals in service matters.

It was against this backdrop that Parliament passed Constitution (Forty- second Amendment)
Act, 1976 which added Part XIV-A in the Constitution. Articles 323-A and 323-B enabled
Parliament to constitute administrative tribunals for dealing with certain matters specified
therein. So far as administrative tribunals are concerned, mainly, the Amendment (the
Constitution Forty- second Amendment Act, 1976) made two changes:

1. It took away power of superintendence of High Courts over administrative tribunals which
they possessed under Article 227 of the Constitution; and

2. After Part XIV, it inserted Part XIV-A (Articles 323-A and 323-B) by enabling Parliament
to constitute administrative tribunals for the purposes specified therein.

Part XIV- A, as inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act opened a new Chapter in the Indian
Constitutional and Administrative Law. By the Constitution (Forty- fourth Amendment) Act,
1978, Article 227 was amended and jurisdiction of High Courts over administrative tribunals
had been restored. No amendment, however, was made in Part XIV-A, as inserted by the
Constitution (Forty- second Amendment) Act, 1976 and exclusion of jurisdiction of all courts
and tribunals constituted in exercise of powers under Articles 323-A and 323-B. The revival of
this power was made after the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI4.

Empowered by these enabling provisions of the Constitution, the Parliament enacted

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

3
AIR 1980 SC 2056
4
(1997) 3 SCC 261

Page | 5
 CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985

In exercise of the power conferred by Article 323-A of the Constitution, Parliament enacted
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Section 28 of the Act excluded the power of judicial
review exercised by the High Courts in service matters under Articles 226 and 227. However,
it has not excluded the judicial review entirely in as much as the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution was kept intact.

The constitutional validity of the Act was challenged before the Supreme Court in the leading
case of S.P. Sampath Kumar v. UOI5. The Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. However, in concurring judgement, Justice Bhagwati
observed: “If this constitutional amendment were to permit a law made under clause (1) of
Article 323-A to exclude the jurisdiction of the High-Courts under Articles 226 and 227
without setting up an effective alternative mechanism or arrangement for judicial review, it
would be violative of the basic structure doctrine and hence outside the constituent power of
Parliament.

The whole question of constitutionality of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 once again
came under the scrutiny of the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI.6 The
court came to the conclusion that Administrative Tribunals cannot perform a substitutional role
to the High Court, it can only be supplemental. Therefore, clause (2) (d) of Article 323-A and
Clause (3) (d) of Article 323-B of the Constitution, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction
of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226, 227 and 32 of the Constitution
were held unconstitutional and for the same reason Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 which contains “exclusion of jurisdiction” clause was also held unconstitutional.

5
AIR 1987 SC 386
6
(1997) 3 SCC 261

Page | 6
 CHARACTERISTICS OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

The following are the characteristics of an administrative tribunal7 :

1. An administrative tribunal is the creation of a statute and thus, it has a statutory origin.

2. It has some of the trappings of a court but not all.

3. An administrative tribunal is entrusted with the judicial powers of the State and thus,
performs judicial and quasi-judicial functions, as distinguished from pure administrative or
executive functions and is bound to act judicially.

4. Even with regard to procedural matters, an administrative tribunal possesses powers of a

court; for example, to summon witnesses, to administer oath, to compel production of
documents, etc.

5. An administrative tribunal is not bound by strict rules of evidence and procedure.

6. The decisions of most of the tribunals are in fact judicial rather than administrative in as
much as they have to record findings of facts objectively and then to apply the law to them
without regard to executive policy.

7. Most of the administrative tribunals are not concerned exclusively with the cases in which
Government is a party; they also decide disputes between two private parties, e.g. Election
Tribunal, Rent Tribunal, Industrial Tribunal, etc. On the other hand, the Income Tax Tribunal
always decides disputes between the Government and the Assesses.

8. Administrative Tribunals are independent and they are not subject to any administrative
interference in the discharge of their judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

9. The prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition are available against the decisions of
administrative tribunals.

Thus, taking into account the functions being performed and the powers being exercised by
administrative tribunals it can be said that, they are neither exclusively judicial nor exclusively
administrative bodies, but are partly administrative and partly judicial authorities.

7
The Franks Report of 1957, Command Paper 218, Para 40

Page | 7
 WORKING UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides for three types of tribunals:

1. The Central Government establishes an administrative tribunal called the Central

Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which has jurisdiction to deal with service matters pertaining
to the Central Government employees, or of any Union Territory, or local or other government
under the control of the Government of India, or of a corporation owned or controlled by the
Central Government.

2. The Central Government may, on receipt of a request in this behalf from any State
Government, establish an administrative tribunal for such State employees.

3. Two or more States might ask for a joint tribunal, which is called the Joint Administrative
Tribunal (JAT), which exercises powers of the administrative tribunals for such States.

Each tribunal is to consist of a chairperson and such number of vice-chairpersons and judicial
and administrative members as the appropriate government might deem fit. The ATA requires
that every matter should be heard by a Bench consisting of two members, one judicial and one
administrative. The Act, however, authorises chairperson to allot certain matters to a single
member Bench. The SC maintains that this provision of the Act must be read subject to the
qualification that only matters that do not involve questions of law or constitutional
interpretation could be assigned by chairperson to a single member Bench8.

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers has not been expressly provided for in the Constitution
but never the less, it can be made out from the scheme of the Constitution. As per the doctrine
of separation of powers, there are three wings of the State, namely: the legislature, the executive
and the judiciary. The legislature enacts the laws, the executive implements the laws and the
judiciary interprets the laws. Now, when we speak of Administrative Tribunals, we speak of
quasi-judicial bodies whose function is twofold:

1. To relieve congestion in the ordinary courts; and

2. To provide for speedy disposal of disputes relating to service matters.

8
Mahabal Ram (Dr.) v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, (1994) 2 SCC 401

Page | 8
 APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT

According to Section 2 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the act applies to all Central
Government employees except –

 The members of the naval, military or air force or any other armed forces of the Union
 Any officer or servant of the Supreme Court or any High Courts
 Any person appointed to the secretariat staff of either House of the Parliament.

COMPOSITION OF THE TRIBUNALS AND BENCH

 Section 4 of this Act describes the composition of the tribunals and bench. Each tribunal
shall consist of a Chairman, Vice Chairman, Judicial and Administrative members.
Every bench must include at least one judicial and one administrative member.
 The benches of the Central Tribunal shall ordinarily sit at New Delhi, Allahabad,
Calcutta, Madras, Bombay and such other place as the Central Government specifies.
 The Chairman may transfer the Vice Chairman or other members from one bench to
another bench.

QUALIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS

Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, lays the provisions specifying the
qualifications and appointment of the members of tribunals.

Chairman: To be appointed as a chairman, a person must have the following qualifications-

 He is or has been a judge of a High Court or

 He has held the office of Vice Chairman for two years or
 He has held the post of secretary to the Government of India or
 He has held any other post carrying the scale pay of secretary.


Vice-Chairman: A person is qualified for the post of Vice-Chairman if he-

 Is or has been a judge of the High Court or

 Has for 2 years held the post of Secretary to the Government or holding any other post
carrying the same pay scale under the Central or State Governments or
 Has held for 5 years the post of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India or
any other post carrying the scales of pay of Additional Secretary.

Page | 9
Judicial Member: A person to be appointed as a judicial member must-

 Be or have been a judge of the High Court or

 Have been a member of Indian Legal Service and has held a post in Grade I of the
service for at least 3 years.

Administrative Member: A person to be appointed as an Administrative member must-

 Have held the post of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India or another
equivalent post for at least 2 years, or
 Have held the post of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India or other equivalent
post, or
 Have adequate administrative experience.
The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other members shall be appointed by the President. The
Judicial Members shall be appointed by the President with the consultation of the Chief Justice
of India. The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other members of the State Tribunal shall be
appointed by the President after consultation with the Governor of the concerned state.

TERM OF OFFICE

According to Section 8 of the Act, the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other members of the
tribunal shall hold the office for a term of 5 years or until he attains-

1. Age of 65 years, in the case of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman

2. Age of 62 years in the case of other members

RESIGNATION AND REMOVAL

Section 9 of the Act prescribes the procedure of resignation by any member and removal of
any member.The Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other members may resign from his post by
writing to the President.
They shall be removed from their office only by an order made by the President on the
ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity after an enquiry made by a judge of the Supreme
Court. They shall have the right to be informed of the charges against them and shall be given
a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Central Government may make rules to regulate the
procedure for the investigation of the charges against them.

Page | 10
 JURISDICTION OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Section 14 states that the Central Tribunal from the day of the appointment shall exercise all
the jurisdiction, powers and authority in relation to the following matters which were within
the jurisdiction of other courts (except the Supreme Court) before the enactment of this Act:

1. Recruitment of any civil service of Union or All India service or civil post under the
Union or civilian employees of defence services;
2. All service matters of the above-mentioned employees, and also of employees of any
local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the
Government of India or any corporation or society owned or controlled by the
Government;
3. All service matters of such persons whose services have been placed by the State
Government or any local or other authority or any corporation at the disposal of the
Central Government.

JURISDICTION OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Section 15 states that the State Tribunal from the day of the appointment shall exercise all the
jurisdiction, powers and authority in relation to the following matters which were within the
jurisdiction of other courts (except the Supreme Court) before the enactment of this Act:

1. Recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any civil service of the State or to
any civil post under the State;
2. the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall also exercise powers and authority in
relation to:
(i) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any service or post in connection
with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation or society; and
(ii) All service matters concerning a person [other than a person referred to in Clause
(b) of subsection (1) of this section or a member, person or civilian referred to in Clause
(b) of subsection (1) of Section 14] appointed to any service or post in connection with
the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation or society and pertaining to
the service of such person in connection with such affairs.

Page | 11
Also, the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall not
extend to, or be exercisable in relation to, any matter in relation to which the jurisdiction,
powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal extends or is exercisable.

JURISDICTION OF JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

A Joint Administrative Tribunal for two or more States shall exercise all the jurisdiction,
powers and authority exercisable by the Administrative Tribunals for such States.

PROCEDURE AND POWERS OF TRIBUNALS

Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 lays down the powers and procedure of
tribunals discussed below-
1. A tribunal is not bound to follow the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. It has the power to regulate its own procedure but must abide by the
principle of natural justice.
2. A tribunal shall decide the applications and cases made to it as rapidly as possible and
every application shall be decided after scrutinizing the documents and written
submissions and perceiving the oral arguments.
3. Tribunals have the same powers as vested by the civil courts under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit, with regard to the following subject-matter-
4. Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
5. Production of documents;
6. Receiving evidence on affidavits;
7. Ask for any public record or document from any office under Section 123 and 124 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;
8. Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents;
9. Reviewing its decisions;
10. Deciding the case ex-parte;
11. Setting aside any order passed by it ex-parte;
12. Any other matter prescribed by the Central Government.
13. Power to punish for contempt. (Section 17)

Page | 12
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND
COURT

A tribunal possesses some of the features of a court, but not all, and therefore, both must be
distinguished:

1. A court of law is a part of the traditional judicial system. On the other hand, an administrative
tribunal is an agency created by a statute and invested with judicial powers.

2. Whereas ordinary civil courts have judicial power to try all suits of a civil nature, excepting
those whose cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred, tribunals have power to try
cases in special matters statutorily conferred.

3. The mere lack of general jurisdiction to try all cases of a civil nature does not necessarily
lead to an inference that the forum is tribunal and not a court. A court can also be constituted
with limited jurisdiction.

4. Judges of ordinary courts of law are independent of the executive in respect of their tenure,
terms and conditions of service, etc. On the other hand, members of administrative tribunals
are entirely in the hands of the Government in respect of those matters.

5. In a court of law, a Judge must be an impartial arbiter and he cannot decide a matter in which
he is interested. On the other hand, an administrative tribunal may be party to the dispute to be
decided by it.

6. A court of law is bound by all the rules of evidence and procedure but an administrative
tribunal is not bound by those rules unless the relevant statute imposes such an obligation.

7. A court must decide all the questions objectively on the basis of the evidence and materials
produced before it, but an administrative tribunal may decide the questions taking into account
the departmental policy or expediency and in that sense, the decision may be subjective rather
than objective.

8. While a court of law is bound by precedents, principle of res judicata and estoppel, an
administrative tribunal is not strictly bound by them.

9. A court of law can decide the ‘vires’ of legislation, while an administrative tribunal cannot
do so.

Page | 13
 SUPREMACY OF SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURTS OVER
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

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”. The scope of Article 141 is very wide and
it applies to ordinary courts as well as administrative tribunals.

There is no provision corresponding to Article 141 with respect to the law declared by a High
Court. The question, therefore, arises whether the law declared by a High Court has a similar
binding effect over all subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the territories in relation
to which it exercises jurisdiction.

Generally, even in the absence of specific provisions, the same principle applies to judgements
of a High Court. Again, as the Supreme Court is the Apex Court in the country, the High Court
is the Apex Court in the State. Moreover, like the Supreme Court, the High Court, over and
above writ jurisdiction, has also supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts and inferior
tribunals within the territories in relation to which it exercises its jurisdiction. Therefore, if any
administrative tribunal acts 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.

This question directly arose before the Supreme Court in the case of East India Commercial
Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs9 . The Court held:

“We, therefore, hold that the law declared by the highest court in the State is binding on
authorities or tribunals under its superintendence; and that they cannot ignore it either in
initiating a proceeding or deciding on the rights involved in such proceeding”.

Where the tribunal notices a decision of the Supreme Court and tries to distinguish it without
distinguishing features, the approach is highly objectionable. A deliberate attempt to flout a
judgement of a superior court may amount to contempt of court.

9
AIR 1962 SC 1893

Page | 14
 CASE LAWS RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

1. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. UOI10

The exclusion of judicial review under Articles 226, 227 and 32 was questioned as violating
the basic structure of the Constitution. The final decision the Court held that Section 28 which
excludes jurisdiction of the High-Courts under Articles 226/227 is not unconstitutional. The
Court ruled that this section does not totally bar judicial review. It also said that Administrative
Tribunals under the 1985 Act are substitute of high- courts and will deal with all service matters
even involving Articles 14, 15 and 16. It also advised for changing the qualifications of
Chairman of the tribunal.

2. M.B. Majumdar v. UOI11

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court had to confront the contention, based on the premise
that in Sampath Kumar the Supreme Court had equated the tribunals established under the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with high-courts, and that the members of CAT must be
paid the same salaries as were payable to judges of the high court. The court, after analysing
the text of Article 323-A of the Constitution, the provisions of the impugned Act, and the
decision in Sampath Kumar, rejected the contention that the tribunals were the equals of the
high-courts in respect of their service conditions.

3. R.K. Jain v. UOI12

A three judge Bench of Supreme Court had occasion to deal with complaints concerning the
functioning of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, which was set-up by
exercising the power conferred by Article 323-B. In his leading judgement, Justice
Ramaswamy analysed the relevant constitutional provisions; the decision in Sampath Kumar,
J.B. Chopra and M.B. Majumdar, and held that the tribunals created under Articles 323-A and
323-B could not be held to be substitutes of high- courts for the purpose of exercising
jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

10
AIR 1987 SC 386
11
AIR 1990 SC 2263
12
(1993) 4 SCC 119

Page | 15
4. L. Chandra Kumar v. UOI13

The Supreme Court in this case held as follows:

1. Not only Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was ultra-vires, but Clause 2
(d) of Article 323-A and Clause 3 (d) of Article 323-B as amended by the Constitution (42nd
Amendment) Act, 1976 were also ultra-vires and unconstitutional as they destroyed the basic
structure of the Constitution.

2. The Court held that there was no Constitutional prohibition against administrative tribunals
in performing a supplemental as opposed to a substitutional role. In exercising powers such
tribunals cannot act as substitutes for High Courts and the Supreme Court. Their decisions will
be subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the respective High Courts.

3. Administrative Tribunals under Article 323-A could examine the constitutional validity of
various statutes or rules. There would be one exception to this rule: the administrative tribunals
would not be competent to examine the validity of the statute under which they are created. In
such cases, the appropriate High Court would have to be approached directly. Barring cases
where the constitutionality of the parent Act is challenged, all questions regarding services
must be raised only before an administrative tribunal, and writ would lie against an
administrative tribunal’s decision to a High Court having jurisdiction over it. An appeal would
also lie to the High Court from a tribunal’s decision. From a decision of a High Court’s
Division Bench, an appeal could be preferred under Article 136 of the Constitution to the
Supreme Court.

4. Administrative tribunals need not consist only of members from the judicial stream but could
also include members from the administrative stream, because a tribunal consisting of such
mixed composition would be able to bring varied experience to bear on the service matters that
come to it for adjudication.

5. An administrative tribunal may not be subject to the power of superintendence of a High

Court under Article 227, but the tribunals could work under the supervision of a nodal
government department, which would preferably be the Ministry of Law. The Court expressed
a hope that the ministry would set up an independent nodal agency for overseeing the work of
tribunals.

13
AIR 1997 SC 1125

Page | 16
 CONCLUSION

“Nothing is more remarkable in our present social and administrative arrangements than the
proliferation of tribunals of many different kinds. There is scarcely a new statute of social or
economic complexion which does not add to the number.” - Sir C.K. Allen

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.

In a democracy governed by rule of law, the only acceptable repository of justice is a court of
law. Judicial review is an integral part of our legal system and basic and essential feature of the
Constitution and it cannot be dispensed with by creating tribunals under Articles 323-A and
323-B of the Constitution. Any institutional mechanism or authority in negation of judicial
review is destructive of basic structure. So long as the alternative institutional mechanism set
up by any Act is not less effective than the High Court, it is consistent with the Constitutional
scheme.

The faith of the people is the bedrock on which the edifice of judicial review and efficacy of
adjudication are founded. The alternative arrangement must, therefore, be effective and
efficient. For inspiring confidence and faith in the litigating public, they must have an assurance
that the persons deciding their disputes are totally and completely free from influence or
pressure from executive. To maintain independence and impartiality, it is necessary that the
persons appointed in tribunals have judicial and objective approach as also sufficient
knowledge and legal training.

Page | 17
 REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Basu, D, Introduction to the Constitution of India (Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2008).

 Jain, M.P, Indian Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexis, Butterworths, 2002).

 Kumar, Narender, Constitutional Law of India (Allahabad Law Agency, 2010).

 Kumar, Narender, Law Relating to Government Servants & Management of

Disciplinary Proceedings (Allahabad Law Agency, 2019).

 Kumar, Randhir, Cases & Materials on Service Disputes (Eastern Law House, 2007).

 Takwani C.K., Lectures on Administrative Law (Eastern Book Company, 2015).

Page | 18