Administrative Tribunals: Nature and Characteristics

The Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 was enacted under Article 323A, and it constitutes the Central Administrative Tribunal and the State Administrative Tribunals. Its scheme is treated in [The Working of Tribunals: the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985].

Both Articles originally allowed the exclusion of the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136. That exclusion is no longer good law, and the case that ended it is set out below.

The characteristics of a tribunal

This is the list an examiner is asking for when the question says "characteristics". Seven, and each should be explained rather than named.

1. It is a creature of statute. A tribunal exists only because an Act creates it, and it has only the powers the Act gives. It has no inherent jurisdiction, unlike a civil court, which can try all suits of a civil nature unless barred.

2. It has the trappings of a court, but is not a court. It sits to hear parties, takes evidence, and gives a binding decision. The distinction from a court proper is the subject of [Tribunal and Court Distinguished].

3. It has a duty to act judicially. Whatever its composition, it must observe natural justice: notice, a hearing, absence of bias and reasons. That is what separates it from a purely administrative authority.

4. It is not bound by the strict rules of procedure and evidence. Most constituting Acts say expressly that the tribunal shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and shall not be bound by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act, while giving it the powers of a civil court for specified purposes such as summoning witnesses and requiring the production of documents.

5. It combines legal and technical membership. A typical tribunal has a judicial member, who is or has been a judge or is legally qualified, and an administrative or technical member with experience of the subject. That combination is its whole purpose and also its central problem, which is the subject of [Tribunalisation and the Threat to Judicial Independence: the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021].

6. Its jurisdiction is limited and specialised. It decides one class of dispute, defined by the Act.

7. It is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. Under Articles 226 and 227, and this cannot be excluded.

The case that settled the last characteristic

Facts. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125, was heard by seven judges. The question was whether clause (2)(d) of Article 323A and clause (3)(d) of Article 323B, which permitted the exclusion of the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136, and section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 together with the corresponding exclusion clauses in other Acts, were constitutionally valid, and what the position of the tribunals was in the judicial hierarchy.

Held. Clause 2(d) of Article 323A and clause 3(d) of Article 323B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 227 and Article 32, are unconstitutional, and section 28 of the Act and the exclusion of jurisdiction clauses in all other legislation under those Articles are unconstitutional to the same extent. The jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and on the Supreme Court under Article 32 is part of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution. While that jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging those powers. The tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B are competent to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules, but all their decisions are subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal falls. The tribunals continue to act as courts of first instance in their fields, so litigants may not approach the High Courts directly. Where a question involving the interpretation of a statutory provision or rule in relation to the Constitution arises before a single Member Bench, the proviso to section 5(6) applies and the matter must be referred to a Bench of at least two Members, one of whom must be a Judicial Member.

Why it matters. It defines what a tribunal is in India today: a court of first instance, competent even to decide constitutional questions, but always subject to review by a Division Bench of the High Court. Every later question about tribunals starts here.

The advantages of tribunals

The criticisms

An answer that lists advantages and stops is half an answer.

1. Independence. Members are appointed, paid and often reappointed by the very government that is the usual litigant before them. This is the objection that produced the litigation in [Tribunalisation and the Threat to Judicial Independence: the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021].
2. Inconsistency. Freedom from precedent means like cases may not be decided alike.
3. Procedural informality can work against the citizen, who may not know what evidence to bring, while the department appears through experienced officers.
4. No uniform procedure. Each Act prescribes its own, so a litigant faces a different regime in each tribunal.
5. Delay has reappeared. Vacancies, backlogs and appeals to the High Court have in some tribunals reproduced the delays they were created to avoid.
6. Fragmentation of the justice system, with the ordinary hierarchy replaced by dozens of separate bodies.

A worked example

Sunita Pawar, a clerk in a Central Government department at Nagpur, is denied promotion. She wishes to challenge it.

Where does she go? Not to the civil court and not, at first, to the High Court. Her dispute concerns the conditions of service of a person appointed to a public service under the Union, so it falls squarely within Article 323A and the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, and she must apply to the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Can the Act say that no court shall have jurisdiction? It says something like that in section 28, but after L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125, that exclusion is unconstitutional so far as it touches Articles 226, 227 and 32.

Can she go straight to the High Court instead? No. The tribunal is a court of first instance, and L. Chandra Kumar holds that litigants may not approach the High Courts directly.

If the tribunal decides against her, what then? A writ petition to a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal falls, not to a single judge, and not directly to the Supreme Court.

Can the tribunal decide that a service rule is unconstitutional? Yes. L. Chandra Kumar holds tribunals competent to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules, but if the point arises before a single Member Bench it must be referred to a Bench of at least two Members, one of whom is a Judicial Member.

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean a tribunal is a lesser court. It is a court of first instance in its field, competent to decide constitutional questions.

It does not mean tribunals are free of judicial control. Their decisions are reviewable by a Division Bench of the High Court, and that cannot be taken away.

It does not mean informality dispenses with fairness. Freedom from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act is not freedom from natural justice.

It does not mean Article 323A and Article 323B are the same. They differ in who may legislate and in subject matter.

Quick revision

1. A tribunal is a statutory body outside the ordinary courts, vested with power to adjudicate a specified class of dispute and bound to act judicially.
2. Reasons for their growth: cost, delay, procedural heaviness and lack of expertise in the ordinary courts.
3. Part XIVA, inserted by the Forty-second Amendment 1976. Article 323A: Parliament only, service matters only. Article 323B: Parliament or a State legislature, nine enumerated matters.
4. Seven characteristics: statutory creature; trappings of a court but not a court; duty to act judicially; not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act; mixed legal and technical membership; limited specialised jurisdiction; subject to Articles 226 and 227.
5. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125: the exclusion clauses in Articles 323A(2)(d) and 323B(3)(d) and section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 are unconstitutional so far as they exclude Articles 226, 227 and 32; that jurisdiction is part of the inviolable basic structure; tribunals play a supplemental role, may decide constitutional questions, act as courts of first instance, and their decisions go to a Division Bench of the High Court.
6. Advantages: cheapness, speed, expertise, flexibility, relief of the courts, accessibility.
7. Criticisms: doubtful independence, inconsistency, informality favouring the department, no uniform procedure, renewed delay, and fragmentation.

Test yourself

1. What is an administrative tribunal? State its characteristics. It is a statutory authority other than a court, vested with power to adjudicate a specified class of dispute, usually between a citizen and the administration, and bound to act judicially. Its characteristics are that it is a creature of statute with no inherent jurisdiction; that it has the trappings of a court without being one; that it is under a duty to act judicially and so must observe natural justice; that it is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act, though it is usually given the powers of a civil court for specified purposes; that it combines judicial with technical or administrative membership; that its jurisdiction is limited and specialised; and that it is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227, which cannot be excluded.

2. Distinguish Article 323A from Article 323B. Both were inserted into Part XIVA by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act 1976. Article 323A empowers Parliament alone to provide for administrative tribunals to adjudicate disputes about recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services under the Union, a State, or a local or other authority or a government company; it is confined to service matters and contemplates one tribunal for the Union and one for each State. Article 323B empowers the appropriate Legislature, Parliament or a State legislature, to provide for tribunals for nine enumerated matters, including taxation, foreign exchange, industrial and labour disputes, land reforms, urban property ceilings, elections, essential goods and rent and tenancy, and permits a hierarchy of tribunals.

3. Can the jurisdiction of the High Courts be excluded in favour of a tribunal? No. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125, held that clause (2)(d) of Article 323A and clause (3)(d) of Article 323B, and section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 with the corresponding clauses in other Acts, are unconstitutional to the extent that they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 and of the Supreme Court under Article 32, because that jurisdiction is part of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution. Tribunals may perform a supplemental role, and their decisions are subject to scrutiny by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction they fall.

4. State the advantages and disadvantages of tribunals. The advantages are cheapness, since court fees and legal representation are often unnecessary; speed, because the procedure is simple and the jurisdiction narrow; expertise, since members are drawn from those who know the subject; flexibility, because the tribunal is not bound by the strict rules of evidence or by precedent in the way a court is; relief of the ordinary courts; and accessibility for a litigant appearing in person. The disadvantages are the doubtful independence of members appointed and paid by the government that is the usual litigant; inconsistency of decisions; informality that can favour the department, which appears through experienced officers; the absence of a uniform procedure across tribunals; the reappearance of delay through vacancies and backlogs; and the fragmentation of the justice system.

5. May a tribunal decide that a statutory rule is unconstitutional? Yes. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125, holds that tribunals created under Articles 323A and 323B are competent to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. Two conditions attach: where such a question arises before a single Member Bench, the proviso to section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 requires the matter to be referred to a Bench of at least two Members, one of whom must be a Judicial Member; and every decision remains subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the tribunal falls.