Administrative law and grievance redressal tribunals
Administrative Law and Grievance Redressal Tribunals
What is Administrative Law?
Administrative law governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. It deals with the powers, functions, and procedures of administrative authorities, ensuring that their actions are lawful, fair, and reasonable. It acts as a check on arbitrary or unjust administrative actions.
What are Grievance Redressal Tribunals?
Grievance Redressal Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies established to resolve disputes or grievances arising between citizens and administrative bodies or between employees and employers in various sectors. They are designed to provide speedy, effective, and accessible justice outside traditional courts.
Why Grievance Redressal Tribunals?
To provide a specialized forum for quick resolution.
Reduce burden on courts.
Ensure procedural fairness in administrative actions.
Provide remedies that are practical and tailored to specific grievances.
Common Features
They follow principles of natural justice.
Their decisions may be final or subject to limited judicial review.
Focus on conciliation, mediation, and adjudication.
Landmark Case Laws on Administrative Law and Grievance Redressal Tribunals
1. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125
Facts: The question was whether decisions of tribunals like the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) could be subjected to judicial review by the High Courts.
Issue: Whether the power of judicial review is an essential feature of the Constitution and cannot be ousted by tribunals.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that tribunals’ decisions are subject to judicial review by High Courts under Article 226 or Supreme Court under Article 32.
Significance: Affirmed that administrative tribunals do not have exclusive jurisdiction to oust the High Courts or Supreme Court's power of judicial review.
2. State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh, AIR 1995 SC 2104
Facts: This case concerned service matters and the powers of administrative tribunals in deciding disputes between government employees and the state.
Issue: Whether the administrative tribunals have the authority to grant relief for service-related grievances.
Holding: The Court held that administrative tribunals have jurisdiction to decide service matters and can provide remedies including reinstatement and compensation.
Significance: Strengthened the authority of grievance tribunals in service disputes.
3. Union of India v. R. Gandhi, AIR 2010 SC 1296
Facts: The case involved the scope of powers of administrative tribunals in passing interim orders.
Issue: Whether tribunals can grant interim relief in administrative or service disputes.
Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that tribunals do have the power to grant interim relief, balancing the rights of parties pending final adjudication.
Significance: Affirmed the flexible powers of tribunals to prevent injustice during the pendency of proceedings.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without a hearing.
Issue: Whether the administrative action violated the principles of natural justice and due process under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Holding: The Supreme Court expanded the scope of “procedure established by law,” insisting on fairness and reasonableness in administrative decisions.
Significance: Landmark case for procedural fairness in administrative actions, foundational for grievance redressal.
5. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416
Facts: The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of a provision that barred judicial review of certain service matters decided by tribunals.
Issue: Whether ousting of judicial review by administrative tribunals was valid.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that judicial review is an essential safeguard and cannot be entirely ousted.
Significance: Ensured that tribunals must function within the bounds of constitutional principles.
6. Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101
Facts: The dispute involved the powers of grievance redressal forums and industrial tribunals in labor disputes.
Issue: Whether the forum can adjudicate disputes affecting public servants or transport workers.
Holding: The Court upheld the jurisdiction of grievance redressal tribunals to settle disputes efficiently.
Significance: Strengthened specialized tribunals for labor grievance redressal.
Summary
Administrative law ensures fairness and accountability in government and administrative actions.
Grievance Redressal Tribunals provide specialized, accessible forums for resolving disputes.
Judicial review remains an important safeguard against arbitrariness.
Tribunals have flexible powers including interim relief but must operate within constitutional limits.
Principles of natural justice and due process apply strictly to administrative decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments