Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In Administrative law, the term tribunal is used in a significant sense and refers to only the
adjudicatory bodies which are outside the sphere of the ordinary court of law. Technically in
India, the judicial powers are vested in the Courts which aim to safeguard the rights of the
individuals and promote justice. Therefore, to institute an effective system of the judiciary
with fewer complexities, the judicial powers are delegated to the administrative authorities,
thus, giving rise to administrative tribunals or administrative adjudicatory bodies which holds
quasi-judicial features.
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.
The 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.
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.
Characteristics:
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.
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.
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 of Justice"
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:
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
It took away the power of superintendence of High court over administrative tribunals
which they possessed under Article 227 of the constitution.
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.
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.
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.
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.