Origin and Development of Administartive Tribunals
⚖️ Origin and Development of Administrative Tribunals
1. Introduction
Administrative Tribunals are specialized quasi-judicial bodies created to adjudicate disputes involving administrative actions, especially related to service matters and regulatory decisions. Their establishment aims to provide a speedy, efficient, and less formal forum compared to traditional courts.
2. Historical Background and Origin
Early Challenges:
Traditional courts were overwhelmed with disputes involving government employees and administrative decisions. Regular courts applied strict procedural formalities, leading to delays and inefficiencies.
Need for Tribunals:
The need for expert bodies to deal with specialized administrative matters was recognized globally, and India followed suit to ease the burden on courts and deliver speedy justice.
Constitutional Provisions:
Article 323A and 323B of the Indian Constitution (added by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978) specifically empower the Parliament and State Legislatures to create tribunals for administrative, service, and taxation disputes.
3. Purpose and Characteristics of Administrative Tribunals
Specialized Jurisdiction: Limited to specific areas such as service law, taxation, land acquisition, etc.
Less Formality: Simplified procedures compared to regular courts.
Expert Members: Often composed of judicial and administrative experts.
Speedy Justice: Designed to provide faster resolution.
Finality: In many cases, tribunal decisions are final, subject to limited judicial review.
4. Development of Administrative Tribunals in India
Pre-constitutional Era:
Early tribunals were set up by statutes without explicit constitutional backing but faced validity challenges.
Post-44th Amendment (1978):
Constitutional validation allowed the creation of tribunals with power to adjudicate service and administrative disputes, reducing judicial backlog.
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:
Established the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to deal with service disputes of central government employees.
5. Landmark Case Laws on Administrative Tribunals
Case 1: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997)
Facts:
The case questioned whether the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 to review administrative tribunals’ decisions could be excluded.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that tribunals are not a substitute for High Courts and their decisions are subject to judicial review by High Courts under Article 226.
Significance:
Affirmed the basic structure doctrine by protecting the judicial review power of High Courts, ensuring tribunals do not become parallel courts beyond judicial scrutiny.
Case 2: Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010)
Facts:
Though primarily about CAG jurisdiction, it also touched upon the scope of tribunals and judicial review.
Holding:
The Court reinforced that administrative tribunals operate within constitutional limits and are subject to judicial review on grounds like jurisdictional errors or violation of natural justice.
Significance:
Confirmed tribunals’ powers are subject to constitutional safeguards.
Case 3: Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2010)
Facts:
Challenged the National Tax Tribunal’s validity, alleging it curtailed High Court jurisdiction.
Holding:
The Supreme Court reiterated the principles in L. Chandra Kumar that tribunal orders are subject to High Court jurisdiction under Article 226.
Significance:
Strengthened judicial oversight on tribunals.
Case 4: Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985)
Facts:
The case dealt with service conditions of government employees and the role of tribunals in service matters.
Holding:
The Court held that administrative tribunals are effective forums for speedy redressal in service disputes.
Significance:
Supported the development and expansion of tribunals to relieve courts of administrative disputes.
Case 5: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Facts:
Though primarily a federalism case, it emphasized the importance of constitutional mechanisms, including tribunals, to maintain administrative checks.
Holding:
Reiterated that tribunals must operate within constitutional principles.
Significance:
Enhanced the role of tribunals in upholding constitutional governance.
6. Challenges Faced by Administrative Tribunals
Delays due to backlog despite being a quicker forum.
Ambiguity about the extent of judicial review.
Overlapping jurisdictions with courts.
Need for increased specialization and resources.
Balancing independence with accountability.
7. Conclusion
The origin and development of administrative tribunals in India represent a significant evolution in the justice delivery system, focusing on specialized, accessible, and efficient resolution of administrative disputes. Judicial pronouncements, especially from the Supreme Court, have ensured that tribunals function within constitutional bounds, preserving judicial review and preventing encroachment on fundamental right
RELATED Blog
0 comments