UNIT II

ADJUDICATIVE POWER

- ANA SISODIA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
SPSIL
 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION-MAKING
 In Administrative law, the term tribunal is used in a significant

sense and refers to only the adjudicatory bodies which are outside
the sphere of the ordinary court of law. Technically in India, the
judicial powers are vested in the Courts which aim to safeguard
the rights of the individuals and promote justice. Therefore, to
institute an effective system of the judiciary with fewer
complexities, the judicial powers are delegated to the
administrative authorities, thus, giving rise to administrative
tribunals or administrative adjudicatory bodies which holds
quasi-judicial features.
 NEED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUDICATION
(i) It provides a system of adjudication which is informal,

cheap, and rapid, unlike the traditional courts.

(ii) Nowadays, there is a growing emphasis on preventive

justice rather than punitive. This can be done only by

administrative agencies exercising adjudicatory powers.
(iii) It explores new public law standards away from the

highly individualistic norms developed by courts.

 (iv) The Indian court are already overloaded with

number of cases and it becomes impossible to expect

speedy disposal of even very important matters. Thus,
the development of administrative authorities such as
industrial tribunals and labour courts have led to bring a
relief in the number of cases.
 Lastly, these tribunals had updated techniques and

expertise to handle such complex issues.

 PROBLEMS
 Administrative justice has been a host of controversies in

India. A few common problems the adjudicative process

occurs are as follows:

1. Unsystematic system of appeal: No uniform system of

appeal is there. Sometimes, decisions are made appealable
before an independent tribunal as in tax cases, and sometimes
before a higher administrative agency. Some acts do not
provide for any appeal.
2. Invisibility and anonymity of decisions: Not all the
administrative agencies exercising judicial power publish
their decisions; their decisions thus go beyond the Pale of
public criticism. Also, often the decisions are made in a
‘hole and the corner’ fashion. No one knows where the
decision comes.
3. Unpredictability: Administrative agencies do not follow
the doctrine of precedent, hence they are not bound to
follow their decisions.
4. No evidence rule: In India, the technical rules of the
Evidence Act do not apply to administrative adjudications.
The gap is filled, true inadequately, by the judge-made rule
of ‘No Evidence’.
5. Plea bargaining: It means the bargaining of ‘plea of
guilt’ with lesser charges and punishment. A poor employee
is bullied by an overbearing superior to accept the charge
against him on a promise that a lesser punishment will be
awarded.
6. Political interference: Instrumentalities of
Administrative justice are, by their very nature, subject to
some more manner of political interference.
7. Reasoned decisions: Generally there is no requirement
for the administrative authority to give reasons, which
undermines the faith in administrative justice.
8. Legal representation and cross-examination: There is
no general requirement for administrative authority to allow
legal representation and cross-examination in every case.
 ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN INDIA

Tribunals In India: Meaning

Tribunal in India is an administrative body formed to
carry out quasi-judicial duties. It stands between a Trial
and an administrative.
On the basis of the recommendations of the Swaran Singh
Committee, XIV-A was added to the Constitution Act
(Forty-second Amendment) of 1976, entitled ‘Tribunals’
providing for the establishment of ‘Administrative
Tribunals’ pursuant to Article 323-A and ‘Tribunals for
other matters’ pursuant to Article 323-B.
 With the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act,

1985, a significant number of cases were brought under the

jurisdiction of the Tribunals relating to service matters pending
before different courts.
 Administrative tribunals created pursuant to Article 323A have

been set aside from the legal rules of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 and the procedural fetters of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, but at the same time have been vested with the powers of
the Civil Court in respect of certain matters, including the
review of their own decisions, and are bound by natural justice
principles.
 ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS FOR SERVICE MATTER
[ARTICLE 323A]
 Article 323A provides the establishment of administrative
tribunals by law made by Parliament for the adjudication of
disputes and complaints related to the recruitment and
conditions of service of Government servants under the Central
Government and the State Government. It includes the
employees of any local or other authority within the territory of
India or under the control of the Government of India or of a
corporation owned or controlled by the Government.
 The establishment of such tribunals must be at the centre and
state level separately for each state or for two or more states.
The law must incorporate the provisions for the jurisdiction,
power and authority to be exercised by tribunals; the procedure
to be followed by tribunals; the exclusion of the jurisdiction of
all other courts except the Supreme Court of India.
 TRIBUNALS FOR OTHER MATTERS [ARTICLE 323B]

Article 323B empowers the Parliament and the State

Legislature to establish tribunals for the adjudication of
any dispute or complaint with respect to the matters
specified under clause (2) of Article 323B.
Some of the matters given under clause (2) are a levy,
assessment, collection and enforcement of any tax;
foreign exchange and export; industrial and labour
disputes; production, procurement, supply and
distribution of foodstuffs; rent and it’s regulation and
control and tenancy issues etc. Such a law must define
the jurisdiction, powers of such tribunals and lays down
the procedure to be followed.
 L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
[1997],
In this case the court reached various conclusions as
to jurisdictional powers of the tribunal constituted
under Articles 323A and 323B.
The Supreme Court struck down clause 2(d) of Article
323A and clause 3(d) of Article 323B on the ground
that they excluded the jurisdiction of the High Courts
and the Supreme Court under Article 226/227 and 32
respectively.
The SC ruled that the tribunals created under Article 323A
and 323B would continue to be the courts of the first
instance in their respective areas for which they are
constituted. The litigants are not allowed to approach the
High Courts directly by overlooking the jurisdiction of the
concerned tribunal.
No appeal for the decision of the tribunal would lie
directly before the Supreme Court under Article 136 but
instead, the aggrieved party would be entitled to move the
High Court under Article 226 and 227 and after the
decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, the
party may approach the Apex Court under Article 136.
 THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985

In pursuance of the provisions in Article 323A,

Parliament passed the Administrative Tribunal Act,
1985, providing for all the matters falling within
the clause(1) of Article 323-A.
According to this Act, there must be a Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at the Centre and a
State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) at the state level
for every state.
COMPOSITION OF THE TRIBUNALS AND BENCH

Section 4 of this Act describes the composition of the

tribunals and bench. Each tribunal shall consist of a
Chairman, Vice Chairman, Judicial and Administrative
members. Every bench must include at least one
judicial and one administrative member.
The benches of the Central Tribunal shall ordinarily sit
at New Delhi, Allahabad, Calcutta, Madras, Bombay
and such other place as the Central Government
specifies. The Chairman may transfer the Vice
Chairman or other members from one bench to
another bench.
 QUALIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS

Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,

lays the provisions specifying the qualifications and
appointment of the members of tribunals.
Chairman: To be appointed as a chairman, a person
must have the following qualifications-
He is or has been a judge of a High Court or
He has held the office of Vice Chairman for two years
or
He has held the post of secretary to the Government
of India or
He has held any other post carrying the scale pay of
secretary.
Vice-Chairman: A person is qualified for the post of
Vice-Chairman if he-
Is or has been a judge of the High Court or
Has for 2 years held the post of Secretary to the
Government or holding any other post carrying the same
pay scale under the Central or State Governments or
Has held for 5 years the post of an Additional Secretary to
the Government of India or any other post carrying the
scales of pay of Additional Secretary.
Judicial Member: A person to be appointed as a judicial
member must-
Be or have been a judge of the High Court or
Have been a member of Indian Legal Service and has held
a post in Grade I of the service for at least 3 years.
 Administrative Member: A person to be appointed as an
Administrative member must-
 Have held the post of an Additional Secretary to the
Government of India or another equivalent post for at least 2
years, or
 Have held the post of a Joint Secretary to the Government of
India or other equivalent post, or
 Have adequate administrative experience.
 The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other members shall be
appointed by the President. The Judicial Members shall be
appointed by the President with the consultation of the Chief
Justice of India. The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other
members of the State Tribunal shall be appointed by the
President after consultation with the Governor of the concerned
state.
 TERM OF OFFICE
According to Section 8 of the Act, the Chairman,
Vice-Chairman and other members of the tribunal
shall hold the office for a term of 5 years or until he
attains-
Age of 65 years, in the case of the Chairman or Vice-
Chairman
Age of 62 years in the case of other members
 JURISDICTION OF CENTRAL TRIBUNAL
 Section 14 states that the Central Tribunal from the day of the
appointment shall exercise all the jurisdiction, powers and authority
in relation to the following matters which were within the
jurisdiction of other courts before the enactment of this Act:

1. Recruitment of any civil service of Union or All India service or

civil post under the Union or civilian employees of defence
services;
2. All service matters of the above-mentioned employees, and also
of employees of any local or other authority within the territory of
India or under the control of the Government of India or any
corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government;
3. All service matters of such persons whose services have been
placed by the State Government or any local or other authority or
any corporation at the disposal of the Central Government.
 PROCEDURE AND POWERS OF TRIBUNALS
 Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 lays down the
powers and procedure of tribunals discussed below-
 A tribunal is not bound to follow the procedure laid down by
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It has the power to regulate its
own procedure but must abide by the principle of natural justice.
 A tribunal shall decide the applications and cases made to it as
rapidly as possible and every application shall be decided after
scrutinizing the documents and written submissions and perceiving
the oral arguments.
 Tribunals have the same powers as vested by the civil courts under
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit, with regard
to the following subject-matter-
 Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and
examining him on oath;
 Production of documents;
Receiving evidence on affidavits;
Ask for any public record or document from any
office under Section 123 and 124 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872;
Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses
and documents;
Reviewing its decisions;
Deciding the case ex-parte;
Setting aside any order passed by it ex-parte;
Any other matter prescribed by the Central
Government.
 S.P. SAMPATH KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA[1987]
 Facts: The constitutional validity of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985, was predominantly challenged on the ground that this
Act excludes the jurisdiction of High Courts under Articles 226
and 227 with regard to service matters and hence, destroyed the
concept of judicial review which was an essential feature of the
Indian Constitution.
 Judgment: A five-Judge Bench of the Court upheld the validity
of the Act except Section 6(1)(c). The court held that although
this Act has excluded the jurisdiction of judicial review exercised
by the High Courts in the service matters it has not entirely
excluded the concept of judicial review. The jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under Article 32 and 136 has not been excluded
by this Act and kept unscathed.
 Thus, there still exists an authority where matters of injustice can
be entertained by judicial review.
However, Section 6 (1)(c) of the Act was held to be

unconstitutional as it gave unrestricted power to the

Government to appoint the Chairman, Vice-Chairman
and other members of the tribunals. These
appointments must be made by the Government in a
meaningful and effective manner only after consulting
the Chief Justice of India.
 CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that in the present scenario, the

administration has become an important part of the

government as well as the citizen’s life. Due to this
increasing role, it is important to establish a competent
authority for the redressal of people’s grievances and
adjudication of the disputes. Therefore, the concept of
administrative tribunals was emerged and is dynamically
flourishing in India holding certain flaws and strengths.