Central University of South Bihar

SESSION 2018-23

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

Submitted to-  
Pullavi kumari

                   Submitted by-
Shambhavi
Cusb 1813125091
B.A.LLB 4th semester
                                                         
                                                                         
                                                                                
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The present project on the ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS has been able to get its final
shape with the support and help of people from various quarters. My sincere thanks go to all the
members without whom the study could not have come to its present state. I am proud to
acknowledge gratitude to the individuals during my study and without whom the study may not
be completed. I have taken this opportunity to thank those who genuinely helped me.
With immense pleasure, I express my deepest sense of gratitude to Ms. PULLAVI KUMARI for
helping me in my project. I have made every effort to acknowledge credits, but I apologies in
advance for any omission that may have inadvertently taken place.

Shambhavi
Cusb 18131250911
 CONTENT
Introduction
Definition of administrative tribunals
Characteristics of administrative tribunals
Categories of administrative tribunals
Cases
Bibliography
 INTRODUCTION
In Administrative law , the term ‘tribunal’ is used in significant sense and refers to only the
adjudicatory bodies which lie outside the sphere of the ordinary judicial system. Technically in
India, the judicial power are vested in the courts which aims to safeguard the rights of the
individuals and promotes justice.
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 Government’s functions
have increase The d thus having some functions of the judiciary being undertaken by the
executive. Some of these functions include the imposition of fine, levy of penalty and
confiscation of goods among others.
ordinary courts cannot handle socio-economic affairs and neither can they preside over
expeditious issues. Ordinary courts 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 courts of law.
 What is Administrative tribunal

An administrative Tribunal is a multimember body to hear on cases filed by the staff members
alleging non-observation of their terms of service or any other related matters and to pass
judgments on those cases.

The enactment of Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985 opened a new chapter in the sphere of
administering justice to the aggrieved government servants. Administrative Tribunals Act owes
its origin to Article 323-A of the Constitution which empowers Central Government to set-up by
an Act of Parliament, Administrative Tribunals for adjudication of disputes and complaints with
respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the public service and
posts in connection with the affairs of the Union and the States.

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

Tribunal is a quasi-judicial institution that is set up to deal with problems such as resolving

administrative or tax-related disputes. It performs a number of functions like adjudicating
disputes, determining rights between contesting parties, making an administrative
decision, reviewing an existing administrative decision and so forth.

 The term ‘Tribunal’ is derived from the word ‘Tribunes’, which means ‘Magistrates of
the Classical Roman Republic’.
o Tribunal is referred to as the office of the ‘Tribunes’ i.e., a Roman official
under the monarchy and the republic with the function of protecting the citizen from
arbitrary action by the aristocrat magistrates.
 A Tribunal, generally, is any person or institution having an authority to judge,
adjudicate on, or to determine claims or disputes – whether or not it is called a tribunal in
its title.
 Characteristics of the Administrative tribunal

From the functional point of view, an administrative tribunal is neither exclusively a judicial
body nor exclusively an administrative body but in somewhere between the two . However,
generally an administrative tribunal shall have the following characteristics:

(1) An administrative tribunal is the creation of a statute and thus has statutory origin.
(2) It has some trapping of a court but not all
(3) An administrative tribunal is entrusted with judicial power of a state and, thus, perform
judicial and quasi- judicial functions, as distinguished from pure administrative or
executive functions, and is bound to act judicially.
(4) An administrative tribunal is not bound by strict rules of evidence and procedure.
(5) The decisions of the most of the tribunals are in fact judicial rather than administrative in
as much as they have to record finding of facts objectively and then apply law to them
without regard to executive policy.
(6) Most of the tribunals are not concerned exclusively with cases in which the government
is a party; they also decide disputes between two parties; for example the Election
Tribunal, Rent tribunal, Industrial Tribunal, etc. On the other hand, the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal always decides dispute between the government and the assesses.
(7) Administrative tribunals are independent and they are not subject to any administrative
interference in the discharge of their judicial or quasi – judicial functions.
(8) The prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition are available against the decisions of
administrative Tribunal.

Administrative tribunals could be classified into four category

(1) Tribunals setup outside main stream judicial system and decided disputes between
government and private individuals.
 (2) Tribunals setup within judicial framework and decided disputes between citizen
like Rent, Motor vehicle and Industrial Tribunals.
(3) Tribunals established to decide dispute between private individuals but
established outside the main stream judicial system. The Company Law Board
(CLB) 1988, 1991 falls within this unique category. Function discharged by the
High Court in this area were transferred to four Branches of the CLB .
(4) Tribunals constitute under article 323-A and 323-B of the constitution to decide
dispute between giver and the citizens.

Validity of the third category Tribunals was upheld by the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA
V. DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSN1 . IN 2002 encouraged by the development, the
government established more Tribunals within the areas company law, Tax law and intellectual
property, and the jurisdiction of the high court was taken away in these areas. This created a real
conflict between constitutional judiciary and parliament in which the executive always tried to
subdue and tame the judiciary by curtailing its jurisdiction either overtly or covertly.

CASE: S. P. SAMPATH KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA 1987 SCR (3) 233

Facts : The constitutional validity of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was predominantly
challenged on the ground that this Act excludes the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles
226 and 227 with regard to service matters and hence, destroyed the concept of judicial review
which was an essential feature of the Indian Constitution.

Judgement : A five-Judge Bench of the Court upheld the validity of the Act except Section 6(1)
(c). The court held that although this Act has excluded the jurisdiction of judicial review
exercised by the High Courts in the service matters it has not entirely excluded the concept of
1
(2002)4 SCC 275
judicial review. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and 136 has not been
excluded by this Act and kept unscathed.

Thus, there still exists an authority where matters of injustice can be entertained by judicial
review. The judicial review which is the part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution can
be taken away from a particular area only if an alternative effectual institutional mechanism or
authority is provided.

However, Section 6 (1)(c) of the Act was held to be unconstitutional as it gave unrestricted
power to the Government to appoint the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other members of the
tribunals. These appointments must be made by the Government in a meaningful and effective
manner only after consulting the Chief Justice of India.

The court recommended that the term of 5 years prescribed under the Act for Chairman, Vice-
Chairman and other members of the tribunal is not rational because it would act as dissuasion
for the good and generous people to accept the job in the tribunal and should, therefore, be
reasonably extended.

The directions given by the Supreme Court came into effect through the Administrative
Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1987.

CASE UNION OF INDIA V. R. GANDHI, PRESIDENT MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION

2010 6 SCR 857

Facts: The constitutionality of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National
Company Lawyer Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on the following grounds-

 Parliament does not have authority to vest the judicial functions in any tribunal that have
been traditionally performed by the High Courts since so long.
 Transferring the entire company jurisdiction of the High Court to the tribunal are
vocative of the doctrine of Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and Independence of the
Judiciary.
 The various provisions of Part 1B and 1C of the Companies Act are defective and
unconstitutional, being in breach of constitutional principles of Rule of Law, Separation
of Powers and Independence of the Judiciary.
Judgement : : the court upheld the constitutionality of NCLT and NCLAT in exercising the
powers and jurisdiction of the High Court subject to necessary changes to be made in
companies Act, 1956 as amended in 2002, through suitable amendments
The court acknowledged and upheld the constitutional power of the Parliament to constitute
tribunals for adjudication of disputes. The legislative competence of Parliament to provide for
the creation of courts and tribunals can be traced Article 245,246, and 247 of the Constitution
read with various entries in the Union List and the Concurrent List which is in no way affected or
controlled by Article 323A or 323B of the Constitution.

The court further added that it cannot be assumed that constitution of tribunals and transferring
judicial powers per se infringe the rule of law, separation of powers and independence of the
judiciary because the Constitution enables both courts and tribunals to exercise judicial powers.

What matters the most is whether the constituted tribunals respect and maintain the principles of
separation of powers, rule of law and independence of the judiciary. The constitution of NCLT
and NCLAT must be subject to judicial review so that the court in the exercise of judicial review
look into the matter to check if these principles are compromised by such tribunalisation and
may interfere in between to preserve the same.
 Conclusion

The executive also performs legislative and quasi-judicial duties in the present day.
Administrative tribunals are formed to preside over quasi-judicial affairs instead of ordinary
judicial courts of law. The constitution has taken note of the status of tribunals. The power
tribunals to adjudicate is received from a statute. The reasons for the establishment of tribunals
range from its quickness, cost-effectiveness, and informality when according to justice.
 Bibliography

https:// blog.ipleaders.in

www.duhaime.org

www.civilsdaily. Com

I P Massey