Administrative Tribunal in India and difference between tribunal and court
Administrative Tribunal in India
1. Meaning and Purpose
Administrative tribunals are specialized quasi-judicial bodies established to adjudicate disputes related to service matters, taxation, administrative decisions, and other specific areas, which are generally outside the regular judicial system.
The main purpose of tribunals is to:
Provide speedy, efficient, and expert justice in specialized matters.
Reduce the burden on regular courts.
Offer a less formal and more accessible forum than courts.
2. Constitutional and Statutory Framework
Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution empower Parliament and State Legislatures to create administrative tribunals for service matters and other specified disputes.
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 established the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for central government service matters.
States have their own tribunals or apply the CAT in certain cases.
Other tribunals exist under different laws like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, National Green Tribunal, etc.
3. Jurisdiction and Functions
Tribunals primarily deal with service matters of government employees, disputes related to administrative actions, taxation, environmental issues, and other specialized domains.
They have exclusive jurisdiction in specified areas, excluding courts from interfering except on limited grounds.
Difference Between Tribunal and Court
| Feature | Tribunal | Court |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Quasi-judicial body | Judicial body |
| Constitutional Status | Created under Articles 323A and 323B or statutory laws | Established under Constitution |
| Jurisdiction | Limited, specialized jurisdiction | General and broad jurisdiction |
| Procedural Formality | Less formal, more flexible procedures | Strict adherence to procedural rules |
| Expertise | Composed of experts in specific fields | Judges with legal expertise |
| Appeal | Appeal to High Court or Supreme Court (limited grounds) | Appeals from lower courts to higher courts |
| Powers | Limited powers of contempt and enforcement | Full judicial powers including contempt |
| Objective | Speedy disposal of specialized disputes | Administer justice in a broad spectrum of cases |
4. Important Case Laws on Administrative Tribunals
(1) L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261
Facts:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of administrative tribunals ousting the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227.
Held:
Supreme Court upheld the validity of tribunals but ruled that the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be ousted completely.
Significance:
Ensured judicial review is available even against tribunal decisions.
Established that tribunals are not substitutes but supplement courts.
(2) Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) 11 SCC 1
Facts:
Dispute regarding service matters and the extent of tribunal’s powers.
Held:
Court reaffirmed that administrative tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over service matters but subject to judicial review.
Significance:
Strengthened the tribunal’s role in expeditious disposal of service disputes.
Confirmed High Court’s supervisory role.
(3) State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Facts:
Question on the balance between tribunal autonomy and judicial review.
Held:
Supreme Court held that while tribunals should function independently, their orders are subject to judicial scrutiny to maintain constitutional balance.
Significance:
Reinforced checks and balances between courts and tribunals.
(4) Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2010) 11 SCC 1
Facts:
Challenged the validity of the National Tax Tribunal.
Held:
Supreme Court reiterated the need for tribunals to conform with constitutional standards and judicial review.
Significance:
Highlighted constitutional limits on tribunal powers.
(5) Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 1
Facts:
Challenge to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2014.
Held:
Supreme Court struck down certain provisions of the Act that undermined the independence of tribunals.
Significance:
Affirmed the importance of judicial independence in tribunals.
5. Summary and Conclusion
Administrative tribunals play a crucial role in reducing judicial backlog, providing expertise, and delivering speedy justice in specialized areas. However, they are not a substitute for courts but function alongside the judicial system with their decisions being subject to judicial review.
The balance between tribunal autonomy and judicial oversight is critical to ensure both efficiency and protection of fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments