Administrative Tribunals | Constitutional Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

• Administrative tribunals were created to quickly and cheaply resolve disputes from welfare laws and new socio-economic legislation.
• The term 'tribunal' comes from the Latin word 'tribunes,' referring to a platform for a judge elected to protect people's interests.
• According to the Oxford Companion of Law, a tribunal is any person or group judging claims or disputes. Professors Balram Gupta and M.P. Jain emphasize that a tribunal must be state-constituted and have some judicial powers.
• Basu notes that tribunals, unlike courts, are quasi-judicial and focused on administrative decisions. However, many tribunal decisions are more judicial, applying rules impartially.
• The Indian Constitution does not explicitly define administrative tribunals, but Articles 227 and 136 mention 'tribunal.'
• The Supreme Court has clarified that a tribunal, as per Article 136, includes all state-constituted adjudicating bodies with judicial functions.
• In cases like  Durga Shankar Mehtha v/s Raghuraj Singh  and  Bharat Bank Ltd. v/s Employees  , the Supreme Court distinguished between tribunals and courts, highlighting their quasi-judicial nature.
• S.N. Jain defines a tribunal as a quasi-judicial body required to follow natural justice principles. Tribunals are judicial bodies, not ordinary courts, functioning under constitutional or statutory authority.

 Definition of Administrative Tribunal

• An administrative tribunal is a multi-member body that hears cases brought by staff members alleging violations of their terms of service or related issues, and makes decisions on those cases.

 Need for Administrative Tribunals

• India has a large number of government employees, making it difficult to manage personnel effectively. Many employees are well-educated and assertive about their rights, leading to potential disputes between the government (as employer) and its employees.
• When conflicts arise between government employees and the government regarding service matters, employees have the right to seek legal redress. However, the traditional judicial system is already burdened with a high volume of cases, and the court procedures can be lengthy, costly, and cumbersome.
• Given the sheer number of employees and the complexities involved, relying solely on the judiciary for dispute resolution is impractical. This highlighted the need for an alternative forum, such as administrative tribunals, to address these disputes more efficiently.
• The primary goal of administrative tribunals is to relieve certain disputes between citizens and government agencies from the jurisdiction of regular courts, making the dispute resolution process faster and less expensive.
• The Administrative Reforms Commission, during its tenure from 1966 to 1970, recommended the establishment of 'Civil Service Tribunals' to serve as final appellate authorities for severe disciplinary actions like dismissal, removal from service, and reduction in rank.
• Simultaneously, the J.C. Shah Committee also advocated for the creation of an administrative tribunal to handle service-related matters.
• The Supreme Court of India, in one of its rulings, suggested that civil servants should not spend time engaging in legal battles in regular courts and recommended the establishment of such tribunals.

 Characteristics of Administrative Tribunals

• Administrative tribunals are established by statute and have a court-like structure, performing quasi-judicial functions.
• They operate with some court-like features but are not bound by strict court procedures.
• These tribunals are independent entities within the framework of the Act, exercising judicial powers of the State while being free from administrative interference.
• Administrative tribunals are self-regulating, not bound by strict court rules, and have the power to summon witnesses and compel document production.
•  Despite having discretion,  they must make decisions objectively and judicially, often resolving disputes where the government is a party.
• They also handle cases between private parties, such as election tribunals or rent control boards.
• Tribunals have the power to issue prerogative writs like certiorari and prohibition, ensuring they do not act as final arbitrators.
• They must act impartially, and once a matter is settled by the High Court, it cannot be reopened by the tribunal.
• Tribunals are perpetual entities, designed to address specific types of cases or closely related matters, and their decisions are subject to review under principles of natural justice.
• They enjoy independent status, free from administrative interference, and their decisions can be challenged through certiorari and prohibition writs.

 Importance of Administrative Tribunals

• Administrative tribunals are preferred for adjudication over ordinary courts due to their greater suitability or because ordinary courts are inadequate for specific tasks.
• The growth of administrative decision-making aims to establish new public law standards based on moral and social principles, moving away from the individualistic norms developed by courts.
• Administrative tribunals emerged as a response to the need for informal, inexpensive, and rapid adjudication, as litigation in courts is time-consuming and costly.
• Ordinary courts are often overloaded with cases, their procedures can be technical, and costs can be prohibitive. Questions arising from social or industrial legislation are better decided by individuals with specialized knowledge of the relevant Act.
• Governments undertaking ambitious public health, education, planning, social security, transport, agriculture, industrialization, and national assistance programs require a decision-making system that can handle the legal questions involved, which courts cannot due to their individualistic approach.
• Administrative decision-making through tribunals is essential for effective governance, allowing for the resolution of complex legal issues arising from various welfare schemes.
• Administrative tribunals are empowered to address a range of matters, including tax issues, foreign exchange, import and export regulations, industrial and labor disputes, land reforms, elections, and the production and distribution of essential goods.

 Objectives of Administrative Tribunals

• Administrative tribunals are established with specific objectives, including providing a dedicated forum for addressing service matters, reducing the caseload of High Courts.
• They aim to offer inexpensive and prompt relief to government servants in service-related issues.
• Tribunals are granted special powers to establish their own procedures, not bound by the Civil Procedure Code or Law of Evidence but adhering to the principles of natural justice.
• The Constitution does not explicitly mention the creation of tribunals, but Articles 262(2) and 263(1) are relevant in this context.
• Article 262(2) allows for the establishment of tribunals to resolve disputes related to interstate river waters. Article 263(1) enables the creation of councils for investigating disputes between states.
• The concept of tribunals is implied in Articles 136, 226, and 227 of the Constitution.
• The Forty-Second Constitutional Amendment enabled the creation of tribunals, with Article 323A empowering Parliament to establish service tribunals for adjudicating service matters.
• Article 323B allows legislatures to provide laws for adjudication or trial by tribunals in various matters, including some criminal offenses.
• In 1985, Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act under Article 323A, and laws under Article 323B have been passed to create tribunals.
• The complexity of tribunal tasks necessitates qualified and experienced members for adjudication. Hence, chairpersons often come from the judiciary with adjudicative experience.

 Tribunal is not a substitute for High Court: 

• Tribunals have the authority to resolve disputes and handle complaints related to service matters, with all other courts except the Supreme Court barred from entertaining these cases.
• This gives tribunals a status comparable to that of the High Court. However, tribunals lack the power to issue writs, a power not conferred upon them.
• The Supreme Court, in the case of  S.P. Sampath Kumar,  ruled that tribunals are substitutes for the High Court and have the authority to exercise its powers.
• Tribunals and the High Court are not competing institutions; rather, they operate within the same jurisdiction concerning service matters.
• Appeals cannot be made to the High Court as a matter of right, but can be made to the Supreme Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction as per Article 136.
• To prevent appealing decisions to the Supreme Court due to high litigation costs, appeals can be made within the tribunal itself to a larger bench.
• In the case of  Chandrakumar v/s Union of India,  the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision and stated that the powers of the judiciary vested in the Supreme Court and High Courts are part of the Constitution's basic structure and cannot be removed.
• Now, tribunals function as courts of first instance, subject to the jurisdiction of the High Courts. This change reduced the tribunals' role from a significant one to a supportive one.
• To invoke a tribunal, a civil servant must have recourse under the service rules and have locus standi in the subject matter.
• The Government of India has established rules for filing applications before Administrative Tribunals, requiring applications to be presented in Form 1 by the applicant in person, through an agent, or by an authorized advocate to the Registrar or an authorized officer, or sent by registered post to the Registrar.
• Once filed, the Registrar or authorized officer endorses the presentation date, and any irregularities can be corrected in the presence of parties.
• Applications may be refused registration with recorded reasons, and appeals against such orders must be filed within fifteen days.
• Tribunals regulate their own procedures, including inquiry locations and times, and decide whether to sit in public or private.
• They can admit evidence, replacing original documents with attested copies, and avoid oral evidence and affidavits. Evidence cannot be taken in the absence of both parties, and hearings commence when both parties are present.
• Agrieved individuals can approach the tribunal within one year of penalization, and representations must be resolved within six months, though delays can be condoned for sufficient cause.
• Tribunals adhere to natural justice principles, can review their decisions, and may reject review applications if grounds are insufficient.
• Rejected review applications are not appealable.
• Tribunals exclude the jurisdiction of other courts, subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 226.
• Grounds for Supreme Court interference include tribunal excess or failure to exercise jurisdiction, illegal actions, errors of law, unjust orders, or violations of natural justice principles.
• Civil servants cannot be dismissed or removed without a departmental inquiry, and tribunals can review the validity of such proceedings, although they cannot alter decisions.
• The Supreme Court under Article 136 can change disciplinary decisions or opinions, and tribunals are essential for implementing welfare schemes.
• Tribunal systems align with the rule of law and ensure its enforcement. Direct access to the judiciary is limited under Articles 226 and 227, with Article 136 providing special leave in exceptional cases.
• The Administrative Tribunal system is effective and useful, but not a replacement for administrative reform, which remains a pressing need in India.
• Administrative Tribunals do not intend to replace or interfere with the regular governmental system. They activate only upon receiving complaints.
• Urgent reforms in tribunal law are needed, including listing working tribunals, establishing uniform procedures, and creating an independent watchdog committee to oversee administrative tribunals.
• Such committees should consist of individuals of high integrity, legal expertise, and administrative knowledge, ensuring that retired officials perform their duties with the same zeal and dedication as direct recruits.

 Case Laws: 

•  In Durga Shankar Mehtha v/s Raghuraj Singh  , the Supreme Court expressed that 'Tribunal' as used in Article 136 does not mean the same thing as 'court' but includes within its ambit, all adjudicating bodies provided they are constituted by the state and invested with judicial as distinguished from administrative or executive functions.
•  In Bharat Bank Ltd. v/s Employees  , the Supreme Court observed that though tribunals are clad in many of the trappings of court and though they exercise quasi-judicial functions, they are not full-fledged court.
•  In Associated cement companies Ltd. v/s P.N. Sharma  , the Supreme concluded about the tribunal as that it is an adjudicating body which decides controversies between the parties and exercises judicial powers as distinguished from purely administrative functions and the possesses some of the trappings of a court, but not all.
• However, there is basis test within Article 136 or 226 for tribunals that: Tribunal is an adjudicating authority other than the court.
• The power of adjudicating must be derived from a statute or a statutory rule.
• The power of adjudicating must not be derived from an agreement between the parties.
•  S.N. Jain defines the tribunal, as  "the work is a name given to various types of administrative bodies. The only common element running through these bodies is that they are quasi-judicial and are required to observe principles of natural justice or fair hearing while determining issues". So, it can finally be defined as a judicial body not being an ordinary court that functions on constitutional mandate or under statutory empowerment performing judicially quasi judicially as the arm of judicial system with a repository or expertise a unique to its nature.