INTRODUCTION

Welfare nature of government is the evolutionary goal of probably every kind of government
these days in this contemporary world. There has been a phenomenal increase in the functions of
the government, which has lent enormous powers to the executive and also led to increase in the
legislative output. This has led to more litigation, restrictions on the freedom of the individuals
and constant frictions between them and the authority. The development of welfares led to an
increase in governmental functions and the executive saw in this a need to perform a number of
quasi- legislative and quasi- judicial functions, thus blurring the traditional positions of the
various wings of the government under the doctrine of separation of powers, under which the
powers of the government were divided between the legislature, executive and the judiciary
which were to be entrusted with the power of making law, executing it and interpreting the law
respectively.
But now these welfare states changed radically and involve itself in the hosting of wide socioeconomic activities; for example: providing health services, education , industrial regulation and
other allied welfare measures. Now where there is these kind of activities; disputes are certain
and obvious. The issues which arose from disputes on such matters raised not only legal matters
but also matters which affect the society at large. The constitution and function of our court
system is very traditional as well as inefficient. The inherent procedural limitations made it
difficult for the courts to dispose these cases promptly thus leading to a huge backlog of cases in
all levels of the judiciary. Courts therefore became deluged with litigations arising directly and
incidentally from such increased governmental interventions. It was also felt in many quarters
that the members of the judiciary were neither adequately trained nor equipped to deal with the
complex socio-economic and technical matters at hand. Thus it was felt specialized adjudicatory
bodies such as tribunals needed to be created to resolve such disputes fairly and effectively.
Tribunals are a Judgment seat; a court of justice; board or committee appointed to adjudicate on
claims of a particular kind1. The essence of the meaning of the word tribunal which can be
culled out from the various Supreme Court authorities is that they are adjudicatory bodies
(except ordinary courts of law) constituted by the State and invested with judicial and quasi-

1 Thakker, C.K., Administrative Law, Eastern Book Company : Lucknow, 1996, p.226.

judicial functions as distinguished from administrative or executive functions. 2 Administrative

tribunals have emerged not only in India but also in many other countries with the objective of
providing a new type of justice - public good oriented justice. These tribunals manned by
technical experts, with flexibility in operations, informality in procedures have gained
importance in the adjudication process.
According to Servai, the development of administrative law in a welfare state has made
administrative tribunals a necessity'.3Administrative tribunals are authorities outside the ordinary
court system, which interpret and apply the laws when acts of public administration are
questioned in formal suits by the courts or by other established methods. They are not a court nor
are they an executive body. Rather they are a mixture of both. They are judicial in the sense that
the tribunals have to decide facts and apply them impartially, without considering executive
policy. They are administrative because the reasons for preferring them to the ordinary courts of
law are administrative reasons. The Supreme Court in Jaswant Sugar Mills v.Lakshmi Chand4
laid down the following characteristics or tests to determine whether an authority is a tribunal or
not:
1. Power of adjudication must be derived from a statute or statutory rule.
2. It must possess the trappings of a court and thereby be vested with the power to summon
witnesses, administer oath, compel production of evidence, etc.
3. Tribunals are not bound by strict rules of evidence.
4. They are to exercise their functions objectively and judicially and to apply the law and
resolve disputes independently of executive policy.
5. Tribunals are supposed to be independent and immune from any administrative
interference in the discharge of their judicial functions.

2 Ibid
3 Serwai ,HM, Constitutional Law of India
4 AIR 1963 SC 677 at 687

EVOLUTION OF TRIBUNAL SYSTEM IN INDIA

In India, administrative adjudication increased after independence and several welfare laws were
promulgated which vested the power on deciding various issues in the hands of the
administration. The modern Indian Republic was born a Welfare State and thus the burden on the
government to provide a host of welfare services to the people was immense. These quasijudicial powers acquired by the administration led to a huge number of cases with respect to the
manner in which these administrative bodies arrived at their decisions. The Courts held that
these bodies must maintain procedural safeguards while arriving at their decisions and observe
principles of natural justice-their opinions were substantiated by the 14 th Law Commission
Report.5 In order to avoid clogging the judicial machinery with cases which would have arisen
by the operation of these new socio-economic legislations, a number of tribunals were
established by the government. The tribunals were established with the object of providing a
speedy, cheap and decentralized determination of disputes arising out of the various welfare
legislations.6 Another important reason for the new development is that law courts, on account of
their elaborate procedures, legalistic fronts and attitudes can hardly render justice to the parties
concerned, in technical cases. Ordinary judges, brought up in the traditions of law and
jurisprudence, are not capable enough to understand technical problems, which crop up in the
wake of modem complex economic and social processes. Only administrators having expert
knowledge can tackle such problems judiciously. To meet this requirement, a number of
administrative tribunals have come into existence.
In India such tribunals were set up immediately after independence. In fact, the most important
adjudicatory function is carried out by statutory tribunals created by the legislature to adjudicate
upon certain disputes arising from administrative decisions or to determine issues judicially.
The Railway Rates Tribunal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Labour Tribunals, the
Companies Tribunal, various Compensation Tribunals, Revenue Courts of various States, etc.,

5 Nayak,R., Administrative justice In India, Butterwoths : New Delhi, 1989, p.38

6 Jain,M.P., Principles of Administrative Law, Wadhwa & Company : Nagpur, 1996, pp.246-248
3

can be cited as examples of such tribunals.7

Regarding the problem of backlog and delayed disposal of case the Government set up the
Administrative Reforms Commission in 1967. It was to examine the problem, suggests
solutions and also to recommend the suitable areas in which tribunals could be set up, according
to this commission The reasons for the growth of administrative tribunals are as follows:
1) Inadequacy of the traditional judiciary to effectively decide administration-related matters
especially when it came to technicalities.
2) The traditional judiciary was seen to be slow, costly and excessively procedural.
The Commission also recommended the establishment of independent tribunals in the following
areas:
a)

Service matters and dispute of employees under the state.

b)

Orders of assessment on adjudication under Customs, Central Excise, Sales Tax and
orders under the Motor vehicles Act.

Period of emergency played a crucial role in the evolution of tribunals in India. There were clear
signals that the executive did not want the judiciary to interfere with their plan developments and
other such decisions. Such as removing disputes regarding elections to office President, Prime
Minister and Speaker of the Lok Sabha beyond judicial issue was discussed at the scrutiny.8
Hence in 1976, the Conference of Chief Secretaries and from amongst all these discussions and
the reports of the various bodies stated above, Parliament enacted the 42ndConstitution
(Amendment) Act, 1976 inserting Articles 323A and 323Bwhich provided for the
establishment of administrative and other tribunals to deal with the matters specifically provided
for.
The main distinction that can be made out between article 323A and 323B is that while 323A
7 Supra n.1 at p.66

8 Tribunalisation in India http://legalsutra.org/1446/tribunalisation-in-india/ as on 16th

October, 2011.

allows for the Parliament to by law provide for administrative tribunals to adjudicate disputes,
323B allows for the any appropriate legislature, to by law create an administrative tribunal for
the adjudication of disputes.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985

In pursuance of Art 323-A Parliament has passed the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
covering all matters falling within the clause (1) of Article 323- A. This Act authorises central
government to establish administrative tribunals for central services and on the application of
States even for States services as well as for local bodies and other authorities including public
corporation. From the date of establishment of tribunals all courts except the Supreme Court
under Art 136 lose their jurisdiction with respect to the matter falling within the jurisdiction of
the tribunals.
A tribunal shall consist of Chairman and such number of Vice-Chairmen and other members as
appropriate Government may deem fit. They are appointed by the President in the case of Central
tribunals and by the President in consultation with the Governors or Governors in case of State or
joint Tribunals. The qualifications regarding that are laid down in the Act.9
Other aspects regarding administrative Tribunals are being discussed below different headings
and sub-headings.
TRIBUNALS, COURTS & ENFORCEMENT ACT, 2007
The Act recognizes that Tribunals do not form part of administration, but are machinery of
adjudication. As a result of the said Act, the appointments to Tribunals are on the
recommendations of a Judicial Appointments Commission. The sponsoring Department (that
generates the disputes that the Tribunal will have to decide) has no say in the appointments.
Neither the infrastructure nor the staff are provided to the Tribunals by the sponsoring Parent
Department. The Tribunals have become full-fledged part of Judicial system with no connection
or link with the `parent department'. A common Tribunal service has been established as an
9 Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 http://cgat.gov.in/act.htm as on 18th Oct,2011

executing agency in the Ministry of Law & Justice.

TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
There are different types of administrative tribunals, which are governed by the statues, rules,
and regulations of the Central Government as well as State Governments.
1. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
The enactment of Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985 opened a new chapter in administering
justice to the aggrieved government servants. It owes its origin to Article 323 A of the
Constitution which empowers the Central Government to set up by an Act of Parliament, the
Administrative Tribunals for adjudication of disputes and complains with respective recruitment
and conditions of service of persons appointed to the public services and posts in connection
with the Union and the States.
The Tribunals enjoy the powers of the High Court in respect of service matters of the employees
covered by the Act. They are not bound by the technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure, but
have to abide by the Principles of Natural Justice. They are distinguished from the ordinary
courts with regard to their jurisdiction and procedures. This makes them free from the shackles
of the ordinary courts and enables them to provide speedy and inexpensive justice.
The Act provides for the establishment of Central Administrative Tribunal and State
Administrative Tribunals. The CAT was established in 1985. The Tribunal consists of a
Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members. These Members are drawn from the judicial as well as
the administrative streams. The appeal against the decisions of the CAT lies with the Supreme
Court of India.
2. Customs and Excise Revenue Appellate Tribunal (CERAT)
The Parliament passed the CERAT Act in 1986The Tribunal adjudicate disputes,
Complaints or offences with regard to customs and excise revenue. Appeals from the, orders of
the CERAT lies with the Supreme Court
3. Election Commission (EC)
6

The Election Commission is a tribunal for adjudication of matters pertaining to the allotment of
election symbols to parties and similar other problems. The decision of the commission can be
challenged in the Supreme Court.
4. Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (FERAB)
The Board has been set up under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. A person who is
aggrieved by an order of adjudication for causing breach or committing offences under the Act
can file an appeal before the FERAB.
5. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
This tribunal has been constituted under the Income Tax Act, 196 1. The Tribunal has its benches
in various cities and appeals can be filed before it by an aggrieved person against the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Director of
Income Tax. An appeal against the order of the Tribunal lies to the High Court. An appeal also
lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court deems fit.
6. Railway Rates Tribunal
This-Tribunal was set up under the Indian Railways Act, 1989. It adjudicates matters pertaining
to the complaints against the railway administration. These may be related to thediscriminatory
or unreasonable rates, unfair charges or preferential treatment meted out by the railway
'administration. The appeal against the order of the Tribunal lies with the Supreme Court.
7. Industrial Tribunal
This Tribunal has been set up under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It can be constituted by'
both the Central as well as State governments. The Tribunal looks into the dispute between the
employers and the workers in matters relating to wages, the period and mode of payment,
compensation and other allowances, hours of work, gratuity, retrenchment and closure of the
establishment. The appeals against the decision of the Tribunal lie with the Supreme Court.
SOME FEATURES OF TRIBUNALS OF INDIA
Jurisdiction and Power:
7

1. After the coming into force of Administrative Tribunals Act, 198510, all judicial remedies
save those of the Supreme Court under Art 2 and 136 have been abolished and the
pending proceeding before other courts stand transferred before the regional
Administrative Tribunals under s.29 of the Act.
2. Administrative Tribunal is competent to exercise all powers which the respective courts had,
including declaration as to constitutionality of relevant laws. In short, the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal is not supplementary but is a complete substitute of the High Courts and Civil Courts.11
3. In view of s.14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act,1985, in case where the suit lay, the employee
will now have to seek his remedy by application under s.19 of the Act. Pending suits shall stand
transferred to the Administrative Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction under section 29 of the
Act.12
4. Section 29A (inserted in 1986) gives an appellant jurisdiction of the Central Administrative
Tribunal. Appeals from judgement of Civil Courts in suits relating to service matter which are
now governed by the A.T. Act shall lie to the Administrative Tribunals to the exclusion of any
other Civil Appellant Court or the High Court. 13 The central Administrative Tribunal is the
Tribunal constituted under Art.323-A of the Constitution and is expected to have the same
jurisdiction as that of High Court.14
5. Orders of the Central Administrative Tribunals are nt open to challenge before the High Court.
SOURCES OF TRIBUNALS JURISDICTION-

10 The Act was brought into force with effect from 2-10-1985. The Central Administrative
Tribunals was set up on 1-11-1985.

11 Sampat Kumar, SP v. Union of India,(1987) 1 ATR 34

12 Cf. Kaptan Singh v, UOI (1986) 4 SLR 545 (Del)
13 UOI v. Deep Chand Pandey (1992) 4 SCC 432
14 UOI v. K D Batish AIR 2006 SC 789

Suit of proceeding transferred to it under s.29 of the Act

S.19 deals with jurisdiction of entertaining original application relating to service matters

Appellant jurisdiction under s.29A

WHAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS CAN DO1. Unconstitutionality of Law

(a) The tribunal can declare the unconstitutional a statute or subordinate legislation relating to the
dispute before it, which contravenes provisions of the constitution.
(b) Whether a body would be an authority within the meaning of Art.12.
(c) In a case where enquiry has been dispensed with under the 2 nd proviso to Art 311(2), the
tribunal is competent to examine the legal jurisdiction for such dispensation.15
(d) It may decide question of law, including preliminary pleas in bar, e.g. limitation; non-joinder of
party; territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal; res judicata.

2. Procedure
(i) A Tribunal is not barred by the provisions of the Evidence Act. 16 In order to discover the
truth, the Tribunal may resort to the inquisitional procedure, provided no principle of
natural justice is violated.
(ii) Tribunals shall be guided solely by the principles of natural justice unfettered by
anything in the CPC and shall have the power to regulate its own procedure.
(iii)

A plea of violation of statutory provision can be taken before the Tribunal though
not taken in the petition.

(iv)It is competent to execute its own order, though the A.T Act has no specific provision in
this behalf.

15 Om Prakash Pathak v. UOI (1986) 4 SLR 251

16 G Mohanti v. UOI ATR (1987) 1 CAT 229
9

3. Disciplinary matters:
The Tribunal is competent to go into the facts and set aside the order passed by a disciplinary
authorityWhere the conclusion arrived at is arbitrary or perverse.
On the other hand , the Tribunal will not interfere
1.

With the finding of facts of the enquiry officers where there was some evidence before
him on the basis of which he could reasonably come to the conclusion that the charges

against the petitioner were proved .

2. With an order of rejection, by the Tribunal , of an application for reinstatement on the
grounds of inordinate and unexplained delay.
3. There has been some difference of opinion amongst the tribunals as to how far, if at all,
they may interfere with the punishment awarded by a disciplinary authority
Likewise,Administrative Tribunals can perform other functions of Punishment,
Compulsory retirement, Interlocutory matters etc.

WHAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS CANNOT DOHowever wide be the jurisdiction of the tribunal, it cannot exercise any jurisdiction of power
which no court could exercise, e.g.,(a) To question the ground of satisfaction of the President under Cl. (c) of the second proviso to
Art.311 (2)17
17 Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the
Union or a State(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in
rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and
given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges Provided that
where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty
may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be
necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty
proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply(c) where the President or the
Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it
is not expedient to hold such inquiry

10

(b) To go into the merits of an administrative determination in the absence of mala fides,
arbitrariness, colourable exercise of power or exercise of power without jurisdiction; or a
finding without any evidence at all.
(c) To overrule or by-pass decision of the High Court which are binding on it as precedents.
(d) Though, like the High Court or a Civil Court, an administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to make
interim order in like circumstances.
Appeal from Administrative Tribunal to Supreme Court:
1. Though the jurisdiction of High Court under Art 226 over service matter has been taken over by
the respective Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over
these Tribunals under Art.136 has been retained.
2. Appeals lies to the Supreme Court from orders of an Administrative Tribunal, by special leave
under Art 136, on the following grounds(i) Error of Law
(ii) Finding of the Tribunal being perverse.
(iii)

The order of the Tribunal being without jurisdiction or ultra vires.

(iv)

The order of the Tribunals being arbitrary or mala fide.

(v) The order of the Tribunal is such as would lead to grave injustice.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
As mentioned earlier, the Administrative Tribunals Act was passed in 1985 under article 323A
and section 28 of this Act provided for the exclusion of jurisdiction of all courts except that of
the Supreme Court under Article 136.18 This fuelled a sudden spurt in the number of cases that
challenged the validity of the said legislation as well as that of the 42 nd Amendment that
introduced Articles 323A and 323B in to the constitution. Some of the prominent case in this
regard is discussed below.
1. S.P.Sampath Kumar v. Union of India19
This is the first and perhaps the most important case in this period that attracted judicial
18 Joshi, K. C., Legal Status of Tribunals, IBR, Vol. 25 (2), 1998
19 AIR 1987 SC 386
11

scrutiny in this area. The Constitution Bench in Sampath kumar was called upon to decide on
the main issue whether Section 28 of the Act was unconstitutional as it excludes judicial
review, which was contended as part of the basic structure of the constitution. 20 The Supreme
Court accepted without doubt that judicial; review is part of the basic structure. However the
Court went on to observe that the creation of alternate institutional mechanisms which were
as effective as the High Courts would not be violative of the basic structure. The
administrative Tribunals under the Act were recognized as effective substitutes of the High
Courts. This proved to be a shot in the arm of the proponents of tribunalisation. However the
Apex Court came down heavily on the procedure for appointing the Chairman of the
Tribunal. Section 6(1) (c) of the Act allowed a person who held the post of a Secretary to the
Government of India or an equivalent post t become the Chairman. Since these Tribunals
were to be substitutes of High Courts it is impermissible for bureaucrats to hold such a post.
Hence this provision was held to be unconstitutional. The Chairman should be a retiring or
retired Chief Justice of a High Court. Other members have to appointed by a committee
consisting of a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court. It was also suggested that the Chief
Justice of India has to consult while making these appointments. The Parliament accepted
these recommendations and now they find a place in the Act by way of the Administrative
Tribunals (Amendment) Act of 1986.
2. Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh21
It was held in this case that Article 371D (5) of the constitution, which was inserted by the
Constitution (32nd Amendment) Act,1973, was unconstitutional and void. This provision had
enabled the Government of Andhra Pradesh to modify or nullify any order of the
Administrative tribunal of that state. It was pointed out that such a provision was violative of
the basic structure as it made the tribunal not as effective as the High Court when it comes to
judicial review. Here the Court seems to be strictly adhering to the directive in Sampath
20 During the pendency of the case, the Government gave an assurance to the Court that the Act
would be amended so that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 was not
excluded. The Act was consequently amended after the decision.

21 (1987) I SCC 386

12

Kumars case that the administrative tribunals should be effective substitutes to the High
Court.
3. J.B.Chopra v. Union of India22
It was held that since the Administrative tribunals are meant to be substitutes of High Courts,
their power of judicial review extended to power as to decide on the constitutionality of service
rules.

In M.B.Majumdar v. Union of India23 the Supreme Court refused to extend the service
conditions and other benefits enjoyed by ordinary High Court judges to the members of these
Tribunals. Three years later, in R.K.Jain v. Union of India24, the Supreme Court opined that
these Tribunals could not be effective substitutes of High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. We
also find very clear expression of dissatisfaction of the apex court regarding the functioning and
effectiveness of Administrative Tribunals especially with regard to their power of judicial review.
4. Sakinala Harinath v. State of Andhra Pradesh25
In this case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dropped a bomb shell by expressing serious doubts
about the wisdom of the learned Judges in Sampath Kumars case. The Full Bench ruled that the
ruling in the above case equating Administrative Tribunals to the High courts with respect to
their jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 was inconsistent with the apex courts ruling in
cases like Kesavanda Bharati v. State of Kerala26 and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain.27 It was
pointed out that the constitutional courts could only exercise the power of judicial review. Since
22 (1987) I SCC 422.
23 (1990) 4 SCC 501
24 (1993) 4 SCC 119
25 1993 (2) An. W.R.484 (FB)

26 (1973) 4 SCC 225

13

the logic of alternative institutional mechanism propounded in Sampath

Kumars case does not fit in to this scheme, it is constitutionally impermissible. As a result both
Articles 323A(d) and section 28 of the Act were struck down as unconstitutional.
The judicial green signal given for tribunalisation given in Sampath Kumar can be seen to be
slowly fading because of the subsequent decisions. The confusion created by these conflicting
decisions ushered in the need for taking a second look at S.P. Sampath Kumars case. This
opportunity arrived when a three judge bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandrakumar v.
Union of India28 decided to refer the matter to a larger bench. This eventually led to the famous
ruling of the Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India,
which is now the law of the land.
5. L. Chandrakumars Case
The important issues considered by the apex court were as follows:
1. Whether Art. 323A (2) (d) and Art.323B (3) (d) of the constitution which give the power
to the Union and State Legislatures to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except that of
the Supreme Court under Art.136, is in accordance with the power of judicial review
embodied in Art.32 and 226.
2. Whether the power of High Courts to exercise the powers of superintendence over the
subordinate judiciary under Articles 226 and 227 form part of Basic Structure.
3. The competence of the aforesaid tribunals to determine the constitutionality of any law.
4. Whether the aforesaid tribunals are acting as affective substitutes to High Courts in terms
of efficiency.
It was held that the power of judicial review over legislative and administrative action is
expressly vested with the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32
27 AIR 1975 SC 2291
28 AIR 1995 SC 1151
14

respectively. The contention that the constitutional safeguards which ensure the independence of
the higher judiciary29is not available to the lower judiciary and bodies such as Tribunals was
upheld and the Apex Court consequently held that the lower judiciary would not be able to serve
as effective substitutes to the higher judiciary in matters of constitutional interpretation and
judicial review. Hence the power of judicial review is vested in the higher judiciary and the
power of High Courts and the Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislative and
administrative action cannot ordinarily be ousted. However it was held that these tribunals and
the lower judiciary could exercise the role of judicial review as supplement to the superior
judiciary. The court applied the provisions of Article 32(3) to uphold the same.
STATUS AND WORKING OF TRIBUNALS IN INDIA
Tribunals are essentially those bodies of the Executive branch of the government who by virtue
of some statutory provision have the power and duty to act judicially in determining disputes
which come before it.30Tribunals as stated earlier are distinct from the ordinary courts of the land
and as per Chandrakumars case they are not on par with the High Courts but serve a
supplemental function to the High Courts. They are therefore subject to the writ jurisdiction of
the superior judiciary and to the power of judicial review exercisable by the superior judiciary. In
most of the tribunals appeals from their decisions lie in the High Court on substantial questions
of law.
There are different types of tribunals in India, ranging from single member tribunals to multimember tribunals. Tribunals such as the Industrial tribunal may consist of one or more members,
and they can be appointed by the appropriate government. The chairman of the tribunal is
supposed to possess judicial qualifications and is supposed to be or have been a judge of the
High Court or a District judge or be qualified for appointment as a High Court judge. The other
members are expected to satisfy the prescribed requirements- which are to ensure that the
members are experts and will be able to speedily and effectively dispose of matters. The
2929 In terms of qualifications, mode of appointment, tenure, mode of removal, etc.
30 Chakraverti, S., Administrative Law and Tribunals, 2nd edition, The Law Book Co.
Ltd.: Allahabad
15

procedure to be followed by the tribunal is prescribed by the Act and rules made there under.
Though the function of the tribunal is to adjudicate on the disputes it has only some of the
trappings of the court. It is not bound by strict rules of procedure and can take decisions by
exercising its discretion. While accepting the fact that such tribunals must work towards
furthering social justice, it has been held in J&K Iron and Steel Co. v. Mazdoor Union 31that
tribunal cannot act beyond the scope of the law. It can decide the dispute on the basis of the
pleadings and has no power to reach a conclusion without any evidence on record. The tribunal is
expected to hold the proceedings in public, follow fair procedure and decide disputes impartially
and independently.
All tribunals in India are arranged on the following basis:
a)

Created by a statute

b)

Subject to the writ jurisdiction of the superior judiciary and to judicial review.

c.)

Manned by experts and persons with judicial experience.

d)

Subject to the superintendence of the concerned High Court under Art.227

e)

Decisions may be final or appealable within the tribunal or in certain cases to the High
Court, appeals against orders of the tribunal may be heard by the Supreme Court by special
leave under Art. 136.
TRIBUNALS AND NATURAL JUSTICE:

Administrative tribunals must act openly, fairly and impartially. They must afford a reasonable
opportunity to the parties to represent their case and adduce evidence. Thus, in State of U.P. v.
Md. Nooh32 where the prosecutor was also an adjudcating officer and also in Dhakeshwari
Mills33where the tribunal did not disclose some evidence to the assessee which was relied upon,
the decisions were set aside.
In Union of India v. T.R. Verma34 the Supreme Court held the following to be part of natural
justice:
31 AIR 1956 SC 231

16

a) Party must be able to adduce all evidence being relied upon.

b) Evidence must be taken in the presence of both parties.
c) Must be given opportunity to cross- examine.
d) And no material must be relied upon without giving the party opportunity to explain the
evidence.
Tribunals are free to evolve their own method of procedure as long as they conform to the
principles of natural justice as outlined above.
Tribunals are also expected to give reasoned decisions so as to introduce clarity, reduce
arbitrariness and reduce the scope of frivolous appeals. It also provides the supervisory authority
the opportunity to keep tribunals within bounds.
LETS SUM UP
In view of the increasing role of administration in citizens' life, the administrative
tribunals are expected to play an important role in the redressal of citizens' grievances. In this
unit we have examined the nature of administrative tribunals and the various reasons for their
importance. Various types of administrative tribunals are set up in the country to address various
issues, such as, the adjudication of disputes and complaints of the public servants, redressal of
consumer disputes, industrial disputes, disputes pertaining to income tax etc.
They provide greater flexibility in administering justice and provide relief to the courts. But at
the same time they suffer from some limitations as they sometimes violate the principles of
natural justice, lack uniform pattern of administering justice and also suffer from the lack of a
proper background on law or judicial work. However, with certain safeguards it is possible to
rectify some of these limitations. The administrative tribunals should have people with legal
training and experience. A code of judicial procedures should be devised and enforced for their
32 AIR 1958 SC 86
33 AIR 1955 SC 154
34 AIR 1957 SC 882 at 885

17

functioning.
CONCLUSION
In practice there are a number of tribunals functioning in the country. Very few of them,
however, have been able to inspire confidence in the public. The tribunals have shown a singular
lack of competence and objectivity in determining disputes. Another reason for their failure is the
constitution of the tribunals and the method of appointment of the personnel. Persons with
expertise and the right qualifications do not want to sit on these tribunals thus leading to the

18

unsatisfactory functioning of these tribunals.35 The uncertainty of tenure, unsatisfactory service

conditions, interference by the executive and political interference have further impeded the
proper development of tribunals in India. Tribunals are supposed to provide specialised
adjudicatory services but the type of people appointed lack the requisite expertise and are on the
tribunals merely because of political pressure and executive interference.
Tribunals are supposed to serve as alternative institutional mechanisms to high courts, they must
therefore be able to inspire public confidence by proving themselves to be a competent and
expert mechanism with a judicial and objective approach. In order to achieve this it is essential
that members of the tribunal are equipped with adequate judicial acumen and expertise. These
judicial officers need to be balanced with experts in the particular field. Only a judicious blend of
the two will be able to provide an effective and result oriented tribunal system. Another
important measure which needs to be taken are steps to maintain the independence of the
members of these tribunals from political or executive interference. Just as the ordinary judiciary
are protected from political control through security of tenure and through institutionalized
methods of appointment ( through a selection committee comprising of the Chief Justice,
Departmental secretaries, etc.) in order to further reduce the burden on the high courts the high
courts must be divested of the supervisory jurisdiction over the tribunals. It is essential therefore
that a single centralised nodal agency be established to oversee the functioning of the tribunals.
Such a centralised umbrella organisation will ensure the independence of the tribunals in matters
of tenure and funds.
Thus the overall picture regarding tribunalisation of justice in the country is far from satisfactory.
A fresh look at the system of tribunals in India is required so as to ensure speedy justice and
quick disposal of disputes arising out of administrative disputes which are essential for the
development of the nation.

35 Sathe, S.P., Adminiostrative Law, 6th. Edn., Butterworths, New Delhi, 1999, pp. 245-252

19