ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

 The necessity of modern government and synthetic structure of the present

society have given new problems requiring new solution

 There has been all around expansion of government activities. Planning

social, economical, labour welfare, health, employment, education and other
activities aimed at community welfare form some among the many functions
of the state

 In such cases the chances of disputes btwn the administration and individual
citizens are considerable.

 If all such disputes are referred to the ordinary courts, they will be flooded
with work and the courts would not be able to cope with this work
 AT is not an executive body or administrative department of the govt

 Functions and powers conferred on AT are quasi judicial and not purely
administrative and it cannot be further delegated to any official

 An AT is bound to act judicially. It must record findings of facts, apply legal

rules to them correctly and give its decision

 They are ‘administrative’ only because they are part of an administrative

scheme for which a Minister is responsible to the parliament and because
reasons for preferring them to the ordinary courts are administrative reasons
REASONS FOR GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL
 Increasing govt. functions and activities overload courts with cases that they
were unable to deal with effectively

 Traditional judicial system proved inadequate to decide and settle all the
disputes requiring resolution

 It was slow, costly, inexpert, already burdened and it was not possible to
expect speedy disposal of even very important matters. Eg: dispute btwn
employees and employers, lockout, strikes, etc
 These burning problems cannot be solved merely by literal interpretation
of the provisions of any statute but require consideration of various other
factors. Therefore, Industrial tribunals and labour courts were established
which possessed the technique and expertise to handle these complex
problems

 Sometimes complex questions arise which can not be decided on objective

legal principles. They are to be solved by keeping in mind policy
considerations and public interest

 Traditional court are manned by persons having knowledge of law. But in

modern administration, many a time, questions of specialization and
expertise arise-administrative tribunal may better solve problems
 Admin authorities can avoid technicalities. Admin tribunals are not bound
by rules of evidence and procedure and they can take a practical view of
the matter to decide complex problems

 Admin authorities can take preventive measures, e.g: licensing, rate-

fixing, etc. unlike regular courts of law, they do not have to wait for
parties to come before them with disputes
NATURE
 An administrative tribunal is not a court nor an executive body. It stands
midway

 Prof Wade: “they are often called AT, but this does not mean that their
decisions are necessarily administrative. In the great majority of cases they are
judicial in the sense that the tribunal has to decide facts and apply rules to
them impartially, without considering executive policy
They are administrative because the reasons for preferring them to the ordinary
courts of law are administrative reasons”

 Tribunals are established under law. Although the members of tribunals are
appointed by the government, and mostly they are officials, yet they work
independently without being influenced by the govt
 In India, the establishment of these adjudicative bodies is constitutionally
recognised under Article 32, 136,226 and 227. the words “all courts and
tribunals” in Article227 and the words “any court and tribunal” in Article
136 give to the system of administrative tribunals a constitutional base

 Under Art 32 and 226 the SC and HC exercise the jurisdiction not only
over administrative tribunals but over other administrative bodies as well
CHARACTERISTICS
 An administrative tribunal is the creation of a statute and thus, it has a
statutory origin

 It has some trappings of courts but not all. Not bound by strict rules of
evidence and procedure

 Even with regard to procedural matters, an administrative tribunal possesses

the powers of the court. Eg: to summon witnesses, to administer oath, to
compel production of documents
 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

 Most of the administrative tribunals are not only concerned exclusively with
the cases in which government is a party, they also decide disputes between 2
private parties, e.g. Election Tribunal, Rent Tribunal, Industrial Tribunal, etc

 AT are independent and they are not subject to any administrative

interference in the discharge of their judicial or quasi-judicial functions

 Prerogative writs are available against the decisions of AT

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND COURTS:
DISTINCTION
 They are similar in certain aspects- both invested by judicial power

 Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N.Sharma : the basic and the

fundamental feature which is common to both the courts and the tribunals is
that they discharge judicial functions and exercise judicial powers which
inherently vest in a sovereign state
1. A court of law is a part of traditional judicial system. AT is an agency
created by a statute and invested with judicial powers. Primarily and
essentially, it is a part and parcel of the executive branch of the state,
exercising executive as well as judicial functions

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

3.Judges of ordinary courts f law are independent of the executive in respect

of their tenure, terms and conditions of service, etc.
Members of AT are entirely in the hands of govt in respect of those matters
4. A court of law is generally presided over by an officer trained in law, but the
president or a member of a tribunal may not be trained as well in law

5. In court of law. A judge must be an impartial arbiter and he cannot decide a

matter in which he is interested.
AT- 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 material produced bfr it, but an AT 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. Court of law are bound by precedents, principles of res judicata and estoppel,
AT is not strictly bound by them