Test: The Union and State Judiciary - 2 - CLAT PG MCQ

Articles 323A and 323B of the Indian Constitution empower Parliament and state legislatures to create administrative tribunals for adjudicating service matters and other specified issues. This framework allows for a specialized approach to handling disputes, which is crucial given the complexities of administrative law in India.

"Opinion binding" means that the opinions provided by the High Court are mandatory for subordinate courts. This ensures consistency in legal interpretations and rulings across different levels of the judiciary, promoting uniformity in the application of law.

The framework for subordinate courts in India is outlined in Articles 233 to 237 of the Indian Constitution. These articles specifically detail the organization, jurisdiction, and functioning of subordinate courts, ensuring a structured judicial system at the state level.

Administrative tribunals are designed to quickly and cost-effectively resolve disputes that arise between government employees and the government regarding service matters. This system alleviates the burden on traditional courts, allowing them to focus on other types of cases. Interestingly, the establishment of these tribunals was influenced by the high volume of legal disputes arising from government employment.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is intended to address issues that impact the general public, focusing on the enforcement of rights or public duties. This legal mechanism allows individuals or groups to seek judicial intervention when public interests are at stake, even if they are not directly affected by the issue.

The process for appealing decisions made by administrative tribunals often requires that appeals be filed within the tribunal system first, typically to a larger bench. This internal review mechanism is designed to resolve disputes efficiently before escalating to the Supreme Court, thereby reducing the burden on higher courts.

Administrative tribunals do not have the authority to conduct criminal trials as their jurisdiction is limited to administrative matters, particularly those involving service disputes. They can issue prerogative writs and summon witnesses, focusing on ensuring fair and efficient resolution of specific types of cases.

The Chief Justice of the High Court or a judge designated by the Chief Justice is responsible for appointing officers and employees of subordinate courts. This ensures that appointments are made by individuals who are knowledgeable about the judicial system and its needs.

In the case of Durga Shankar Mehtha v/s Raghuraj Singh, the Supreme Court emphasized that while tribunals may share some characteristics with courts, they are distinct entities with specific functions and limitations. This ruling helped clarify the role of tribunals within the judicial system and their quasi-judicial nature.

The High Court holds both collective and individual responsibility for controlling subordinate courts, particularly in administrative matters. This role is essential for maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the judicial system at the district level.

Administrative tribunals are characterized as quasi-judicial bodies, which means they have the authority to make decisions similar to a court but are not bound by all formal court procedures. This allows them to operate more flexibly while still adhering to the principles of natural justice, ensuring fair treatment for all parties involved.

District Courts in India primarily function to administer justice at the district level. They handle a variety of cases, including civil and criminal matters, ensuring that justice is accessible to individuals within their districts. Their decisions can be appealed to the High Courts, which maintain oversight over these courts.

The Administrative Reforms Commission recognized the need for a dedicated forum that could handle service-related disputes more efficiently, thereby relieving the burden on traditional courts. This recommendation was made in response to the increasing number of disputes arising from the complex nature of government employment and service laws.

Fairness and competence are essential qualities emphasized for judges in subordinate courts. The effectiveness of the judicial process heavily relies on judges being impartial and skilled in their roles, which ultimately enhances the quality of justice delivered to the public. Judges who are fair and competent help build trust in the judicial system.

Lok Adalats play a crucial role in the Indian judicial system by providing a quick and cost-effective means of settling disputes. They operate as voluntary agencies and are designed to relieve the burden on regular courts, facilitating faster resolutions for civil issues, thereby enhancing access to justice.

One suggested reform for the hierarchy of subordinate courts is to simplify it to a two-tier system under the High Court. This proposal aims to streamline the judicial process, making it more efficient and reducing the complexities associated with multiple levels of courts.

The Administrative Tribunal system is significant because it offers a specialized, efficient forum for resolving disputes related to administrative issues, particularly those involving government employees. It alleviates the burden on traditional courts, which can be overwhelmed by cases, and ensures that disputes are handled by bodies with the necessary expertise in administrative law.

Administrative tribunals are unique in that they are established by the state and possess judicial functions, yet they do not have the same standing as traditional courts. They focus on specific administrative matters and are designed to be more accessible and efficient in resolving disputes related to government services.

Administrative tribunals have the flexibility to develop their own procedures, which allows them to operate more efficiently than traditional courts. They adhere to the principles of natural justice rather than being strictly bound by the Civil Procedure Code or the Law of Evidence, which facilitates a more accessible dispute resolution process.

The High Court has the authority to withdraw cases from subordinate courts if they involve significant legal questions. This allows the High Court either to resolve the issue directly or to send the case back after clarifying the legal question, ensuring that important legal principles are uniformly applied.