Introduction

Administrative law determines the power which the government can exercise. These are rules
which are given in a statue or implied. A tribunal is a body formed by the government to deal
with various sets of matters. According to the Supreme Court, tribunal refers to an
adjudicating body that decides controversies between parties, exercises judicial powers
distinguished purely from judicial functions and possesses trapping of a court. The
administrative tribunal is a body which is a mixture of both executive and the judiciary deals
with the matters of public administration and pronounces decisions by applying suitable laws.
It is a body that works in a tangle with the court to deal with issues on various matters to
dispose of them expeditiously and fairly.
In Administrative law, the term ‘tribunal’ is used in a significant sense and refers to only the
adjudicatory bodies which lie outside the sphere of the ordinary judicial system. Technically
in India, the judicial powers are vested in the Courts which aims to safeguard the rights of the
individuals and promotes 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.
Tests laid down to determine whether a body is an administrative tribunal or not
These tests were laid down in Sagar mills vs Lakshmi Chand (1962) these tests are as
follows:
 The body should have the power of adjudication from the statue.
 The body should be administrative interferences.
 The procedure followed by the body should be lenient as compared to the court.
 The body should have the power to summon, compel the production of documents,
and administrative oath.
If a body performs the following function to resolve disputes then it can be called an
administrative tribunal.

Need for setting up an administrative tribunal

The concept of tribunalisation came into existence in India with the establishment of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal before the independence of the country. After independence, a
need was being felt for resolving administrative disputes with flexibility and speed. The core
objective of tribunalisation was to provide specialised and speedy justice to the people.
After the drafting of the Indian Constitution, several rights for the welfare of the individuals
were guaranteed by the Constitution. People have the right to speedy trials and of specialised
quality which cannot be delivered by the prevailing judicial system due to the overburden of
cases and appeals, technicalities in procedure etc.
  There was a pile-up of cases in the court, the cases to judges ratio were significant,
there was a lacuna from filing a case to delivering a judgment.
 Formal Courts took years and years to deliver a single judgment therefore there was a
need to establish an alternate tool that will dispose of cases expeditiously and
effectively in a cost-effective way.
 Generally, judges don’t have technical knowledge on administrative matters therefore
experts are required.
 Set up a separate forum for disputes between government agencies and the citizens.
Establishment of the arbitral tribunal
After independence, administrative adjudications gained more importance and were
considered as an effective tool to resolve issues. The Court should not be the only way to get
justice. The concept of the administrative tribunal was the concept first introduced in the Law
Commission XIV report in the year 1958 which suggested the formation of an administrative
tribunal and it should operate within a legal and procedural framework and should abide by
the principles of natural justice.
The Administrative Reform Commission was set up to ascertain facts, examine problems, and
suggest solutions. They advised in setting up administrative tribunals in a few areas. In
report 1 those areas include civil service, central excise, sales, and income tax. The report II
was submitted in the next year which further suggested setting up administrative tribunals in
various areas like land acquisition, insurance motor vehicle accidents.
In 1970 Wanchoo Committee was set up which suggested an income tax commission which
is an alternate method to resolve income tax-related issues. It also recommended a direct tax
settlement tribunal. In 1972, a High Court Arrears Committee report was set up by the
government to set up an alternate tribunal to deal with the matter of the government
employees. Law Commission in its 58th report mentioned that there should be an
establishment of tribunals and commission litigation should be the last resort to reduce the
arrears of the court. The Swaran Singh committee set up in 1976 suggested setting an
administrative tribunal. It also suggested that the judgment of the tribunal should be subject
to review by the Supreme Court and the High Court. In 1976, a 42nd amendment which
included article 323A, and 323B in the constitution relating to setting up of tribunals on
various issues. Further, parliament implemented the administrative tribunal act, 1985 which
gave power to both the central and the state government to establish a tribunal.
The 42nd Amendment to the Constitution introduced Part XIV-A which included Article
323A and 323B providing for constitution of tribunals dealing with administrative matters
and other issues. According to these provisions of the Constitution, tribunals are to be
organized and established in such a manner that they do not violate the integrity of the
judicial system given in the Constitution which forms the basic structure of the Constitution.
The introduction of Article 323A and 323B was done with the primary objective of excluding
the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227, except the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under Article 136 and for originating an efficacious alternative institutional
mechanism or authority for specific judicial cases.
The purpose of establishing tribunals to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Courts
was done to reduce the pendency and lower the burden of cases. Therefore, tribunals are
organised as a part of civil and criminal court system under the supremacy of the Supreme
Court of India.
From a functional point of view, an administrative tribunal is neither an exclusively judicial
body nor an absolute administrative body but is somewhere between the two. That is why an
administrative tribunal is also called ‘quasi-judicial’ body.
Characteristics of Administrative Tribunals
The following are the few attributes of the administrative tribunals which make them quite
disparate from the ordinary courts:
1. Administrative tribunals must have statutory origin i.e. they must be created by any
statute.
2. They must have some features of the ordinary courts but not all.
3. An administrative tribunal performs the quasi-judicial and judicial functions and is
bound to act judicially in every circumstance.
4. They are not adhered by strict rules of evidence and procedure.
5. Administrative tribunals are independent and not subject to any administrative
interference in the discharge of judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
6. In the procedural matters, an administrative tribunal possesses the powers of a court to
summon witnesses, to administer oaths and to compel the production of documents,
etc.
7. These tribunals are bound to abide by the principle of natural justice.
8. A fair, open and impartial act is the indispensable requisite of the administrative
tribunals.
9. The prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition are available against the decisions
of administrative tribunals

Types of administrative tribunal

There are various types of an arbitration tribunal which are governed by either central or the
state government:
 Central Administrative tribunal: Article 323A gives the power to the central
government to set up an arbitral tribunal. The main objective of setting up this
tribunal is speedy disposal of matters; it consists of both administrative members as
well as judicial members. Retired judges of the high court head the central
administrative tribunal. To appeal against the decision of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, a writ petition needs to be filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution.
In the arbitral tribunal, judgments are passed on the principle of natural justice.
  Custom and Excise Revenue Appellate Tribunal: As the name suggests the tribunal is
involved in matters regarding customs and excise revenue. The tribunal can also hear
matters regarding the appeal made against the order designated authority in anti-
dumping under Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Parliament passed an Act on CERAT. The
decision passed by CERAT can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
 Election Commission: It deals with various issues relating to an election like non-
disclosure of the financial status of the person, multiple votings bribing the voters, etc.
The main aim of the election commission is to define and control every election
happening across the country. The political parties need to show their financial status
to the election commission. The decision of the election commission can be appealed
to the Supreme Court.
 Appellate tribunal of FERA: This is a body that is established by the central
government under Section 50(1). If the person is not satisfied with the order of
adjudication then it can be appealed in this tribunal. The decision can be appealed to
the high court from the appellate board only based on the question of law.
 Income tax tribunal: It is a body that is established under the Income-tax Act of 1961.
The aggrieved can make an appeal against the order of commissioner income in the
income tax tribunal. It deals with issues like search and seizure, disallowance and
additions, interests, etc. The decision of this tribunal can be appealed to the High
Court. Railway rates tribunal: It is a tribunal body dealing with railway issues like
unfair charges on the ticket, preferential treatment to a particular customer. This body
came into existence after the passage of the Indian Railway Act, 1989. The decision of
the court can be appalled in the Supreme Court.
 Industrial Tribunal: It came into existence after the passage of the Industrial disputes
act, 1947. It deals with various issues like non-payment of workers, violation of labor
laws, etc. The decision of this court can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
 Armed Force Tribunal: This body was established after the armed force tribunal
Act, 2007. The tribunal body has its principal body in Delhi Retired High Court
Judges. Members of the Armed forces who have held the rank of major for not less
than three years, a person who has been a judge advocate general for not less that one
year is eligible for the post of the administrative member. The decision can be
appealed to the Supreme Court.
 National Green Tribunal: National Green Tribunal Act, (1995) and National
Environment Appellate, Act of 1997. These bodies were set up to dispose of
increasing environmental cases. National green tribunal Act, 2010 led to the
establishment of the tribunal body with it was set up with an aim for the conservation
of the environment and natural resources. The cases were supposed to be disposed of
within the stipulated time of 6 months.
Difference between a Tribunal and a Court

Tribunal Court

Tribunal is a body that came into existence after the A court is a traditional judicial system where
 passing of the statue and possesses judicial power. the power is derived from the state.

The tribunal doesn’t have a separate existence; it is

The court has an independent existence.
controlled by the government.

Judgment given by the court is in the form of

Judgment given by the tribunal is in the form of an award
decree, conviction, or acquittal.

The Administrative member of the tribunal would be The Judge of the Court must only be trained
trained in law as well as administrative matters. in matters related to law.

There is no procedural code to be followed in Strict procedural code should be followed while
the tribunal. dealing with cases.

Members of the tribunal can be a part of a

Judges cannot decide their cases in a court of law.
dispute.

The court deals with both civil as well as criminal

Tribunal deals with special cases.
cases.

Constitutional Provisions related to an administrative tribunal

After the 42 amendment Act of the Indian Constitution in 1976, there were insertions of two
articles in the constitution; those articles are as follows:
 Article 323A of the Indian Constitution:: The article gives the power to the central
government to establish a tribunal for matters related to recruitment, conditions of
service in connection with central or any state authority, or owned and controlled by
the Government.
The other Courts except the Supreme Court lose its jurisdiction in the matters prescribed
under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. The provision also mentioned the rules,
limitations that are supposed to be followed in the tribunal.
 Article 323B of the Indian Constitution: It gives power to both central as well as the
State Government to set up a tribunal for the following offences:
1. Levy, collection, assessment, and enforcement of taxes.
2. Export and Foreign exchange issues.
3. Industrial and Labour disputes.
4. Land Reforms.
5. Ceiling and Urban Property.
6. Production, procurement distribution of various essential goods.
7. Rent, it’s regulation control and tenancy issues.
 8. Election disputes.
Article 323B is wide as compared to article 323 A and also includes dealing with criminal
cases.
 Article 136 of the Indian Constitution: It gives the power to the Supreme Court deal
with cases on the matters mentioned under Article 323 A and 323B and doesn’t
provide a jurisdiction to the other Courts to try cases on such matters other than the
Supreme Court.
The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
After almost a decade after making the constitutional amendment in 1976 the Administrative
Tribunal Act was passed in 1985. This act mentions that there must be a Central
Administrative Tribunal and State Administrative Tribunal in every state or two or more
states:
 Section 2 Applicability of the Act: This act would apply to every governmental
employee
1. Any member of armed, naval, or the air force of the Union.
2. An officer or the servant of the High Court.
3. Any member appointed to a secretariat staff appointed by the house of parliament,
State Legislature, or by a union territory having a legislature.
 Section 4 Establishment of administrative Tribunals: The central government may
establish a tribunal by giving a notification. The State Government can also form their
administrative tribunal after taking approval from the central government. Two or
more states can enter an agreement into a joint administrative tribunal after taking the
approval of the government.
 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.
 S.5 Composition of the tribunal: Every bench shall consist of judicial or
administrative members, and a chairman. It has its principal bench in New Delhi.
 S.6 Qualifications for chairman, Vice Chairman, and other members:
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.
 Section 8 Term of office: The chairman and the members can hold the office for not
more than 5 years or 65 years whichever comes earlier.
 Section 9 Resignation and Removal of office; The chairman of the member cannot be
removed from the office unless and until the order is made by the president on the
ground of misbehavior or incapacity the person shall be given the reasonable
opportunity to defend himself and to be informed about the charges on him.
 Section 14 Jurisdiction of Central Administrative tribunal: Matter relating to
recruiting for all-India service and civil post or in the post of defence service. It is
necessary that the authority should be within the territory of India should be
controlled by the government or by society or corporation or owned and controlled by
the government.
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.
 Section 15 Jurisdiction of State Administrative Tribunal: Matters relating to recruiting
for all-India service and civil post or in the post of defence service. The authority
must be within the state. The authority can be corporations or society, controlled by
the state government or owned or controlled by t6he state government.
 Section 21 Limitations: The limitations of the administrative tribunal are as follows:
The application should be made within one year if that period expires the tribunal will still
accept it if the person mentions sufficient reason for not filing the case within three years.
 Section 22 Procedures and Powers:
1. The administrative tribunal not bound by civil procedural Code.
2. The tribunal shall decide their procedures for expeditiously disposing of the cases.
3. The tribunal has various powers like:
 Summoning a person.
 Receiving the production of the document.
 Asking for public records.
 Reviewing the decisions.
 Setting aside the ex-parte order.
 Any other matter prescribed by the central government.
 Receiving evidence on affidavits;
 Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents;
 Deciding the case ex-parte;
Relevant Judgements
S.P. Sampath Kumar vs Union of India(1986)
Facts: In this case, the constitutional Validity of the Administrative tribunal act was
challenged in the Supreme Court vas because it violates the concept of Judicial review.
Judgment: The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the act is valid except the S.
6(1) which provided unrestricted power to the government to elect vice chairman, chairman,
and other members of the tribunal the five years was not held valid by the court. This section
of the Act was held unconstitutional. (short version)
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. The judicial review which is the part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution
can be taken away from a particular area only if an alternative effectual institutional
mechanism or authority is provided.
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.
The court recommended that the term of 5 years prescribed under the Act for Chairman, Vice-
Chairman and other members of the tribunal is not rational because it would act as dissuasion
for the good and generous people to accept the job in the tribunal and should, therefore, be
reasonably extended.
The directions given by the Supreme Court came into effect through the Administrative
Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1987. (long version)

Union of India vs R Gandhi (2010)

Facts: In this case, constitutionality of NCLT and NCLAT was challenged in the Supreme
Court on various grounds like:
 Transfer of jurisdiction from the High Court to the tribunal is violative of rule of law
principle.
 Provision of 1B and 1C is unconstitutional to the constitutional provision, separation
of power.
Judgment: The Court held that Parliament has the power to make tribunals and tribunals don’t
violate the principle of rule of law, separation of power. It instead reduces the burden from
the courts. It held that NCLT and NCLAT tribunals are valid by law. (short version)
Facts: The constitutionality of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and National
Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on the following grounds-
1. Parliament does not have authority to vest the judicial functions in any tribunal that
have been traditionally performed by the High Courts since so long.
2. Transferring the entire company jurisdiction of the High Court to the tribunal are
violative of the doctrine of Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and Independence of
the Judiciary.
 3. The various provisions of Part 1B and 1C of the Companies Act are defective and
unconstitutional, being in breach of constitutional principles of Rule of Law,
Separation of Powers and Independence of the Judiciary.
Judgment: the court upheld the constitutionality of NCLT and NCLAT in exercising the
powers and jurisdiction of the High Court subject to necessary changes to be made in
the Companies Act, 1956 as amended in 2002, through suitable amendments
The court acknowledged and upheld the constitutional power of the Parliament to constitute
tribunals for adjudication of disputes. The legislative competence of Parliament to provide for
the creation of courts and tribunals can be traced to Article 245, 246 and 247 of the
Constitution read with various entries in the Union List and the Concurrent List which is in
no way affected or controlled by Article 323A or 323B of the Constitution.
The court further added that it cannot be assumed that constitution of tribunals and
transferring judicial powers per se infringe the rule of law, separation of powers and
independence of the judiciary because the Constitution enables both courts and tribunals to
exercise judicial powers.
What matters the most is whether the constituted tribunals respect and maintain the principles
of separation of powers, rule of law and independence of the judiciary. The constitution of
NCLT and NCLAT must be subject to judicial review so that the court in the exercise of
judicial review look into the matter to check if these principles are compromised by such
tribunalisation and may interfere in between to preserve the same (long version)

Sambamurthy vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Facts: In this case, the constitutionality of Article 371D was challenged in the court the claim
was that the article is unconstitutional on the ground that it gave the power to the state
government to modify the order of the administrative tribunal.
Judgment: The Court considering the Administrative Tribunal as a substitute of the High
Court held the law unconstitutional and was thus struck down.
L Chandra Shekhar vs Union of India (1997)
Facts: In this case, the Supreme Court in this case dealt with various issues like whether
Article 323A and 323 B gives the power to the Union or state to exclude all the courts other
than the Supreme Court, Whether the tribunal is acting as an effective substitute of the High
court.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the power of Judicial review is available to the
higher Judiciary. The lower judiciary cannot serve as an effective substitute for the effective
substitutes of the higher judiciary. It can act as a supplement to the higher judiciary.
Appeals can be made to the Supreme Court
The decision of the Administrative Tribunal can be appealed to the Supreme Court on the
following grounds:
 The error of law.
  Order by the tribunal is mala fide or arbitrary.
 The order of the tribunal would lead to injustice.
 The Tribunal was perverse.
 The tribunal pronounced the order out of the scope of jurisdiction.
Advantages of Administrative Tribunal
There are various advantages of administrative tribunals as compared to the formal court
system.
 Flexible: The tribunal doesn’t follow rigid procedures to pronounce the judgment. It is
based on pronouncing decisions on the principles of natural justice which makes it
easy for the parties to facilitate justice.
 Adequate approach: In the tribunal, some members have specialized knowledge on a
variety of matters like taxes, employment rules, etc. There can be instances in the
courts where the judge doesn’t know various matters which he deals with.
 Speedy and effective remedy: There are nearly about 25 million block cases. It will
take about 20 years to dispose of all the cases therefore, to deal with the
administrative matters various tribunals were established. It is not necessary to go to
the formal courts in matters which are administrative. It not only saves time but also
deals with the cases effectively.
 Economical Solution: It is cheaper and an effective way to get justice where a person
doesn’t have to pay huge litigation costs. There are certain issues dealt with by the
administrative tribunal where people don’t even have to pay the stamp charges.
 Relief to Courts: When there is an effective way to resolve disputes swiftly and
efficiently therefore, it encourages people to resolve disputes through the tribunal
system and thus reducing the burden from the courts.
Disadvantages of administrative tribunal
Though administrative tribunals play a critical role in quickly and effectively disposing of the
numerous there exist various problems some of them are as follows
 Negates rule of law: The rule of law includes rule of law, equality before the law, the
supremacy of the existing law, and the procedure of law. In Administrative tribunals,
there are separate laws made which are against the rule of law.
 Violation of natural justice: As because there are no rigid and strict procedures that
increase the probability that there would be a violation of the principle of natural
justice.
 No Uniform code: Administrative tribunal doesn’t have a particular uniform code that
it follows like courts do while dealing with civil or criminal cases.
 Difficult to predict future decisions: Due to lack of precedent in administrative cases
because most of the cases are resolved through the way of summary trial which makes
it difficult to predict future judgments.
Difference between Judicial and Quasi-judicial Bodies
 Judicial decisions are bound by precedent in common law, whereas quasi-judicial
decisions are generally not.
 Judicial decisions may create new laws, but quasi-judicial decisions are based on
existing law.
 Quasi-judicial needn’t adhere to strict judicial rules (of procedure and evidence).
 Quasi-judicial bodies can hold formal hearings only if they are mandated to do so as
per their governing laws.
Difference Between Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies:

Basis Judicial Body Quasi-Judicial Body

It is a court of law that has

It is an agency
the authority
or tribunal that acts like a court,
Authority to interpret and apply the
deciding disputes and enforcing
law, hear and decide cases,
decisions.
and enforce judgments.

It is independent of the It is not a full court and has less

executive and legislative independence. The executive
Independence branches of government and and legislative branches of
is responsible for upholding government have more control
the rule of law. over it.

Thay have the authority to They have limited jurisdiction

hear a wide range of cases, and can only hear cases that are
Jurisdiction
including civil and criminal within their specific area of
cases. expertise or subject matter.

Thay have the power to

Premise of Their decisions are limited to
establish new legal
Decision applying existing laws to the
precedents that can be used
Making specific case at hand.
in future cases.

It consists of judges or It may consist of a combination

Judicial of judges and experts appointed
Judges
magistrates appointed by by the government or by
the government. a specialized agency.
 They are usually more It is comparatively less formal,
Rigidity formal and follow strict but they still follow set
rules of procedure. procedures and rules of evidence.